2,684
edits
1Y13-DAD: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→What do we learn?
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 322: | Line 322: | ||
In no particular order: | In no particular order: | ||
* That the dispersive signal helps a lot in substructure solution: 27 successful trial in 100 using DAD, instead of 1 using pseudo-SAD. | * That the dispersive signal helps a lot in substructure solution: 27 successful trial in 100 using DAD, instead of 1 using pseudo-SAD. | ||
* That the correlation coefficient between two wavelengths of a MAD experiment can be better than 0.9995 if there is no difference in radiation damage (in other words, the dispersive signal does not seem to significantly lower the correlation). | |||
* That the correlation coefficient between two wavelengths of a MAD experiment can be better than 0.9995 if there is no difference in radiation damage ( | |||
* That zero-dose extrapolation helps a lot, and works very well: if it is not done, we obtain only 5 correct solutions out of 100, and the highest CCall / CCweak is 17.85 / 12.33 instead of 36.34 / 25.24 (I don't show the plots here). | * That zero-dose extrapolation helps a lot, and works very well: if it is not done, we obtain only 5 correct solutions out of 100, and the highest CCall / CCweak is 17.85 / 12.33 instead of 36.34 / 25.24 (I don't show the plots here). | ||
* That the wavelength change only takes 3 seconds at this beamline, which makes such an experiment really attractive. | * That the wavelength change only takes 3 seconds at this beamline, which makes such an experiment really attractive. | ||