Hi all,
Thank you very much Scott for your not slow answer and sorry for my very slow
one.
I think my system is a little bit complicated. I have bimetallic catalysts
(PtSn)
and I did fits supposing two different structures but I do not know the relative
proportion of these two structures. In
Hi Juan,
Without getting too much into detail, the trick
is to introduce constraints that seem physically
reasonable and see what happens. This requires
you to use the a priori information you have
about your system; i.e. the information you have
from non-EXAFS theory or experiment.
Hi Juan,
Sorry for the slow response; the end of the term gets busy for me!
I think there are still some loose ends in this
discussion that are worth trying to tie up:
At 03:03 PM 12/11/2006, you wrote:
First of all, I would like to thanks Anatoly for his file and everybody for
useful
, December 12, 2006 12:25 PM
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] CN and bond distances in Artemis
Hi Matt,
Thank you very much for your comments. S02 is a variable for me and it gives
information about the size of the particles (related to coordination
number). For
instance
Hi Anatoly,
Sorry very much Anatoly, you are right, I only told you low values for S02 but I
did not give any value to you. Which is the minimum reasonable coordiantion
number
in a fcc structure?
Yes, I assumed a fixed value of 12 for N and I left S02 as variable. I realize
that my fault was to
Hi all,
First of all, I would like to thanks Anatoly for his file and everybody for
useful comments. I have analysed Anatoly's data and I have obtained a good value
for S02 = 0.85 or 0.82 (depending on the number of variables used). So, my data
is the problem, and it is not my analysis, but
Juan:
For S02 from fluorescence measurements or data collected at other
times/beamlines, etc,
I would ask what purpose this S02 is serving in your analysis. I'd
guess that you do the normal thing of fixing this value for several
paths and then float the coordination numbers so that
amp =
Hi all,
I did fits with self absorption corrected data (Fluo and Booth algorithms) and
the
value for S02 is 1.20 (0.30). It seems that I am not very lucky, if I take an
average value (1.20 and 0.50), it should be ok (0.85) jeje, I am joking.
Then...what can I do now?
Thank you very much,
I would remeasure Pt foil in transmission, by all means.
Anatoly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Juan
Antonio Macia Agullo
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:32 PM
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] CN and bond
chances?
Anatoly
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Marcus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] CN and bond distances in Artemis
I imagine somebody has done so and would be willing to provide
analysis, since your foil EXAFS acts up.
Anatoly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Juan Antonio
Maciá Agulló
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:03 PM
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit
Subject: [Ifeffit] CN and bond distances in Artemis
Hi all,
I
Hi Juan,
You're saying you have that low a value of S02
for a bulk platinum standard? Anatoly's
right...you'd better figure out why before you
continue. But one piece of advice I have: for a
simple crystalline standard like platinum, by all
means fit more than one coordination shell (with
] CN and bond distances in Artemis
Hi Juan,
You're saying you have that low a value of S02
for a bulk platinum standard? Anatoly's
right...you'd better figure out why before you
continue. But one piece of advice I have: for a
simple crystalline standard like platinum, by all
means fit more
13 matches
Mail list logo
