Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more people

[Le Bail Armel]

Indeed, saying "back to that" with some disdain reveals your are the physicist interested by properties of already structurally known compounds.The crystallographer says "towards the posibility to solve the structure of unknowncompounds" and for that you need the structure factors. Then comes the Rietveld refinement anyway.envoyé : 18 août 2023 à 17:00de : Alan W Hewat à : Le Bail Armel cc : "rietveld_l@ill.fr" objet : Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more peopleI have no problem with Rietveld's prize Armel. Crystallographers ignored the method for too long, fixated as they were on "structure factors". Even your own method harks back to that. The idea that physical parameters could be refined directly from the data is more a physicist's idea, which makes me think that physicists Loopstra and Van Laar had essential input. Rietveld was a crystallographer. In retrospect the prize might have been awarded to the trio, but in retrospect we also simplify reality.Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOpticsGrenoble, FRANCE (from phone)alan.he...@neutronoptics.com+33.476984168 VAT:FR79499450856http://NeutronOptics.com/hewat___   On Fri, 18 Aug 2023, 15:15 Le Bail Armel,  wrote:I would be curious if the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has archivesconcerning this Gregori Aminoff 1995 Prize decision/investigation :http://www.cristal.org/rietv025/foto3.jpgWho was contacted as reference ? Was Loopstra contacted and if yes, anypositive answer from him ?;-)envoyé : 18 août 2023 à 11:30de : Alan W Hewat à : Le Bail Armel cc : rietveld_l@ill.frobjet : Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more peopleBonjour Armel.No, it was van Laar who initiated it. He was annoyed that I had praised Rietveld too much in my own accounts. http://hewat.net/science/ill-hewat.html 'History of the ILL from a personal perspective'.https://journals.iucr.org/j/issues/2016/04/00/es0421/ 'Hugo Rietveld (1932–2016)'  Alan Hewat, William I. F. David and Lambert van Eijck He sent me a draft paper that he proposed to publish, but I suggested a less critical version. He agreed, and later involved Henk Schenk in producing a softer version. So it's the opposite to what you assume - Van Laar's original paper was toned down in the joint paper:https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058 "The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre Netherlands at Petten" Bob van Laar and Henk SchenkWhy don't you write to van Laar and ask for a copy of his original version (abstract below)Facts about the Profile refinement method in Powder diffraction.Bob van Laar, AmsterdamJustification of the present paperThe aim of this paper is to give detailed historical insight in the procedure that led to thedevelopment of the profile refinement of neutron powder data, since then known as the'Rietveld method'. The present paper has been written by the last person still alive, involvedin the development of this method (Loopstra died in november 1998). The purpose is tocorrect some incorrectness's that have been connected to the method in course of time.Kind regards, Alan.On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 10:51, Le Bail Armel  wrote:Bonjour Alan,My problem with the Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk paper is that it would have beencredible if signed by van Laar alone or better by Loopstra and van Laar and also ifpublished before 1980 or 1990, not in 2018.That 2018 paper looks strongly as initiated by Henk Schenk and the main argumentsinside are from old Rietveld-Schenk interferences, especially the story when Rietveld refused to plaid guilty after being accused by Schenk in a very strange manner.Now, the fact that Schenk was IUCr President may be sufficient for many people tobelieve in his version of the story. It was not sufficient for Hugo Rietveld and it is notsufficient for me.BestArmelPS - Why to insert a reference to the 1981 Pawley paper in a 1988 paper where hismethod was not used but another method much later named "Le Bail method" andbased on the Rietveld (Loopstra ??? proove it please) decomposition formula ?envoyé : 16 août 2023 à 19:08de : Alan W Hewat à : Le Bail Armel cc : "rietveld_l@ill.fr" objet : Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more peopleBonjour Armel. In answer to your question "Where did they find the text of the judgement ?" please see:"The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre Netherlands at Petten" Bob van Laar and Henk Schenkhttps://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058Van Laar worked at Petten with Rietveld, and Schenk was the IUCr president. This paper is apparently the basis of Mittemeijer's book. His point is that scientific discoveries are often the result of the work of many people, yet we tend to simplify the process and 

The passing of John White, first UK Director of ILL

[Alan W Hewat]

>From the RSC Canberra:

*It is with great sadness I bring to you the news that our dear friend and
colleague John White died yesterday.  He was in the garden at home and is
presumed to have had a heart attack.*

At 86, John was in Grenoble in June, still experimenting at ILL, looking
after his garden in La Tronche, and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
UK joining the ILL (and incidentally the EU). A remarkable scientist.

Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics
Grenoble, FRANCE (from phone)
alan.he...@neutronoptics.com
+33.476984168 VAT:FR79499450856
http://NeutronOptics.com/hewat
___
++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more people

[Alan W Hewat]

I have no problem with Rietveld's prize Armel. Crystallographers ignored
the method for too long, fixated as they were on "structure factors". Even
your own method harks back to that. The idea that physical parameters could
be refined directly from the data is more a physicist's idea, which makes
me think that physicists Loopstra and Van Laar had essential input.
Rietveld was a crystallographer. In retrospect the prize might have been
awarded to the trio, but in retrospect we also simplify reality.


Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics
Grenoble, FRANCE (from phone)
alan.he...@neutronoptics.com
+33.476984168 VAT:FR79499450856
http://NeutronOptics.com/hewat
___


On Fri, 18 Aug 2023, 15:15 Le Bail Armel,  wrote:

> I would be curious if the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has archives
>
> concerning this Gregori Aminoff 1995 Prize decision/investigation :
>
> http://www.cristal.org/rietv025/foto3.jpg
>
> Who was contacted as reference ? Was Loopstra contacted and if yes, any
>
> positive answer from him ?
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
> *envoyé :* 18 août 2023 à 11:30
> *de :* Alan W Hewat 
> *à :* Le Bail Armel 
> *cc :* rietveld_l@ill.fr
> *objet :* Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some
> more people
>
> Bonjour Armel.
>
> No, it was van Laar who initiated it. He was annoyed that I had praised
> Rietveld too much in my own accounts.
> http://hewat.net/science/ill-hewat.html* 'History of the ILL from a
> personal perspective'.*
> https://journals.iucr.org/j/issues/2016/04/00/es0421/ '*Hugo Rietveld
> (1932–2016)'*  Alan Hewat, William I. F. David and Lambert van Eijck
>  He sent me a draft paper that he proposed to publish, but I suggested
> a less critical version. He agreed, and later involved Henk Schenk in
> producing a softer version. So it's the opposite to what you assume - Van
> Laar's original paper was toned down in the joint paper:
> https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058 "*The development of powder
> profile refinement at the Reactor Centre Netherlands at Petten*"
> Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk
>
> *Why don't you write to van Laar and ask for a copy of his original
> version (abstract below)*
>
>
>
> *Facts about the Profile refinement method in Powder diffraction.Bob van
> Laar, Amsterdam*Justification of the present paper
>
>
>
>
> *The aim of this paper is to give detailed historical insight in the
> procedure that led to thedevelopment of the profile refinement of neutron
> powder data, since then known as the'Rietveld method'. The present paper
> has been written by the last person still alive, involvedin the development
> of this method (Loopstra died in november 1998). The purpose is tocorrect
> some incorrectness's that have been connected to the method in course of
> time.*
>
> Kind regards, Alan.
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 10:51, Le Bail Armel 
> wrote:
>
> Bonjour Alan,
>
> My problem with the Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk paper is that it would
> have been
>
> credible if signed by van Laar alone or better by Loopstra and van Laar
> and also if
>
> published before 1980 or 1990, not in 2018.
>
> That 2018 paper looks strongly as initiated by Henk Schenk and the main
> arguments
>
> inside are from old Rietveld-Schenk interferences, especially the story
> when Rietveld
>
> refused to plaid guilty after being accused by Schenk in a very strange
> manner.
>
> Now, the fact that Schenk was IUCr President may be sufficient for many
> people to
>
> believe in his version of the story. It was not sufficient for Hugo
> Rietveld and it is not
>
> sufficient for me.
>
> Best
>
> Armel
>
> PS - Why to insert a reference to the 1981 Pawley paper in a 1988 paper
> where his
>
> method was not used but another method much later named "Le Bail method"
> and
>
> based on the Rietveld (Loopstra ??? proove it please) decomposition
> formula ?
>
> *envoyé :* 16 août 2023 à 19:08
> *de :* Alan W Hewat 
> *à :* Le Bail Armel 
> *cc :* "rietveld_l@ill.fr" 
> *objet :* Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some
> more people
>
> Bonjour Armel.
>
> In answer to your question "Where did they find the text of the judgement
> ?" please see:
> "The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre
> Netherlands at Petten"
> Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk
> https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058
>
> Van Laar worked at Petten with Rietveld, and Schenk was the IUCr
> president. This paper is apparently the basis of Mittemeijer's book. His
> point is that scientific discoveries are often the result of the work of
> many people, yet we tend to simplify the process and attribute them to
> individual heros. Mike Glazer is simply reviewing his book.
>
> Salutations, Alan
> 
> Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics
> Grenoble, FRANCE (from phone)
> alan.he...@neutronoptics.com
> +33.476984168 VAT:FR79499450856
> http://NeutronOptics.com/hewat
> ___
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 

