/entry/instrument/detector/{sensor_thickness,sensor_material}

[CV-GPhL]

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.

[yayahjb]

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> .

[graeme-winter]

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