Hi Troels,
For sanity reasons, what happens if you divide the maximum relax_time
by 2.0? Do you see exactly the same result as would be expected?
Regards,
Edward
On 22 August 2014 14:53, <tlinnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Author: tlinnet
Date: Fri Aug 22 14:53:25 2014
New Revision: 25218
URL: http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/relax?rev=25218&view=rev
Log:
Fix for time not extracted for CPMG experiments in target_function-
bug #22461(https://gna.org/bugs/?22461): NS R1rho 2-site_fit_r1 has
extremely high chi2 value in systemtest
Relax_disp.test_r1rho_kjaergaard_missing_r1.
Modified:
trunk/target_functions/relax_disp.py
Modified: trunk/target_functions/relax_disp.py
URL:
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/relax/trunk/target_functions/relax_disp.py?rev=25218&r1=25217&r2=25218&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- trunk/target_functions/relax_disp.py (original)
+++ trunk/target_functions/relax_disp.py Fri Aug 22 14:53:25 2014
@@ -325,6 +325,8 @@
cpmg_frq = cpmg_frqs[ei][mi][oi][di]
# Missing data for an entire field
strength.
+ relax_time =
max(relax_times[ei][mi][oi][di])
+
if isNaN(relax_time):
power = 0
_______________________________________________
relax (http://www.nmr-relax.com)
This is the relax-commits mailing list
relax-commits@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, get a password
reminder, or change your subscription options,
visit the list information page at
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-commits
Re: r25218 - /trunk/target_functions/relax_disp.py