> My confusion lies with whether  the translation 555, 565, etc. is to be 
> applied after the exact application of the symmetry operation (which very 
> often moves an atom into another unit cell) or after normalization back into 
> the 555 unit cell, and if so, how exactly that normalization is to be 
> performed for atoms very near cell boundaries. I'm not convinced Jmol can 
> reproduce that if normalization is involved.

It is a long time ago that I did something similar, so I am not an expert 
anymore in this. But I think you will have to normalise (put all atoms back 
into one cell) first and then treat the special positions (remove all exactly 
overlapping atom positions). Then, I think  everything should be okay. Atoms 
near the cell boundaries (or indeed on the boundary itself) will be move one 
unit cell away when you add 1 to their position.

Christian


On 25. Sep, 2014, at 03:09, Robert Hanson <hans...@stolaf.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Brian McMahon <b...@iucr.org> wrote:
> Hi Bob, Christian
> 
>     loop_
>     _geom_bond_atom_site_label_1
>     _geom_bond_atom_site_label_2
>     _geom_bond_distance
>     _geom_bond_site_symmetry_1
>     _geom_bond_site_symmetry_2
>     _topos_geom_bond_publ_flag
>       X1  X2   1.342(4)  1_555  1_555  yes
>       X1  X2   1.439(3)  1_555  2_565  yes
>       X2  X3   1.512(4)  1_555  1_555  no
> 
> 
> It has never been clear to me what site_symmetry means in these descriptions, 
> and Jmol certainly ignores them. Instead, it will bond any X1 X2 atoms (in 
> this case) with 1.342+-0.004 or 1.439+-0.003 distance ranges regardless of 
> the site_symmetry. 
> 
> My confusion lies with whether  the translation 555, 565, etc. is to be 
> applied after the exact application of the symmetry operation (which very 
> often moves an atom into another unit cell) or after normalization back into 
> the 555 unit cell, and if so, how exactly that normalization is to be 
> performed for atoms very near cell boundaries. I'm not convinced Jmol can 
> reproduce that if normalization is involved.
> 
> Is that an issue in this case?
> 
> Bob
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk_______________________________________________
> Jmol-users mailing list
> Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Jmol-users mailing list
Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users

Reply via email to