Hi Bruce,
Thanks a lot for looking into this. at least i know I'm not going crazy.
But yes, if it might be relevant i'm on a machine running windows 7.
I appreciate your feedback regarding my fitting model, I was playing around
with the fit and trying to minimize the amount of variables, and this was
the best I got. I'll take into account your suggestions and revisit my fit
(i had set it aside after difficulties of trying to import it into the
newer version of Artemis).
Look forward to hearing what causes the differences between versions and
even operating systems!
thanks,
georges
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Bruce Ravel
On Monday, May 13, 2013 04:19:05 PM Bruce Ravel wrote:
I agree that the fits are being evaluated slightly differently in the old and new versions of the code. As you say, best fit values and statistical parameters are somewhat different. I am not sure I agree that they are "nowhere near similar", but the disrepancy is much larger than a mere numerical difference. I am not yet clear what is going on, but I am looking into it.
More info: the behavior on my linux machine is differnt from Windows. The difference in the fit result is subtle on Linux and quite enormous on Windows. I am not sure which part of that confuses me more.
I'll keep looking into it.
B
--
Bruce Ravel ------------------------------------ bravel@bnl.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology Synchrotron Methods Group at NSLS --- Beamlines U7A, X24A, X23A2 Building 535A Upton NY, 11973
Homepage: http://xafs.org/BruceRavel Software: https://github.com/bruceravel _______________________________________________ Ifeffit mailing list Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit