![[HTML version]](/e/graphics/htmlborder.gif)
![[PDF version]](/e/graphics/pdfborder.gif)
![[Article Abstract]](/e/graphics/abstractborder.gif)
![[CIF]](/e/graphics/cifborder.gif)
![[3d view]](/e/graphics/3dviewborder.gif)
![[Structure Factors]](/e/graphics/structurefactorsborder.gif)
![[Buy article online]](/logos/buy.gif)
![[Contents scheme]](ob6133contents.gif)
Acta Cryst. (2002). E58, m347-m348 [ doi:10.1107/S160053680201053X ]
3N)vanadium(IV)Online 21 June 2002
No syntax errors found ADDSYM reports no extra symmetryAlert Level B:
ABSTM_02 Alert B The ratio of expected to reported Tmax/Tmin(RR') is < 0.75 Tmin and Tmax reported: 0.480 0.920 Tmin' and Tmax expected: 0.832 0.894 RR' = 0.560 Please check that your absorption correction is appropriate.
| Author response: The absorption corrections were applied using SADABS. |
REFLT_03
From the CIF: _diffrn_reflns_theta_max 25.44
From the CIF: _reflns_number_total 2167
TEST2: Reflns within _diffrn_reflns_theta_max
Count of symmetry unique reflns 2478
Completeness (_total/calc) 87.45%
Alert B: < 90% complete (theta max?)
| Author response: High angle data were lost due to the twinning within the crystal. Perhaps a resolution cutoff at 0.9 \%A should have been applied. |
SYMMS_02 Alert B All angles should not be 90 for a monoclinic cell Cell 13.6069 7.7759 12.6586 Angles 90.0000 90.0000 90.0000
| Author response: We believe that the real \b is somewhere between 89.9 and 90.1\%. However, due to twinning, the angle is indistinguishable from 90\%. |
Alert Level C:
GOODF_01 Alert C The least squares goodness of fit parameter lies outside the range 0.80 <> 2.00 Goodness of fit given = 0.718
0 Alert Level A = Potentially serious problem
3 Alert Level B = Potential problem
1 Alert Level C = Please check
Copyright © International Union of Crystallography
IUCr Webmaster