On 21.11.2010 19:00, ifeffit-requ...@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov wrote:
Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to
ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
or, via email,
Dear Jatin,
the optimum mued of 2.x is not just derived by simple photon counting
statistics. As Matt pointed out, for transmission measurements at a
synchrotron beamline in conventional scanning mode this is seldom a
matter. Nevertheless, one should avoid to measure subtle changes of
On 21.11.2010 19:00, ifeffit-requ...@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov wrote:
Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to
ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
or, via email,
On Nov 22, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jatinkumar Rana wrote:
Hi Scott,
Sorry for mixing up the things.
For the case, when i have very limited amount of sample that i can not
cover 1sq.cm area, you, Matt and others have given very very clear
explanation about possible solutions and the probable
Hi all,
I'm tracking down a piece of EXAFS lore which I think is incorrect.
I've seen it said that you cannot compensate for the distortion
introduced by large particle sizes by making the sample thicker.
Certainly thick samples have their own set of issues (e.g. thickness
effects from
I think there is a confusion over what is being averaged. As an example,
consider a layer of particles which are completely opaque, and let's say
that the area fraction is 1/2. If the particles lined up, then the
transmission would be 1/2 for any N, whereas if the layers were random, then
I think you are correct in principle that more layers can reduce the
thickness effect problem. If harmonics were not an issue, eventually if
you pile up enough random layers, the thickness will be uniform.
Whether this is useful in practice is another matter, but suspect it may
not be when
Scott,
I agree with Jeremy and Matthew. Layering very small (compared to an
absorption length) spheres is exactly what powder on tape and mixing
with a low-Z binder do, and that's why these are the preferred methods
for turning a powder into a sample of uniform thickness. If the
spheres are not
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Scott Calvin dr.scott.cal...@gmail.com wrote:
Some follow-up.
This, for example, is from an excellent workshop presentation by Rob
Scarrow:
Errors from large particles are independent of thickness
Yes... one can have a sample that is uniform, or made of small
Hi Yuan, Bruce,
It looks like I need to make a dll with more than 512 paths. I'm
on this, but it might take me a day or so.
--Matt
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bruce Ravel bra...@bnl.gov wrote:
Yuan,
It seems unwise to post a new question at the end of a long and active
thread.
Yuan, All,
I put several Windows dlls for Ifeffit at
http://cars9.uchicago.edu/~ifeffit/src/Win32_dlls/1.2.12/
There are versions there with 256, 512, 1024, and 2048 paths.I
have not tested these beyond loading them, and running a trivial
python script. Please let me know if there are
11 matches
Mail list logo
