The amplitude parameter is N*S02, so that S02 and N are completely
correlated. If you
set N = 2
guess S02 = 0.8
and the fit returns
S02 = 0.75 +/- 0.05
Then the correct interpretation is that
N*S02 = 2*(0.75 +/- 0.05) = 1.5 +/- 0.10
If you had asserted that S02 = 0.75 and vary N, then you should get
N = (1.5 +/- 0.10) / 0.75 = 2 +/- 0.13333
The uncertainty in S02 and N cannot be separated for a single
spectrum. The most common approach is to assert that S02 depends on
X-ray energy resolution (beamline setup) and absorbing atom, and use a
constant value for S02 derived from spectra from samples with a
well-known coordination environment (a "standard").
--Matt
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:22 AM, pushkar shejwalkar
<pshejwalkar2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> I have seen and also been told by few professors that when you
> report the fitting you must report the uncertainty associated with the
> measurement as evaluated by the program used for the fitting.
> Now, When I do the fitting I typically get the +/- values for E0, delR, ss
> and SO2. However, the N value we always put either 1,2 or such whole
> integers. Is there any way to find out the uncertainty associated with the
> coordination number (N used in XAFS equation)?
> If so how to find such uncertainty? can we see this in the log file
> generated after the fitting is over?
> Thank you very much for the help
>
> Best Regards,
> Pushkar Shejwalkar.
> Post-doctoral -Researcher,JSPS Fellow
> Hokkaido University,
> Sapporo,
> Japan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ifeffit mailing list
> Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
>
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
