3CSL: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
28 bytes added ,  19 March 2011
Line 188: Line 188:


This is XSCALE.INP - we don't try anything fancy:
This is XSCALE.INP - we don't try anything fancy:
SPACE_GROUP_NUMBER=  22
UNIT_CELL_CONSTANTS=  156.80  163.12  595.87  90.000  90.000  90.000
  OUTPUT_FILE=hr.ahkl
  OUTPUT_FILE=hr.ahkl
  INPUT_FILE=../xds.hr1/XDS_ASCII.HKL
  INPUT_FILE=../xds.hr1/XDS_ASCII.HKL
Line 199: Line 196:
  OUTPUT_FILE=ip.ahkl
  OUTPUT_FILE=ip.ahkl
  INPUT_FILE=../xds.ip/XDS_ASCII.HKL
  INPUT_FILE=../xds.ip/XDS_ASCII.HKL
and this is an excerpt from XSCALE.LP:
and this is an excerpt from XSCALE.LP:
       CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INPUT DATA SETS AFTER CORRECTIONS
       CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INPUT DATA SETS AFTER CORRECTIONS
Line 209: Line 205:
     1    3      36555          0.985            0.9971        0.2041
     1    3      36555          0.985            0.9971        0.2041
     2    3      35630          0.989            1.0038        -0.0116
     2    3      35630          0.989            1.0038        -0.0116
These correlations are worse than what I like to see from MAD datasets. Some of the badness is maybe due to the fact that we used an unrealistic high-resolution limit. If we use INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=50 3 the correlations are  
These correlations are worse than what I like to see from MAD datasets. One might think that some of the badness is maybe due to the fact that we used an unrealistic high-resolution limit, but if we use INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=50 32 (this has to given three times, after each of the INPUT_FILE lines) the correlations are exactly the same.
The file further reports  CHI^2-VALUE OF FIT OF CORRECTION FACTORS around 1.15 which indicates that the scaling model is not entirely adequate, but it is unclear what to change, so we leave it at that (we could use STRICT_ABSORPTION_CORRECTION=TRUE to bring the number closer to 1).
The file further reports  CHI^2-VALUE OF FIT OF CORRECTION FACTORS around 1.15 which indicates that the scaling model is not entirely adequate, but it is unclear what to change, so we leave it at that (we could use STRICT_ABSORPTION_CORRECTION=TRUE to bring the number closer to 1).


Line 232: Line 228:
  6.151E+00  6.548E-04  15.76  16.97 ../xds.ip/XDS_ASCII.HKL                           
  6.151E+00  6.548E-04  15.76  16.97 ../xds.ip/XDS_ASCII.HKL                           


which says that the high-remote indeed scales best of the three datasets, and the peak the worst. This is the output for high-remote - not too impressing!
which says that the high-remote indeed scales best of the three datasets, and the peak the worst.  
 
As an example, this is the output for high-remote - not too impressing!
  ******************************************************************************
  ******************************************************************************
   STATISTICS OF SCALED OUTPUT DATA SET : hr.ahkl                                           
   STATISTICS OF SCALED OUTPUT DATA SET : hr.ahkl                                           
   FILE TYPE:        XDS_ASCII      MERGE=FALSE          FRIEDEL'S_LAW=FALSE
   FILE TYPE:        XDS_ASCII      MERGE=FALSE          FRIEDEL'S_LAW=FALSE
 
       450 OUT OF    419653 REFLECTIONS REJECTED
       450 OUT OF    419653 REFLECTIONS REJECTED
     419203 REFLECTIONS ON OUTPUT FILE  
     419203 REFLECTIONS ON OUTPUT FILE  
 
  ******************************************************************************
  ******************************************************************************
   
   
2,684

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Navigation menu