>Yes, it was done (see J. Appl. Cryst. 26 (1993) 97-103) and the
>column-length distribution function appears to have an "acceptable"
>asymmetric shape for tested samples.
You mean that whatever a Voigt function, it corresponds to a
reasonable size distribution function ? This is hard to believe
at least when that Voigt function tends towards a pure Gaussian,
which is one possibility. Moreover, a Voigt function cannot cover
all the possibilities for a size distribution. So, what will be the
error when trying to fit a non-Voigt by a Voigt ?
I am afraid that using analytical shapes will always be contestable.
They restrain the experimental field to some defined models,
inevitably. Finally, we can just discuss about which model
could be the less bad (giving the best fit). The fits in my report
look mediumly bad and I am impatient to see best fits due to
best models. I am sure they will be shown soon - for instance
by the fundamental parameters approach ? Anonymity will be
difficult to ensure as soon as the program names will be
disclosed.
Best,
Armel
