Thanks, all!
Here's what I got out of the discussion:
FEFF is calculating the correct chi(k), and applying an approximate
correction introduces additional sources of error. But the only way to
measure chi(k) is to extract it from unnormalized data, and the
original definition of chi was
I apologize if I have abused the list while working on my text. I will
find a different channel for raising these questions and requests once
the current discussion is complete.
--Scott
On Jun 16, 2011, at 8:11 PM, Matt Newville wrote:
Hope that helps.I have to admit I'm a little
HI Scott,
I don't think it's abusing the list to bring up topics of discussion.
I was just noticing that I was finding myself being more reserved in
my answer than if someone had simply asked what's the McMaster
correction and when do I need it?.I haven't looked at your book
chapters partly
Hi all,
I've been pondering the McMaster correction recently.
My understanding is that it is a correction because while chi(k) is
defined relative to the embedded-atom background mu_o(E), we almost
always extract it from our data by normalizing by the edge step. Since
mu_o(E) drops
Scott,
Is this a discussion topic or a feature request? :)
B
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 08:28:18 pm Scott Calvin wrote:
Hi all,
I've been pondering the McMaster correction recently.
My understanding is that it is a correction because while chi(k) is
defined relative to the embedded-atom
