[Quick note: I am also giving a talk at ESRF next week, on the 3rd of December, in the Science Building Seminar Room 035 at 15:00] Two of you have informed me of amazing work published last week. You may remember that we briefly mentioned 3D SAXS a while ago here, of which a more detailed write-up is still to follow. The added information content in a full 3D scattering pattern should be quite interesting, and would allow f.ex. the testing of the MC method in three dimensions, as opposed to the two demonstrated here. Now the ante has been upped by two (somewhat related) groups, having combined 3D scattering pattern reconstruction with computed tomography. This gives you spatially resolved three-dimensional scattering patterns, i.e. a 3D scattering pattern for each three-dimensional voxel in space.
Next week Thursday I will be giving a talk at Diamond, courtesy of Nick Terrill, entitled: “Everything SAXS: Making Sense of the Soup”. This will be the first time that I will be starting the day by catching a ridiculously early flight, so fingers crossed that it will go well. If you would like to come and hear me talk about small-angle scattering and the metrology aspect in particular, please do come over from 14:00 to 15:00 in room G59. See you there!
[note: The commenting system appears to be broken for now. Comments can be e-mailed to me for inclusion below. Sorry for the inconvenience while I work on a fix] Tomorrow, I will be giving a talk at the PTB (at BESSY), rendering my time rather limited. To give you something to tide over the week until the next post, however, let me tell you a little about the upcoming feature of McSAS: slit-smearing.
This short investigation was prompted by the instrument here at BAM and the associated Anton Paar software. The software determines the beam center behind the transparent beamstop, apparently based on a polynomial fit through (just) four datapoints. This means that the beam center can vary a bit from measurement to measurement, typically on the order of fractions of a pixel. We then set out to quantify just how much that, as well as the finite pixel width, would affect our size determination. Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation…