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
>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
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
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
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
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
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
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
