It is very hard to measure or to calculate absolute absorption data,
especially in the
vicinity of the absorption edges and especially in the soft x-ray
region. Therefore there
are significant differences between the tables and I think nobody knows
which
are better.
Chantler, for example, says
I'm not after absolute data, just the edge-jump ratio. This would have to be
extracted by peak+arctan fitting because any spectra will have peaks and a very
limited
range between edges. If the Chantler numbers are incorrect, then perhaps the
edge-jump ratio is really 2.
Do you have a
OK. Now I get it. Why use 50eV? Since lifetime and other broadening is not
taken into acocunt in any of these tables, why not use a very small number?
mam
On 9/24/2015 11:07 AM, Bruce Ravel wrote:
On 09/24/2015 01:43 PM, Matthew Marcus wrote:
See the attached ppt for the demo. I
Hi Matthew,
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthew Marcus wrote:
> OK, at least we've come to convergence about what 'edge jump' means in
> this context.
>
> Do you think the Elam value for (mu(+)-mu(-))_L3/(mu(+)-mu(-))_L2 is
> correct?
>
Well, I don't really know.
What I was after was L3/L2, so I don't care about L1. The attached plot
doesn't show the jumps for both L2 and L3.
When you say that the edge jumps are 5.8,1.4 and 1.1, are you referring to
mu(+)/mu(-)? I was looking for (mu(+)-mu(-))_L3/(mu(+)-mu(-))_L2.
What about that seeming
Pedro,
I believe you can learn a lot from Bruce's video lectures, see
http://www.diamond.ac.uk/Beamlines/Spectroscopy/Techniques/XAS.html
The peak at 1A is due to your improper background removal. After you see
Bruce's lectures, you will be one step closer to be an XAFS expert.
Good luck!