Paolo wrote:
>I admit the scientist who suggested the TOF machine at
>the ILL and plotting data vs. Q are the same, that is, me.
I was trying to make a joke about it, since Lachlan seemed to be
drawing a lot of fire when he is really a very helpful person.
I agree "en principe" that Q-plots are a good idea, or better yet
1/d*d plots which have a more uniform density of peaks. But
I believe we neutron people should conform as far as possible to
the X-ray world if we don't want to make neutrons look even
more 'exotic'.
>Prof. Hans Boysen told me that a similar machine is planned (helas!
>not yet funded) for the Munich reactor.
Hans himself is planning a convential D2B-like machine (he said so
at the meeting). There is already a TOF machine on the old Munich
reactor - it was the inspiration for the first ISIS machine, which
is of course a 'good thing', but on a reactor it requires huge samples.
You can of course build a high intensity reverse Fourier chopper
powder machine on a reactor, as pioneered by the Finnish-Russian
group, but then the background is very high. Perhaps we should
have an opinion from some-one who has actually tried it :-)
But then Paolo might like to follow the Swiss example - convert
ISIS to a steady state source and build a D20-like conventional
machine - which I am willing to bet will be very successful knowing
the Swiss. (Hey, don't take this suggestion too seriously guys :-)
Alan H.
Alan Hewat, ILL Grenoble, FRANCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tel (33) 4.76.20.72.13
ftp://ftp.ill.fr/pub/dif fax (33) 4.76.48.39.06 http://www.ill.fr/dif/
