2QVO.xds: Difference between revisions

1,616 bytes added ,  14 March 2011
Line 164: Line 164:


===dataset 2===
===dataset 2===
This works exactly the same way as dataset 1. The table in CORRECT.LP is
This works exactly the same way as dataset 1. The geometry refinement is surprisingly bad:
REFINED PARAMETERS:  DISTANCE BEAM ORIENTATION CELL AXIS                 
USING  49218 INDEXED SPOTS
STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPOT    POSITION (PIXELS)    1.78
STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPINDLE POSITION (DEGREES)    0.15
CRYSTAL MOSAICITY (DEGREES)    0.218
DIRECT BEAM COORDINATES (REC. ANGSTROEM)  0.002198 -0.000174  0.526311
DETECTOR COORDINATES (PIXELS) OF DIRECT BEAM    1991.28  2027.42
DETECTOR ORIGIN (PIXELS) AT                    1984.09  2027.99
CRYSTAL TO DETECTOR DISTANCE (mm)      126.03
LAB COORDINATES OF DETECTOR X-AXIS  1.000000  0.000000  0.000000
LAB COORDINATES OF DETECTOR Y-AXIS  0.000000  1.000000  0.000000
LAB COORDINATES OF ROTATION AXIS  0.999979  0.002580 -0.006016
COORDINATES OF UNIT CELL A-AXIS  -31.728    -7.177  -42.595
COORDINATES OF UNIT CELL B-AXIS    40.575    13.173  -32.443
COORDINATES OF UNIT CELL C-AXIS    11.394  -39.576    -1.819
REC. CELL PARAMETERS  0.018658  0.018658  0.024258  90.000  90.000  90.000
UNIT CELL PARAMETERS    53.595    53.595    41.224  90.000  90.000  90.000
E.S.D. OF CELL PARAMETERS  1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.7E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
SPACE GROUP NUMBER    75
with its large "STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPOT POSITION (PIXELS)" which may indicate a slipping crystal, or changing cell parameters due to radiation damage. However no indication of any of this is found in the repeated refinements listed in INTEGRATE.LP, so we do not know what to attribute this problem to!
 
The main table in CORRECT.LP is


       NOTE:      Friedel pairs are treated as different reflections.
       NOTE:      Friedel pairs are treated as different reflections.
Line 190: Line 212:
  NUMBER OF UNIQUE ACCEPTED REFLECTIONS                13738
  NUMBER OF UNIQUE ACCEPTED REFLECTIONS                13738


Dataset 2 is definitively better than dataset 1.
Dataset 2 is definitively better than dataset 1. Note that the number of misfits is more than 2.5% whereas one should expect about 1% (with WFAC1=1).


==SHELXC/D/E structure solution==
==SHELXC/D/E structure solution==
2,652

edits