Hi Matthew,
On Aug 13, 2012 10:53 AM, "Matthew Marcus" <mamarcus@lbl.gov> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to simulate EXAFS on a nanoparticle of hydrogen-terminated TiO2, whose atomic coordinates were given to me by a theorist.  For that, I need to average over all Ti atoms, which seems to me is what the CFAVERAGE card is for.  I tried using that per the attached feff.inp file with Jfeff and it doesn't work in the following ways:
> 1.      If I define Ti as ipot 0, then FEFF complains that there is more than one absorbing atom.  Isn't that the point of CFAVERAGE?
> 2.      If I don't do that, and I enter the edit window of jfeff, I find that jfeff takes it upon itself to change my ipot statements so that Ti is 0, without changing the listing in the ATOMS cards.  This is clearly wrong, so I change it back and hit File->Save.
> 3.      Once I get past all that it runs, but I don't get any xmu.dat or other file usable by the plot tool.
> 4.      It runs so quickly that it's obvious it's just computing the EXAFS from one atom, and I don't even know which atom it is, or whether it's even a Ti atom.
>
> It's true that the manual states that CFAVERAGE is "unreliable".  I suppose that's correct in the sense that "not working at all" counts as "unreliable".
>
> Am I doing something stupid?  Is there a way to do what I want to do without having to write a scripting program to do it manually?  Does CFAVERAGE work better (at all) under earlier versions of FEFF?  I was hoping not to have to develop software to perform a task which others have already done.
>         mam

I can't speak for JFeff  -- haven't tried it yet -- but CFAVERAGE was definitely "unreliable-at-best" in earlier incarnations of Feff8.  I think the most obvious expectation (that Feff would go through all atoms of the specified Z as the central atom, build a huge list of Paths, each weighted by 1/Ntotal, where Ntotal is the number of central atoms in the cluster) is not what is implemented.  For me, the coordination numbers always come out as integers, which can't be right in general.

It's been a while since I've tried this, though so perhaps it is fixed.  Then again, your experience sounds like it might not be.

--Matt