On 21 June 2013 19:45, Douglas Theobald dtheob...@brandeis.edu wrote:
The current way of doing things is summarized by Ed's equation:
Ispot-Iback=Iobs. Here Ispot is the # of counts in the spot (the area
encompassing the predicted reflection), and Iback is # of counts in the
background
Ian, I really do think we are almost saying the same thing. Let me try to
clarify.
You say that the Gaussian model is not the correct data model, and that
the Poisson is correct. I more-or-less agree. If I were being pedantic
(me?) I would say that the Poisson is *more* physically realistic
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Douglas Theobald dtheob...@brandeis.eduwrote:
Feel free to prove me wrong --- can you derive Ispot-Iback, as an estimate
of Itrue, from anything besides a Gaussian?
OK, I'll prove myself wrong. Ispot-Iback can be derived as an estimate of
Itrue, even when
On 22 June 2013 18:04, Douglas Theobald dtheob...@brandeis.edu wrote:
Ian, I really do think we are almost saying the same thing. Let me try to
clarify.
I agree, but still only almost!
--- but in truth the Poisson model does not account for other physical
sources of error that arise
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Ian Tickle ianj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 June 2013 18:04, Douglas Theobald dtheob...@brandeis.edu wrote:
--- but in truth the Poisson model does not account for other physical
sources of error that arise from real crystals and real detectors, such as
dark
A fascinating discussion (I've learnt a lot!); a quick sanity check,
though:
In what scenarios would these improved estimates make a significant
difference?
Or rather: are there any existing programs (as opposed to vapourware)
that would benefit significantly?
Cheers
phx
On
On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Frank von Delft frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk
wrote:
A fascinating discussion (I've learnt a lot!); a quick sanity check, though:
In what scenarios would these improved estimates make a significant
difference?
Who knows? I always think that improved
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Frank von Delft
frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk wrote:
In what scenarios would these improved estimates make a significant
difference?
Perhaps datasets where a unusually large number of reflections are very
weak, for instance where TNCS is present, or where the
I agree with Frank. This thread has been fascinating and educational. Thanks
to all. Ron
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Douglas Theobald wrote:
On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Frank von Delft frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk
wrote:
A fascinating discussion (I've learnt a lot!); a quick sanity check,
