-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
why is it _pd_proc.intensity_bkg_calc
and not _pd_calc.intensity_bkg
?
#72
Comments
Here is what I suspect was taking place, but I do not remember the details for CIF item naming/categorization: One collects data with a point spacing determined by the instrument, and one wants to keep these original as-collected data. However for the purposes of refinement, one may do some rebinning. Fewer points means faster fits, as long as there are enough points to not degrade resolution. Thus, one may have two sets of (x,y) points, original and rebinned. The background, calc pattern etc. will only be computed against the rebinned x-axis. Since there might be one loop or two for the data and computed patterns, the data names needed to be separated.
Brian
On Jan 7, 2023, at 10:30 AM, Matthew Rowles ***@***.******@***.***>> wrote:
The description of _pd_proc.intensity_bkg_calc says that it
is intended to contain the background intensity for every data point where the background function has been fitted or estimated (for example, in all Rietveld and profile fits).
PD_CALC says that it
is used for storing a computed diffractogram trace ... such as ... computed intensities from a Rietveld refinement.
Should there be a _pd_calc.intensity_bkg instead/as well as?
_pd_calc.intensity_* is of purpose Number, and _pd_proc.intensity_bkg_calc is of purpose Measurand (and "Inclusion of s.u.'s for intensity_bkg_calc values is strongly recommended.") , so there is a probably a difference of intent here between the two data items.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#72>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACH7E2D4DS54NVPFPQ3LAFTWRGK3JANCNFSM6AAAAAATUBB66I>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
mmm. There must have been some context and reasoning for the split. The |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The description of
_pd_proc.intensity_bkg_calc
says that itPD_CALC
says that itShould there be a
_pd_calc.intensity_bkg
instead/as well as?_pd_calc.intensity_*
is of purposeNumber
, and_pd_proc.intensity_bkg_calc
is of purposeMeasurand
(and "Inclusion of s.u.'s for intensity_bkg_calc values is strongly recommended.") , so there is a probably a difference of intent here between the two data items.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: