Hi Scott,
That's a pretty amazing use case.
But I'm not sure I understand the issue exactly right. I would have
thought the volume (r**3) was the important physical parameter, and
that a 1000nm particle would dominate the spectra over 3nm particles.
Or is it that you are trying to distinguis
I have a general question for the group.
How do you conduct your LCF fitting routine? Do most people allow Eo to
vary for the standards, or force the weights of all of the combinations to
1? How do people judge a significant improvement to the resulting
goodness of fit parameters?
I am awa
Hi Todd,
Allowing E0 to vary independently for each standard can be problematic. In
some cases, the shapes of the XANES spectra are quite similar, and the main
difference between spectra is the absorption energy. I always determine the
spectra of the standards with the same energy reference (and p
On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Wayne W Lukens Jr wrote:
A more useful way to look at this is that the probabilities that A,
B and C are present are 99.%, 93%, and 77%, respectively.
An excellent post, Wayne, but I don't think that last statement is
quite right. If the F-test gives a p
Another point is that even if the F-test calls out a .1% probability that A
appears just due to noise, that's no guarantee that what looks like A
isn't something else which is "A-like" enough to turn up in the LCF. It's
probably something similar, but need not be exactly A unless
you have s
Hi Scott,
You are correct. That is a much better way to explain it.
Sincerely,
Wayne
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Scott Calvin wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Wayne W Lukens Jr wrote:
>
> A more useful way to look at this is that the probabilities that A, B and C
> are present are 99
Yes; it's a case of trying to distinguish between a few boulders and
lots of pebbles; the total volume isn't the issue.
What I'm looking at is something like surface/volume ratio, but with
"surface" being path-dependent and gradual. For a nearest-neighbor
path, only the top monolayer of ato