Announcement: Workshop on exploiting open data for machine learning training: can the Photon and Neutron community do it?

[Martin Etter]

Dear colleagues,

I was asked if I can distribute this in the Powder Diffraction and Total 
Scattering community. Therefore I wanted to send it to this mailing 
list, since I think some of the large scale facility colleagues or other 
colleagues from the field might be interested in this.


With best wishes,

Martin

---
Workshop on exploiting open data for machine learning training: can the 
Photon and Neutron community do it?


During the last decade, most European Photon and Neutron (PaN) 
facilities have adopted open data policies, making data available for 
the benefit of the entire scientific community. At the same time, 
machine learning (ML) is seen as an essential tool to address the 
exponential growth of data volumes from PaN facilities.


Exploitation of experimental training datasets is a key component of 
machine learning. The combination of ML algorithms and open data can 
therefore be seen as an ideal marriage that would ultimately help the 
entire community to tackle ‘big data’ challenges with more automation.


However, finding the right data to train machine learning algorithms is 
a challenge and one of the motivations for making data FAIR is exactly 
that: to provide scientists working on AI applications with quality 
training datasets.


But what does 'quality' mean to PaN science communities? What metadata 
fields are needed to find the data, to understand if it is suitable for 
our research, and ultimately to be able to ingest it in our training 
models? How can we provide sufficiently rich metadata? What would be the 
enablers for more machine learning applications? How can we improve the 
collaboration between data producers (domain scientists) and data 
consumers (ML experts)?



Duration: from 2023-10-17 12:00 to 2023-10-18 14:00

Location: Synchrotron SOLEIL (~Paris) and online

Flyer: 
https://indico.synchrotron-soleil.fr/event/67/attachments/76/135/2023-10-17_ML%20Workshop%20flyer.pdf 



More details: https://indico.synchrotron-soleil.fr/event/67/

---

--
-
Dr. Martin Etter
DESY, FS-PETRA-D, P02.1
Notkestr. 85, Bldg. 47c, Rm. L118
22607 Hamburg, Germany
phone: +49-40-8998-5648
E-mail: martin.et...@desy.de
ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-5183-3585
ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/H-9715-2018
--

++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more people

[Le Bail Armel]

I would be curious if the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has archivesconcerning this Gregori Aminoff 1995 Prize decision/investigation :http://www.cristal.org/rietv025/foto3.jpgWho was contacted as reference ? Was Loopstra contacted and if yes, any positive answer from him ?;-)envoyé : 18 août 2023 à 11:30de : Alan W Hewat à : Le Bail Armel cc : rietveld_l@ill.frobjet : Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more peopleBonjour Armel.No, it was van Laar who initiated it. He was annoyed that I had praised Rietveld too much in my own accounts. http://hewat.net/science/ill-hewat.html 'History of the ILL from a personal perspective'.https://journals.iucr.org/j/issues/2016/04/00/es0421/ 'Hugo Rietveld (1932–2016)'  Alan Hewat, William I. F. David and Lambert van Eijck He sent me a draft paper that he proposed to publish, but I suggested a less critical version. He agreed, and later involved Henk Schenk in producing a softer version. So it's the opposite to what you assume - Van Laar's original paper was toned down in the joint paper:https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058 "The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre Netherlands at Petten" Bob van Laar and Henk SchenkWhy don't you write to van Laar and ask for a copy of his original version (abstract below)Facts about the Profile refinement method in Powder diffraction.Bob van Laar, AmsterdamJustification of the present paperThe aim of this paper is to give detailed historical insight in the procedure that led to thedevelopment of the profile refinement of neutron powder data, since then known as the'Rietveld method'. The present paper has been written by the last person still alive, involvedin the development of this method (Loopstra died in november 1998). The purpose is tocorrect some incorrectness's that have been connected to the method in course of time.Kind regards, Alan.On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 10:51, Le Bail Armel  wrote:Bonjour Alan,My problem with the Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk paper is that it would have beencredible if signed by van Laar alone or better by Loopstra and van Laar and also ifpublished before 1980 or 1990, not in 2018.That 2018 paper looks strongly as initiated by Henk Schenk and the main argumentsinside are from old Rietveld-Schenk interferences, especially the story when Rietveld refused to plaid guilty after being accused by Schenk in a very strange manner.Now, the fact that Schenk was IUCr President may be sufficient for many people tobelieve in his version of the story. It was not sufficient for Hugo Rietveld and it is notsufficient for me.BestArmelPS - Why to insert a reference to the 1981 Pawley paper in a 1988 paper where hismethod was not used but another method much later named "Le Bail method" andbased on the Rietveld (Loopstra ??? proove it please) decomposition formula ?envoyé : 16 août 2023 à 19:08de : Alan W Hewat à : Le Bail Armel cc : "rietveld_l@ill.fr" objet : Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more peopleBonjour Armel. In answer to your question "Where did they find the text of the judgement ?" please see:"The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre Netherlands at Petten" Bob van Laar and Henk Schenkhttps://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058Van Laar worked at Petten with Rietveld, and Schenk was the IUCr president. This paper is apparently the basis of Mittemeijer's book. His point is that scientific discoveries are often the result of the work of many people, yet we tend to simplify the process and attribute them to individual heros. Mike Glazer is simply reviewing his book.Salutations, Alan Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOpticsGrenoble, FRANCE (from phone)alan.he...@neutronoptics.com+33.476984168 VAT:FR79499450856http://NeutronOptics.com/hewat___   On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, 18:45 Le Bail Armel,  wrote:In a book :How Science Runs – Impressions from a Scientific Career. By Eric J. MittemeijerReviewed by Mike Glazer"In another section, the author has some criticism about the famous Rietveld method in powder diffraction. He points out that the original idea for this method was put forward by Bert O. Loopstra, who later discussed the idea of whole-pattern fitting with Bob van Laar. In order to create a computer program to carry out the method, they hired the computer-savvy Hugo M. Rietveld. The first paper by Loopstra and Rietveld was published in Acta Crystallographica in 1969, having been submitted in 1968. A later paper published in 1969 by Rietveld alone in Journal of Applied Crystallography is the one that is always quoted and led to the name ‘Rietveld method’ or ‘Rietveld refinement’. Mittemeijer points out that this did grave injustice to the originator of the method, Bert Loopstra. Rietveld later left science to become a librarian: 

Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more people

[Lambert van Eijck]

dear all,

it is likely that Van Laar was triggered by a visit from me and Bram Schierbeek 
(Dutch Crystallographic Society) around 2016. As Bill David pointed out in 
2015, the year 2016 was approximately 100 years after the 'invention of powder 
diffraction' and approximately 50 years after 'the invention of Rietveld 
refinement'. Unaware of the history of the development of the method at Petten 
(NL), Bram and me visited both Hugo Rietveld and Bob van Laar in 2015/2016, 
with the intention to organize a celebration symposium "Debye & Rietveld: 
100&50 years" in Amsterdam. We soon learned that the different opinions on the 
roles in realizing the method were not reconcilable.  In my personal opinion, 
this celebration event was not the stage to start criticizing the role of Hugo 
Rietveld in the development of the method. The publication by Van Laar and 
Schenk might therefore also have been triggered by our (naive) visit and/or by 
the celebration that took place in Amsterdam.

with best regards,

Lambert van Eijck

Delft


On 18-08-2023 11:30, Alan W Hewat wrote:
Bonjour Armel.

No, it was van Laar who initiated it. He was annoyed that I had praised 
Rietveld too much in my own accounts.
http://hewat.net/science/ill-hewat.html
 'History of the ILL from a personal perspective'.
https://journals.iucr.org/j/issues/2016/04/00/es0421/
 'Hugo Rietveld (1932–2016)'  Alan Hewat, William I. F. David and Lambert van 
Eijck
 He sent me a draft paper that he proposed to publish, but I suggested a less 
critical version. He agreed, and later involved Henk Schenk in producing a 
softer version. So it's the opposite to what you assume - Van Laar's original 
paper was toned down in the joint paper:
https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058
 "The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre 
Netherlands at Petten"
Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk

Why don't you write to van Laar and ask for a copy of his original version 
(abstract below)

Facts about the Profile refinement method in Powder diffraction.
Bob van Laar, Amsterdam
Justification of the present paper
The aim of this paper is to give detailed historical insight in the procedure 
that led to the
development of the profile refinement of neutron powder data, since then known 
as the
'Rietveld method'. The present paper has been written by the last person still 
alive, involved
in the development of this method (Loopstra died in november 1998). The purpose 
is to
correct some incorrectness's that have been connected to the method in course 
of time.

Kind regards, Alan.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 10:51, Le Bail Armel 
mailto:le-bail.ar...@orange.fr>> wrote:

Bonjour Alan,

My problem with the Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk paper is that it would have 
been

credible if signed by van Laar alone or better by Loopstra and van Laar and 
also if

published before 1980 or 1990, not in 2018.

That 2018 paper looks strongly as initiated by Henk Schenk and the main 
arguments

inside are from old Rietveld-Schenk interferences, especially the story when 
Rietveld

refused to plaid guilty after being accused by Schenk in a very strange manner.

Now, the fact that Schenk was IUCr President may be sufficient for many people 
to

believe in his version of the story. It was not sufficient for Hugo Rietveld 
and it is not

sufficient for me.

Best

Armel

PS - Why to insert a reference to the 1981 Pawley paper in a 1988 paper where 
his

method was not used but another method much later named "Le Bail method" and

based on the Rietveld (Loopstra ??? proove it please) decomposition formula ?

envoyé : 16 août 2023 à 19:08
de : Alan W Hewat 
mailto:alan.he...@neutronoptics.com>>
à : Le Bail Armel mailto:le-bail.ar...@orange.fr>>
cc : "rietveld_l@ill.fr" 
mailto:rietveld_l@ill.fr>>
objet : Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more people

Bonjour Armel.

In answer to your question "Where did they find the text of the judgement ?" 
please see:
"The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre Netherlands 
at Petten"
Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk
https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058

Van Laar worked at Petten with Rietveld, and Schenk was the IUCr president. 

Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more people

[Alan W Hewat]

Bonjour Armel.

No, it was van Laar who initiated it. He was annoyed that I had praised
Rietveld too much in my own accounts.
http://hewat.net/science/ill-hewat.html* 'History of the ILL from a
personal perspective'.*
https://journals.iucr.org/j/issues/2016/04/00/es0421/ '*Hugo Rietveld
(1932–2016)'*  Alan Hewat, William I. F. David and Lambert van Eijck
 He sent me a draft paper that he proposed to publish, but I suggested
a less critical version. He agreed, and later involved Henk Schenk in
producing a softer version. So it's the opposite to what you assume - Van
Laar's original paper was toned down in the joint paper:
https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058 "*The development of powder
profile refinement at the Reactor Centre Netherlands at Petten*"
Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk

*Why don't you write to van Laar and ask for a copy of his original version
(abstract below)*



*Facts about the Profile refinement method in Powder diffraction.Bob van
Laar, Amsterdam*Justification of the present paper




*The aim of this paper is to give detailed historical insight in the
procedure that led to thedevelopment of the profile refinement of neutron
powder data, since then known as the'Rietveld method'. The present paper
has been written by the last person still alive, involvedin the development
of this method (Loopstra died in november 1998). The purpose is tocorrect
some incorrectness's that have been connected to the method in course of
time.*

Kind regards, Alan.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 10:51, Le Bail Armel  wrote:

> Bonjour Alan,
>
> My problem with the Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk paper is that it would
> have been
>
> credible if signed by van Laar alone or better by Loopstra and van Laar
> and also if
>
> published before 1980 or 1990, not in 2018.
>
> That 2018 paper looks strongly as initiated by Henk Schenk and the main
> arguments
>
> inside are from old Rietveld-Schenk interferences, especially the story
> when Rietveld
>
> refused to plaid guilty after being accused by Schenk in a very strange
> manner.
>
> Now, the fact that Schenk was IUCr President may be sufficient for many
> people to
>
> believe in his version of the story. It was not sufficient for Hugo
> Rietveld and it is not
>
> sufficient for me.
>
> Best
>
> Armel
>
> PS - Why to insert a reference to the 1981 Pawley paper in a 1988 paper
> where his
>
> method was not used but another method much later named "Le Bail method"
> and
>
> based on the Rietveld (Loopstra ??? proove it please) decomposition
> formula ?
>
> *envoyé :* 16 août 2023 à 19:08
> *de :* Alan W Hewat 
> *à :* Le Bail Armel 
> *cc :* "rietveld_l@ill.fr" 
> *objet :* Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some
> more people
>
> Bonjour Armel.
>
> In answer to your question "Where did they find the text of the judgement
> ?" please see:
> "The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre
> Netherlands at Petten"
> Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk
> https://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058
>
> Van Laar worked at Petten with Rietveld, and Schenk was the IUCr
> president. This paper is apparently the basis of Mittemeijer's book. His
> point is that scientific discoveries are often the result of the work of
> many people, yet we tend to simplify the process and attribute them to
> individual heros. Mike Glazer is simply reviewing his book.
>
> Salutations, Alan
> 
> Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics
> Grenoble, FRANCE (from phone)
> alan.he...@neutronoptics.com
> +33.476984168 VAT:FR79499450856
> http://NeutronOptics.com/hewat
> ___
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, 18:45 Le Bail Armel,  wrote:
>
> In a book :
> How Science Runs – Impressions from a Scientific Career. By Eric J.
> Mittemeijer
>
>
> Reviewed by Mike Glazer
>
>
> "In another section, the author has some criticism about the famous
> Rietveld method in powder diffraction. He points out that the original idea
> for this method was put forward by Bert O. Loopstra, who later discussed
> the idea of whole-pattern fitting with Bob van Laar. In order to create a
> computer program to carry out the method, they hired the computer-savvy
> Hugo M. Rietveld. The first paper by Loopstra and Rietveld was published in 
> *Acta
> Crystallographica* in 1969, having been submitted in 1968. A later paper
> published in 1969 by Rietveld alone in *Journal of Applied
> Crystallography* is the one that is always quoted and led to the name
> ‘Rietveld method’ or ‘Rietveld refinement’. Mittemeijer points out that
> this did grave injustice to the originator of the method, Bert Loopstra.
> Rietveld later left science to become a librarian: Mittemeijer says the
> notion that he left science because he was disappointed that the method had
> not found wide acceptance at the time is just a ‘fairy tale’. Thus,
> according to the author, the profile refinement method should more justly
> be called the ‘Loopstra method’, concluding that this story has a 

Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more people

[Le Bail Armel]

Bonjour Alan,My problem with the Bob van Laar and Henk Schenk paper is that it would have beencredible if signed by van Laar alone or better by Loopstra and van Laar and also ifpublished before 1980 or 1990, not in 2018.That 2018 paper looks strongly as initiated by Henk Schenk and the main argumentsinside are from old Rietveld-Schenk interferences, especially the story when Rietveld refused to plaid guilty after being accused by Schenk in a very strange manner.Now, the fact that Schenk was IUCr President may be sufficient for many people tobelieve in his version of the story. It was not sufficient for Hugo Rietveld and it is notsufficient for me.BestArmelPS - Why to insert a reference to the 1981 Pawley paper in a 1988 paper where hismethod was not used but another method much later named "Le Bail method" andbased on the Rietveld (Loopstra ??? proove it please) decomposition formula ?envoyé : 16 août 2023 à 19:08de : Alan W Hewat à : Le Bail Armel cc : "rietveld_l@ill.fr" objet : Re: Rietveld condamnation considered as established by some more peopleBonjour Armel. In answer to your question "Where did they find the text of the judgement ?" please see:"The development of powder profile refinement at the Reactor Centre Netherlands at Petten" Bob van Laar and Henk Schenkhttps://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?ib5058Van Laar worked at Petten with Rietveld, and Schenk was the IUCr president. This paper is apparently the basis of Mittemeijer's book. His point is that scientific discoveries are often the result of the work of many people, yet we tend to simplify the process and attribute them to individual heros. Mike Glazer is simply reviewing his book.Salutations, Alan Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOpticsGrenoble, FRANCE (from phone)alan.he...@neutronoptics.com+33.476984168 VAT:FR79499450856http://NeutronOptics.com/hewat___   On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, 18:45 Le Bail Armel,  wrote:In a book :How Science Runs – Impressions from a Scientific Career. By Eric J. MittemeijerReviewed by Mike Glazer"In another section, the author has some criticism about the famous Rietveld method in powder diffraction. He points out that the original idea for this method was put forward by Bert O. Loopstra, who later discussed the idea of whole-pattern fitting with Bob van Laar. In order to create a computer program to carry out the method, they hired the computer-savvy Hugo M. Rietveld. The first paper by Loopstra and Rietveld was published in Acta Crystallographica in 1969, having been submitted in 1968. A later paper published in 1969 by Rietveld alone in Journal of Applied Crystallography is the one that is always quoted and led to the name ‘Rietveld method’ or ‘Rietveld refinement’. Mittemeijer points out that this did grave injustice to the originator of the method, Bert Loopstra. Rietveld later left science to become a librarian: Mittemeijer says the notion that he left science because he was disappointed that the method had not found wide acceptance at the time is just a ‘fairy tale’. Thus, according to the author, the profile refinement method should more justly be called the ‘Loopstra method’, concluding that this story has a sad ending."https://www.iucr.org/news/newsletter/etc/articles?issue=156393_138339_result_page=39Where did they find the text of the judgement ? Any verdict somewhere ? Condamned by "impressions" !Any text from Loopstra who had a lot of time to tell something but never do it ?Flagged at PubPeer :https://blog.pubpeer.com/publications/79219E32306099C040C633FFABE6EChttps://blog.pubpeer.com/publications/05241C3D2890D43ED23BA1905CD32Chttps://blog.pubpeer.com/publications/9D12C10951333B68B27FB891266A88Best,Armel Le Bail++ Please do NOT attach files to the whole list  Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/ ++ ++Please do NOT attach files to the whole list Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body textThe Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/++
++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++