Dan,
I would say that this points to *exactly* the problem. Why can’t I name my three TOCSY data sets something descriptive and useful like “mix300,” “mix400,” and “mix600” rather than something meaningless like 10, 11, and 12? No one can rationally argue for a naming convention that only allows numbers as a better way to do things. We can (and will) have to live with this limitation, but that doesn’t make it a good system.
Dave Russell
Sr. Scientist; Head, Structure Elucidation Group
Genentech Research and Early Development
1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, CA 94080-4990 <x-apple-data-detectors://0/0>
650 467-9828
> On Oct 26, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Plant,Daniel <dan_at_mbi.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Ken,
> Wouldn’t the suggestion from Clemens satisfy your need to label the dataset. Ie Sample1-1D-TOCSY.
> The beauty of the numbering system is that you may then collect several exps under the same name.
> Ie. Exps 1, 2, 3 might be 3 different mixing times.
>
> My experience has been that the Hotline has always been helpful.
> Best regards,
> Dan
>
>
> From: Kenneth Knott [mailto:kknott_at_vt.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:50 AM
> To: ammrl_at_ammrl.org
> Subject: Re: AMMRL: Bruker folders
>
> Thanks everyone for the suggestions and input.. But I think I've found a correlation. The people who aren't too bothered by the Bruker data system are those using Topspin and it's included browser to process their data.
>
> Unfortunately, many of us process our data off the instrument using alternative means. We, here at Virginia Tech, use Mnova to process our data for a number of reason. The first being we find it to be superior to all others in processing. But also for a number of other reasons.
>
> 1) Users our trained on one processing software package in a multiplatform environment (Mix of Burker and Agilent/Varian sytems)
> 2) NUS processing is included (for free) and far superior (much faster) to Topsim
>
> In any case, when processing outside of Topshim you rely on the file. system to describe your data sets. Here is where Topshim fails miserably...
>
> 1) Exp numbers for folders is wholly undescriptive...
> 2) Even inside the folder, one cannot tell at a glance what the experiment is outside of 1D or 2D
>
> Sure there are ways around this once the data is loaded into Mnova using titles, but Bruker Topspin falls far short in this regard and I'm astonished that you cannot give the experiment folders any kind of descriptor.
>
> Thanks again for the help.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Kenneth Knott <kknott_at_vt.edu <mailto:kknott_at_vt.edu>> wrote:
> So one thing that has always frustrated me about Topspin is that is saves all folders simply by the experimetn number. This gets very difficult to keep track of when I've got a suite of experiments or add to them over time.
>
> It seems to me that there must be a way to alter this to save perhaps by experiment number AND parameter set.. for example 10-C13CPD or 20-PROTONRO, etc...
>
> Can this be done? If not, how do you get around this issue?
>
> I have found the bruker 'hotline' to be less than helpful with issues such as this...
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Ken Knott
> Department of Chemistry
> Analytical Services
> Virginia Tech
>
> (540)267-6502 <tel:%28540%29267-6502> (Cell)
> (540)231-0885 <tel:%28540%29231-0885> (Office)
>
>
>
> --
> Ken Knott
> Department of Chemistry
> Analytical Services
> Virginia Tech
>
> (540)267-6502 (Cell)
> (540)231-0885 (Office)
Received on Tue Oct 27 2015 - 10:40:19 MST