Talk:Fiber diffraction

Untitled
Part of the introduction to this article read like an extended, non-balanced criticism of the entire field, from someone who has taken a personal dislike to it. Statements such as the follow (to only cite the most egregious examples) have no place in an encyclopedia article.

"Crystallographers should take care to remind their audience of the limitations of the results which can be expected from crystallographic researches."

"Then there is the problem that later researches, generally with a higher resolution than earlier work, nevertheless give rise to structures which are interpreted in terms of the earliest structures, themselves based upon poor, or very poor, resolution allowing the identification of very few 'spots'."

"Further, there is a predeliction for structures deduced by computation of x-ray diffraction data to revert to the starting model, so that new structures are not deduced even when the x-ray data would support them." X-ray data tends to be interpreted against the chosen starting model. For example, in the famous x-ray diffraction diagram of B-DNA reported by Franklin & Gosling, and in many other similar diagrams (though not in all), the fourth layer line is often missing. This is normally taken to be a consequence of the starting model, a double helix, and to arise from the relative axial displacement of the so-called "major" and "minor" grooves which allegedly give rise to destructive interference at the fourth layer line. Other possibilities are systematically neglected because "an explanation" is confused here with "the explanation.""

"Crystallographers sometimes seem, temperamentally, to be committed to numerical solution of structural challenges, and thereby to give lesser weight to the results derived from other techniques. By measuring the water content of fibers, for example, it should be possible to compare experimental fiber densities with theoretical values. This is rarely done. A study of "double orientation" in fibers of A-DNA offers fresh insights into the differences between the A form and the B form in which double orientation has never been reported."

Someone with more knowledge of the field needs to clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.203.72 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag, a quick glance suggests that the issues above have long-since been addressed. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiber diffraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070908163254/http://www.mpimf-heidelberg.mpg.de/~holmes/fibre/branden.html to http://www.mpimf-heidelberg.mpg.de/~holmes/fibre/branden.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)