Sorry yes you're quite right, I hadn't noticed the ambiguity of 'account for': 'take into account' would have been better.
-- Ian On 6 August 2012 14:39, Edward A. Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh - you meant how one could take nonrandom distrubution > into account in the analysis- > funny how I always understand what someone meant after > i push send on an inappropriate reply > > > Edward A. Berry wrote: >> >> Ian Tickle wrote: >> >>> below the noise threshold. This does make the tacit assumption that >>> the unmeasured reflections are distributed randomly in reciprocal >>> space, which is clearly not entirely true, but it's hard to see how >>> one could account for the non-random distribution. Again, in any case >>> >> What about collecting in the corners of a square detector? >> Due to the crystal diffracting better than expected or >> the need to sacrifice resolution for spot separation? >> >> eab >> >
