[Ifeffit] Is it legitimate to merge transmission data with fluorescence data?

Dear XAFS community members, I have a question concerning data merge. We normally collect XAFS data in both transmission mode and fluorescence mode. We normally have to merge a few scans to enhance signal-to-noise ratio. For one particular sample, I want to know if it is legitimate to merge its tra

Re: [Ifeffit] Is it legitimate to merge transmission data with fluorescence data?

On Monday 10 August 2009 06:13:32 pm jrkiz...@ncsu.edu wrote: > Dear XAFS community members, > I have a question concerning data merge. We normally collect XAFS data in > both transmission mode and fluorescence mode. We normally have to merge a > few scans to enhance signal-to-noise ratio. For one

Re: [Ifeffit] Is it legitimate to merge transmission data with fluorescence data?

Dear Fiona, I think it would be pretty unusual for transmission and fluorescence data measured at the same time to be of comparable quality and both be "noisy-but-good-enough" that merging would actually help. Are you sure that the data a similar enough (no pinhole or self-absorption effects) tha

Re: [Ifeffit] Is it legitimate to merge transmission data with fluorescence data?

Dear All, Just picking up on Bruce's point about self-absorption. If you are using Viper , I know that there is a way of correcting the measured fluorescence data for self-absorption. This correction is based on work by Tro"ger