I might try implementing this user function change, and store the cdp.ncyc_even flag. Then you could use it for the interpolation.
Regards, Edward On 4 May 2014 11:59, Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]> wrote: > The defaults for a relax_disp.cpmg_setup could be: > > relax_disp.cpmg_setup(spectrum_id=None, cpmg_frq=None, ncyc_even=True) > > This can then be expanded in the future for special CPMG dispersion > experiment types (CW decoupling vs. pi pulses, etc.) where the numeric > model would require changes. > > Regards, > > Edward > > > > On 4 May 2014 11:53, Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sorry, that was a bad typo, it should be Flemming Hansen's dispersion >> pulse sequence! >> >> On 4 May 2014 11:52, Edward d'Auvergne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> It depends on the pulse sequence. Here is one I found written by >>> Flemming Hanser where you can use odd numbers: >>> >>> http://nmrwiki.org/psdb/kaylab/vnmrsys/psglib/CaHD_cpmg_GLY_dfh_600_v1.c >>> >>> Look for the comment: >>> >>> "ncyc can be either even or odd :)" >>> >>> Such sequences are probably in the minority though. Anyway, maybe we >>> need a new user function. It would be good to have a series of user >>> functions for specifying the experimental information. We already >>> have that with: >>> >>> spectrometer.frequency >>> relax_disp.exp_type >>> relax_disp.relax_time >>> relax_disp.cpmg_frq >>> >>> So keeping along these lines, maybe we need to have a >>> relax_disp.cpmg_even_ncyc user function? Or we rename >>> relax_disp.cpmg_frq to relax_disp.cpmg_setup and have that user >>> function reserved for all CPMG pulse sequence info? What do you >>> think? Renaming user functions does require a relax minor version >>> number change though, so introducing it before relax 3.2.0 is a good >>> idea. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Edward >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4 May 2014 11:24, Troels Emtekær Linnet <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi Edward. >>>> >>>> The number of CPMG blocks has to be an even number. >>>> >>>> I remember this clearly, since I once did an CPMG experiment, with >>>> some ncycs equal 4, 10, 15, 20, 25, ... >>>> >>>> And the intensities for all eksperiments with odd NCYC number was horrible. >>>> >>>> Kaare told me, that ncycs always has to be even. >>>> That was something that Mikael Akke also have insisted on. >>>> >>>> But that day, I could not easily find it in the literature, so I left >>>> it and accepted just another fact of NMR. >>>> >>>> And when I did the interpolated graphs with an odd-number of NCYC, >>>> that looked weirdo. >>>> Sig-saw all over the place. >>>> >>>> I actually think it could be a input check in relax, warning the user >>>> if the number of CPMG blocks are not equal? >>>> >>>> And, I would be very happy to find it in the literature. :-) >>>> Have you ever come around this? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Troels >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-05-04 11:06 GMT+02:00 Edward d Auvergne >>>> <[email protected]>: >>>>> Follow-up Comment #2, bug #22008 (project relax): >>>>> >>>>> If this is a restriction of only the B14 analytic CPMG model >>>>> (http://wiki.nmr-relax.com/B14), it would be best if only the B14 is >>>>> affected. >>>>> There is no need to restrict the numeric models based on the artificial >>>>> limitation of an unrelated model. Maybe the best solution would be to >>>>> check >>>>> if the model is B14, and if so skip odd interpolation points? >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Reply to this item at: >>>>> >>>>> <http://gna.org/bugs/?22008> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Message sent via/by Gna! >>>>> http://gna.org/ >>>>> _______________________________________________ relax (http://www.nmr-relax.com) This is the relax-devel mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, visit the list information page at https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel
