Closed rowlesmr closed 1 year ago
Very nice definitions. I assume the reason for the mismatch between pd_instr
and pd_meas
in the dataname / category name is to maintain consistency with the previous usage. Given that the boat has sailed for the powder dictionary regarding that, I have no objections. I've asked @briantoby to review those 3 definitions, and if he's happy then let's merge them.
Yes, the mismatch is just following the variable illumination length example.
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 11:36, James Hester @.***> wrote:
Very nice definitions. I assume the reason for the mismatch between pd_instr and pd_meas in the dataname / category name is to maintain consistency with the previous usage. Given that the boat has sailed for the powder dictionary regarding that, I have no objections. I've asked @briantoby https://github.com/briantoby to review those 3 definitions, and if he's happy then let's merge them.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/COMCIFS/Powder_Dictionary/pull/48#issuecomment-1336700717, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADR255D2CBKC7DZH3Z2ESOLWLVPM5ANCNFSM6AAAAAASTBNWYM . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>
I am not sure what I can add to this. I will note that the diffractometer circle concept is a bit less clear with flat area detectors, particularly after integrating over Bragg cones, where the sample-to-detector distance may vary around the ring. Perhaps for that case, it might be best to specify the distance as the closest approach of the detector to the sample, since the average is much harder to define.
Fixes #34
This does use the "save_pd_instr." vs "_name.category_id pd_meas" trick.
I don't know if you want to keep doing that.