Re: [Ifeffit] Ifeffit Digest, Vol 207, Issue 14

7 May 2020

      Dear all

This is an excellent thread. Just to give some background literature, you will be aware of the calibration of X-ray energies by diffraction (either like Kraft or better accuracy from the NIST group and Dick Deslattes, etc). This remains the best method for beamline calibration, though the mono is usually affected by heatload and detuning to shift the energies. [So you want either a 4-bounce or an analyser 'mono'].

You will also be aware of the International Tables of Crystallography Volume C Section 4.2.2 [Not our XAFS one, Volume I, but the main Physical Tables Volume]. The old issue summarised a lot of details about current known and not-known accuracy of X-ray energies and is embedded in the NIST website, though the original publication[s] Deslattes et al. are in many ways superior. However, Volume C is coming out with a new edition [soon*] and the summary of the known and unknown accuracies and what to do about them is in the new section 4.2.2. It should be available this year, I understand.

Secondly, by far the best edge energy determinations are those of Kraft et al., and these were based around the subset of transition metals and K edges. Most other edges have not been published with an absolute energy measurement, so they really do flop around in the literature. This is a major and important [urgent] task that maybe we can all help with. The issue of stability of lines, crystals etc. is a closely related and important issue.

The issue is compounded at lower energies and for L edges. One of the best current examples is that of the recent Mendenhall et al. publication on copper...

I hope this thread has emphasised the importance of this work and that we would all like more progress in this area

Very best wishes
Chris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Chantler, Professor, FAIP, Fellow American Physical Society
Editor-in-Chief, Radiation Physics and Chemistry
Chair, International IUCr Commission on XAFS; CIT, CCN
IPP, International Radiation Physics Society
School of Physics, University of Melbourne
Parkville Victoria 3010 Australia
+61-3-83445437 FAX +61-3-93474783
chantler@unimelb.edu.auhttps://owa.unimelb.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=c7BoS0kVVkC1_S95-9x9l5cBu6YTjdAITgSrfUpfDAUV5oUH1LFYBcz08w8xvHMJoosZRdagfQM.&URL=mailto%3achantler%40unimelb.edu.au chantler@me.comhttps://owa.unimelb.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=c7BoS0kVVkC1_S95-9x9l5cBu6YTjdAITgSrfUpfDAUV5oUH1LFYBcz08w8xvHMJoosZRdagfQM.&URL=mailto%3achantler%40me.com
http://optics.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~chantler/xrayopt/xrayopt.htmlhttps://owa.unimelb.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=c7BoS0kVVkC1_S95-9x9l5cBu6YTjdAITgSrfUpfDAUV5oUH1LFYBcz08w8xvHMJoosZRdagfQM.&URL=http%3a%2f%2foptics.ph.unimelb.edu.au%2f%7echantler%2fxrayopt%2fxrayopt.html
http://optics.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~chantler/home.htmlhttps://owa.unimelb.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=c7BoS0kVVkC1_S95-9x9l5cBu6YTjdAITgSrfUpfDAUV5oUH1LFYBcz08w8xvHMJoosZRdagfQM.&URL=http%3a%2f%2foptics.ph.unimelb.edu.au%2f%7echantler%2fhome.html

________________________________
From: Ifeffit  on behalf of ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov 
Sent: Friday, 8 May 2020 8:55 AM
To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov 
Subject: Ifeffit Digest, Vol 207, Issue 14

Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to
        ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

You can reach the person managing the list at
        ifeffit-owner@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ifeffit digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Reported W L3-edge and L2-edge energy (Matthew Marcus)
   2. Re: Reported W L3-edge and L2-edge energy (Mike Massey)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 15:17:20 -0700
From: Matthew Marcus 
To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Reported W L3-edge and L2-edge energy
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

For elements like P and S, people often use the energies of peaks.
These are more immune to noise, energy-resolution effects and
overabsorption than inflection points are.  For instance, on ALS 10.3.2,
I used the sulfate peak of gypsum set at 2482.74eV.  I forget where I
got that number.  Going down to soft X-rays, a common convention for the
carbon edge is to use a pair of sharp peaks in CO2 gas at 292.74 and
294.96eV.
        mam

