The following is quoting Richard Beanland from #114, I hope you don't mind me opening this as a new issue:
"
The ZOLZ/HOLZ issue is unclear at the moment to me and probably a bit of a mess. Current issues include:
There is a key difference in the physics; ZOLZ diffraction can (more or less) get away with a small angle approximation, which is definitely not the case for HOLZ. I think we should probably just use the accurate calculation since the time penalty in a numerical calculation is small in comparison with matrix diagonalisation and absorption calculations. However I seem to remember that it adds a big time penalty to the calculation so maybe there is some detail I have forgotten.
There is a lump of code currently sitting in felixrefine.f90 that may sort reflections into Laue zones, but I am not sure how well it works beyond identifying ZOLZ reflections. I don't know if it considers negative Laue zones or how it takes account of the microscope acceptance angle.
The following is quoting Richard Beanland from #114, I hope you don't mind me opening this as a new issue:
" The ZOLZ/HOLZ issue is unclear at the moment to me and probably a bit of a mess. Current issues include:
There is a key difference in the physics; ZOLZ diffraction can (more or less) get away with a small angle approximation, which is definitely not the case for HOLZ. I think we should probably just use the accurate calculation since the time penalty in a numerical calculation is small in comparison with matrix diagonalisation and absorption calculations. However I seem to remember that it adds a big time penalty to the calculation so maybe there is some detail I have forgotten.
There is a lump of code currently sitting in felixrefine.f90 that may sort reflections into Laue zones, but I am not sure how well it works beyond identifying ZOLZ reflections. I don't know if it considers negative Laue zones or how it takes account of the microscope acceptance angle.
"