Robert Hanson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Rolf Huehne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is usually no drastic quality difference. It depends of course of
the specific rendering and larger images might also be more problematic.
If file size matters in my experience the quality of
Miguel and I worked on that in 2004, at a time when Jmol was exclusively using
covalent atomic radii for binding criteria. In the case of mineral oxides, like
kaolinite, it was binding aluminum to oxygen alright, but also binding Al to Al
_thru_ the oxygen as well, as an example of many, many
In case it is of help, I found in our library a 56th edition (1975-
76) and a 77th edition (1996-97) of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics. Both have tables entitled
CRYSTAL IONIC RADII OF THE ELEMENTS (pages F209 to F210 and 12-14
to 12-15 respectively)
with these values:
(8 4)
Since Angel has added in coordination numbers, I'll add in Shannon's values
(1976) for comparison, which seem to be the source for some of the 77th edn
values:
- Original Message -
From: Angel Herraez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In case it is of help, I found in our library a 56th edition
Thanks, I'll take a look at that, but more important things to do now.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Rolf Huehne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Hanson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Rolf Huehne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is usually no drastic quality difference. It
5 matches
Mail list logo