On 5/7/2020 3:09 PM, Mike Massey wrote:
...
Hi Matt,
Indeed, in my experience (which is limited to one beamline at one
synchrotron facility for P XAS), once it is calibrated, the energy
selection tends to be quite stable, so I think you're on-target there.
The trouble I still run into, though, is comparability of data between
studies. The difficulty is magnified by the fact that people tend to
identify certain near-edge features by the energy range at which they
occur. I do the same, of course, but I also try to carefully document
the material and energy I used to calibrate the monochromator.
For the P K-edge, it doesn't really seem like people have settled on a
convention for calibrating the monochromator, unlike in the case of
iron, for example (where one just uses a foil and sets some feature of
that spectrum to their preferred value). If everyone was using the same
thing all would be happy, but most people use different materials and
different values. So datasets for P at the K-edge really aren't too
comparable just yet.
Sorry to hijack the conversation, it's just an issue I've been mulling
over for a few years. The discussion of energy calibration values made
me think of it again.
Best,
Mike
...
On May 8, 2020, at 8:51 AM, Matt Newville 
wrote:
?
Hi Mike,
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:56 PM Mike Massey mailto:mmassey@gmail.com> wrote:
On a tangentially related topic, I find that phosphorus K-edge XAS
    energy calibration conventions are still in a bit of a "Wild West"
    state, with a wide variety of materials and values in use for
    energy calibration. As an extreme example, one or two frequently
    cited papers in my field from the 2000s don't even report the
    material or value used for energy calibration, and only show
    portions of the spectra on an energy axis with values relative to
    an unknown E0.
I have never measured a P K edge, or indeed any edge lower in energy
than the S K edge (ignoring some X-ray raman work).? But if one is
using a Si(111) double-crystal monochromator where P or S is
approximately the low-energy (high-angle) limit, then it really should
be that the calibration does not drift much and cannot be too wrong at
low energies.
That is, a mono calibration is controlled by a d-spacing and angular
offset. Normally (or perhaps, in my experience), "re-calibrating" is
done by changing the angular offset, leaving the d-spacing alone.
That is, the d-spacing is presumably known, at least to within some
thermal drift.
If that is the case that the d-spacing really is not changing and what
needs to be refined is the angular?offset, then setting the offset at
relatively high energy edges will be much more sensitive, and changing
the angular offset to that a high-energy edge is correct should move
lower energy edges by a smaller amount.? ?The corollary is that you
have to move the offset a lot to move the P? K edge around, and that
would have a larger (and ever-increasing) impact on higher energy
edges such as Ca, Fe, Cu or Mo.
The counter-argument is also true:? d-spacing has a bigger effect on
the high-angle / low-energy edges.
So, if you believe the mono d-spacing (or you believe the beamline
scientist who believes it ;)) then calibrate at the highest energy you
can.? ?The Kraft values don't go very low in energy.
All that said, if using a different mono crystal such as InSb or more
exotic crystals, I have no idea how stable those are.
I too have picked my own material and value, and will be the first
    to acknowledge that I did so out of necessity and ease of
    comparison to other available data, rather than because I thought
    it was correct.
The issue of calibration conventions and values definitely seems
    to be one that merits continued discussion. It has been
    interesting to watch things evolve over time in the case of iron,
    for example (it's good to know that 7110.75 is a candidate
    calibration value...) I appreciate Matt's detailed thoughts, and
    the data that he's been working with. Thanks Matt!
Cheers,
Mike
...
On May 6, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Matt Newville
    mailto:newville@cars.uchicago.edu>
    wrote:
?
    Hi Simon,
This is definitely a timely discussion for me, as I've been
    spending part of the quartine?working on collating data and
    expanding datasets for an XAFS spectral database.? I'm hoping to
