Custom Query (361 matches)


Show under each result:

Results (1 - 3 of 361)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Ticket Resolution Summary Owner Reporter
#48 fixed us_convert issue with solutions Dan demeler

In us_convert, please make sure that all dialogs get populated with the previously selected choices when a run is loaded from a previously saved instance. For example, the solution dialog doesn't show the solutes and buffer and solution item in the listbox when it is loaded. This is OK only for cases where such items have not yet been defined, otherwise every solution, analyte, buffer, rotor, centerpiece, etc that were previously selected should be shown by default.

#5 fixed Table Structures for HPC and Model details Dan, Bruce, Gary demeler

A table structure is needed to accommodate the necessary associations between experimental data (triple), editing profile, data analysis settings for each analysis method, noise files, and models derived from the analyses.

Attached is a draft view of the US-2 structures for the various tables we use in US2 for the HPC details. Please review these and create/update the tables to accommodate the required connections.

#369 wontfix Fit Meniscus Problem Konrad Loehr Konrad Loehr

Dear UltraScan? developers and users,

I have an issue with the Fit Meniscus Function. After performing a 2DSA analysis similar to the Ultrascan III Seminar 10/06/11 (see, the "Fit Meniscus" component of Ultrascan wasn't able to identify a minimum. The fitted curve for the rmsd values was monotonically increasing with radius. So I did a 2DSA analyses to fit the meniscus over almost the top third of the cell. With the same result: The ideal meniscus position is expected at a much too low radius, see pictures (I can hopefully attach after creating the ticket).

Another issue, probably connected to the Meniscus Fit: After converting my Beckman Raw Intensity Data to "Pseudo Absorbance Data", the Absorbance above the meniscus is slightly negative. That makes sense, due to the fact that air has a lower extinction coefficient than water, which is used as reference. But when i look at the video of the ultrascan seminar, you get usually a value around 0, which suggests that water and air have the same extinction coefficient. Why is that?

PS: The data is generated with a Multiwavelength Detector. (I'm working with Johannes Walter at the University of Erlangen on an AUC similar to Helmut Cölfens)

PPS: The dataset from which the pictures are taken is attached as well (0.75 g/L BSA in 25 mmol NaCl? at 55 krpm and 280 nm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Note: See TracQuery for help on using queries.