N. Dragoe wrote :
Also, I don't know where Armel got that 5000 XRD instruments, in my
impression (au pif, Armel) I would rather say that the XRD lab instruments
in the world is in the 10k to 20k range.
In the book 'Modern Powder Diffraction' (1989), Ron jenkins
gives an estimation (page 19) :
I had the impression that neutron diffraction requires a large amount of
sample. Isn't this a limitation is some cases ?
This is true to a certain extent, although it depends on the complexity of
the structure and on the elemental content. To get reasonable statistics at
very high resolution, I
Armel wrote:
You may translate in (delta d)/d if you want.
Armel's argument about "peak width" and "structure solution" must be very
confusing for the non-crystallographers on the neutron mailing list to whom
he directed his remarks. Almost all neutron powder work is about refining
details of
Hey, it looks like we are really accomplishing something with this
discussion. Only three days ago, neutrons were hoplessly at the bottom of
the resolution league, "one order of magnitude away" from the leader. Now,
neutrons squeezed past conventional x-rays and are in hot pursuit of
Yes, the true size matters.
More than 75% of the research undertaken in small laboratories
is never published. I have heard that this is the same percentage
for very large instruments and that less than 25%of the accepted
proposals lead to publication. I would say that this could be because
some
Paolo wrote :
The real question is a different
one: suppose we build it. Would people like Armel use it? Or rather, can
the structural solution community make a strong enough case for it?
Enlarge any very large instrument and it will become soon even
too small.
I am not and expert, but
