You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hearing no objection (or support) for either alternative I propose to
follow the general trend towards simplifying on required,
I propose to go with option B.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 3:37 AM CV-GPhL ***@***.***> wrote:
Two alternatives:
*[A]* /entry/instrument/detector/sensor_thickness should become *required*
if /entry/instrument/detector/sensor_material (recommended) is given.
*[B]* *Both* /entry/instrument/detector/sensor_material and
/entry/instrument/detector/sensor_thickness become *required*.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABB6EANLUH7BICTII6OP37TQUOQVHA5CNFSM4JO7XQP2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4H2IUUFQ>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABB6EAIFUOOEEWC6PY4JKHLQUOQVHANCNFSM4JO7XQPQ>
.
Would suggest A + alternative that if they are not present we infer that the detector is made of a perfect material which absorbs the photons within a negligible thickness. I can see this being relevant for e.g. simulated data where you have not simulated the detector effects.
Yes, I recognise that in real life all detectors are made of something and must have a thickness > 0
Two alternatives:
[A] /entry/instrument/detector/sensor_thickness should become required if /entry/instrument/detector/sensor_material (recommended) is given.
[B] Both /entry/instrument/detector/sensor_material and /entry/instrument/detector/sensor_thickness become required.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: