Re digital data

Dear all , in reply to Jim's email
		 I too am puzzled by the lack of digital data that has
been published. In contrast to Jim however, I find that the majority
of my users want to use the "log  / biexponential " transform.They find
, and I agree, that the compensation is more intuitive and that all the
data can be seen. Questions that occur to me , which transform ? as
there 're several and are they all equally valid.
It would be useful, to say the least, if there were some consensus on
this , between those who review the data, software suppliers, the people

who set the standards for such things , instrument manufactures and the
originators of these functions( transforms) ! 
I think it extraordinary that this issue is so muddled. Do we wait until
investigators have papers rejected on the basis that the data
representation 
is unacceptable. I think this issue is important and needs to be
addressed so we have a clear idea of the usefulness of this
representation.

thanks

		  ralph

Ralph Rossi
Flow facility Manager
Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute
Melbourne, Australia
email  r.rossi@pmci.unimelb.edu.au