1Y13: Difference between revisions

172 bytes added ,  17 March 2011
Line 665: Line 665:
== Could we do better? ==
== Could we do better? ==
   
   
Yes, of course (as always). I can think of three things to try:
Yes, of course (as always). I can think of four things to try:
* an [[optimization]] round of running xds for the two datasets
* an [[optimization]] round of running xds for the two datasets
* using a negative offset for STARTING_DOSE in XSCALE.INP, as documented in the [[XSCALE]] wiki article.
* using a negative offset for STARTING_DOSE in XSCALE.INP, as documented in the [[XSCALE]] wiki article.
* use MERGE=TRUE in XDSCONV.INP. I tried it and this gives 20 solutions with CCall+CCweak > 25 out of 1000 trials, whereas MERGE=FALSE (the default) gives only 4 solutions!
* adding the "secondparts" data assuming this is a longer wavelength
* adding the "secondparts" data assuming this is a longer wavelength


But this time we learn that one has to take special care of the data in particular when they were measured by someone else who does not tell us everything we need to know. Second, zero-dose extrapolation made the day.
But this time we learn that one has to take special care of the data in particular when they were measured by someone else who does not tell us everything we need to know. Second, zero-dose extrapolation made the day.
2,652

edits