    have something ready for public comment and to start asking for
    contributions of data in a few weeks, but I'll be happy to have
    more discussion about that sooner too.
I generally believe that the monochromator I use at GSECARS is
    both well-calibrated and reasonably accurate.? That is, with 2
    angular encoders with a resolution of >130,000 lines per degree
    and an air-bearing, I believe the angular accuracy and
    repeatability are very good.? I believe there are equally good
    moons in existence.? ?As Matthew Marcus pointed to the Kraft
    paper (which used an older source but 4-bounce mono to improve
    resolution), we find that Fe foil is definitely?better defined as
    7110.75 and Cu foil is between 8980.0 and 8980.5 eV.? That is,
    we've measured multiple foils, found their first derivatives, and
    refined the d-spacing and angular offset.? We do this about once
    per run, and the offsets tend to be very consistent.? ?For sure,
    there is some question about whether the Kraft numbers are
    perfect.? ?For sure, putting Fe foil at 7110.75?+/- 0.25 eV
    appears to be "most right" to us.
I also believe that we should probably re-measure these metal
    foils (and other compounds) with a single calibration set for
    both Si(111) and Si(311).? We will probably have time to do that
    this summer in the time between "beamline staff can get back to
    the beamline" and "open for outside users".
What I can tell you now is:? I have some data on W metal, WO2,
    and WO3 measured all at the same time on our bending magnet line,
    with Si(111).? An Athena project for this is attached (W.prj).
    ?I cannot vouch for the absolute calibration.
I also attach a set of foils (V, Fe, Cu, Mo) measured with the
    same calibration (and Si(111) on our ID line), after adjusting
    d-space and offset?to be close to the Kraft values
    (CalibratedFoils2013.prj).
I also attach a set of foils (Fe, Cu, Au L3, Au L2, Au L1, Pb L3,
    Pb L2, Pb L1 edges) measured in 2016 (again, using Si(111) on our
    ID line), also with the same calibration values
    (FeCu_Au_Pb.prj).? I'm pretty certain these use the same
    d-spacing as the 2013 Foils to?at least 5 digits.? ?For
    completeness, all of the raw data files are also under
    https://github.com/XraySpectroscopy/XASDataLibrary/tree/master/data
In my experience, the Pb L3 edge value has the biggest variation
    in the literature, with values ranging from 13035 to 13055 eV
    (possibly a typo somewhere along the line).? Fortunately, the
    Kraft-based calibration splits the difference and puts the value
    at 13040 eV.
For W in particular, I will look if I have measured this recently
    on our ID line.? I can tell you that I use CdWO4 as a phosphor
    and use that to focus our X-ray beam.? ?I use this trick all the
    time: any tail from the beam penetrating the phosphor is shortest
    at the peak of the white-line and for CdWO4 that is always
    between 10210 and 10215 eV.
I hope that helps.? I am interested in trying to get all these
    values as accurately as possible, so any comments or suggestions
    would be most welcome.
--Matt
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:14 PM Bare, Simon R
    mailto:srbare@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
All:____
__ __
We are wondering if others agree that the reported values for
        the W L3 and W L2 edges are *incorrect*. We recently noticed
        the following:____
__ __
The ?Edge? ? defined by the inflection point of the
        absorption edge step____
__ __
When using the Ir L_3 edge (11215.0 eV) as a calibration, the
        W L_3 - and L_2 -edges are *10203.4 eV* and *11542.4 eV*,
        respectively. ____
__ __
When using the Pt L_3 edge (11564.0 eV) as a calibration, the
        W L_3 - and L_2 -edges are *10203.3 eV* and *11542.4 eV*,
        respectively.____
__ __
These observations are thus different than the reported
        values of *10207.0 eV* and *11544.0 eV* for the L_3 and L_2
        edges, respectively.____
__ __
Thanks in advance for the discussion and feedback.____
__ __
__ __
Simon R Bare____
/Distinguished Scientist____/
/SSRL, MS69____/
/SLAC National Accelerator Lab____/
/2575 Sand Hill Road____/
/Menlo Park CA 94025____/
__ __
simon.bare@slac.stanford.edu
        mailto:simon.bare@slac.stanford.edu____
Ph: 650-926-2629____
__ __

        ____
__ __
_______________________________________________
        Ifeffit mailing list
        Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
        mailto:Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
        http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
        Unsubscribe:
        http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
--
    --Matt Newville http://cars.uchicago.edu> 630-252-0431

    _______________________________________________
    Ifeffit mailing list
    Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
    mailto:Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
    http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
    Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
_______________________________________________
    Ifeffit mailing list
    Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
    mailto:Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
    http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
    Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
--
--Matt Newville http://cars.uchicago.edu> 630-252-0431
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 10:54:07 +1200
From: Mike Massey 
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit 
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Reported W L3-edge and L2-edge energy
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

I agree Matthew, I also tend to use the primary K-edge peak for P calibration, but one issue to be wary of is attenuation/flattening of the primary peak (if one is using a concentrated sample).

Gypsum sounds like a good material to use for S, since it is commonly available and probably not too variable. My material of choice for P (lazulite) might fail on both counts, so it might be a poor choice.

Mike
...
On May 8, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Matthew Marcus  wrote:
?For elements like P and S, people often use the energies of peaks. These are more immune to noise, energy-resolution effects and overabsorption than inflection points are.  For instance, on ALS 10.3.2, I used the sulfate peak of gypsum set at 2482.74eV.  I forget where I got that number.  Going down to soft X-rays, a common convention for the carbon edge is to use a pair of sharp peaks in CO2 gas at 292.74 and 294.96eV.
   mam
...
On 5/7/2020 3:09 PM, Mike Massey wrote:
Hi Matt,
Indeed, in my experience (which is limited to one beamline at one synchrotron facility for P XAS), once it is calibrated, the energy selection tends to be quite stable, so I think you're on-target there.
The trouble I still run into, though, is comparability of data between studies. The difficulty is magnified by the fact that people tend to identify certain near-edge features by the energy range at which they occur. I do the same, of course, but I also try to carefully document the material and energy I used to calibrate the monochromator.
For the P K-edge, it doesn't really seem like people have settled on a convention for calibrating the monochromator, unlike in the case of iron, for example (where one just uses a foil and sets some feature of that spectrum to their preferred value). If everyone was using the same thing all would be happy, but most people use different materials and different values. So datasets for P at the K-edge really aren't too comparable just yet.
Sorry to hijack the conversation, it's just an issue I've been mulling over for a few years. The discussion of energy calibration values made me think of it again.
Best,
Mike
...
...
On May 8, 2020, at 8:51 AM, Matt Newville  wrote:
?
Hi Mike,
...
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:56 PM Mike Massey mailto:mmassey@gmail.com> wrote:
On a tangentially related topic, I find that phosphorus K-edge XAS
   energy calibration conventions are still in a bit of a "Wild West"
   state, with a wide variety of materials and values in use for
   energy calibration. As an extreme example, one or two frequently
   cited papers in my field from the 2000s don't even report the
   material or value used for energy calibration, and only show
   portions of the spectra on an energy axis with values relative to
   an unknown E0.
I have never measured a P K edge, or indeed any edge lower in energy than the S K edge (ignoring some X-ray raman work).  But if one is using a Si(111) double-crystal monochromator where P or S is approximately the low-energy (high-angle) limit, then it really should be that the calibration does not drift much and cannot be too wrong at low energies.
That is, a mono calibration is controlled by a d-spacing and angular offset. Normally (or perhaps, in my experience), "re-calibrating" is done by changing the angular offset, leaving the d-spacing alone.  That is, the d-spacing is presumably known, at least to within some thermal drift.
If that is the case that the d-spacing really is not changing and what needs to be refined is the angular offset, then setting the offset at relatively high energy edges will be much more sensitive, and changing the angular offset to that a high-energy edge is correct should move lower energy edges by a smaller amount.   The corollary is that you have to move the offset a lot to move the P  K edge around, and that would have a larger (and ever-increasing) impact on higher energy edges such as Ca, Fe, Cu or Mo.
The counter-argument is also true:  d-spacing has a bigger effect on the high-angle / low-energy edges.
So, if you believe the mono d-spacing (or you believe the beamline scientist who believes it ;)) then calibrate at the highest energy you can.   The Kraft values don't go very low in energy.
All that said, if using a different mono crystal such as InSb or more exotic crystals, I have no idea how stable those are.
I too have picked my own material and value, and will be the first
   to acknowledge that I did so out of necessity and ease of
   comparison to other available data, rather than because I thought
   it was correct.
The issue of calibration conventions and values definitely seems
   to be one that merits continued discussion. It has been
   interesting to watch things evolve over time in the case of iron,
   for example (it's good to know that 7110.75 is a candidate
   calibration value...) I appreciate Matt's detailed thoughts, and
   the data that he's been working with. Thanks Matt!
Cheers,
Mike
...
On May 6, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Matt Newville
   mailto:newville@cars.uchicago.edu>
   wrote:
?
   Hi Simon,
This is definitely a timely discussion for me, as I've been
   spending part of the quartine working on collating data and
   expanding datasets for an XAFS spectral database.  I'm hoping to
   have something ready for public comment and to start asking for
   contributions of data in a few weeks, but I'll be happy to have
   more discussion about that sooner too.
I generally believe that the monochromator I use at GSECARS is
   both well-calibrated and reasonably accurate.  That is, with 2
   angular encoders with a resolution of >130,000 lines per degree
   and an air-bearing, I believe the angular accuracy and
   repeatability are very good.  I believe there are equally good
   moons in existence.   As Matthew Marcus pointed to the Kraft
   paper (which used an older source but 4-bounce mono to improve
   resolution), we find that Fe foil is definitely better defined as
   7110.75 and Cu foil is between 8980.0 and 8980.5 eV.  That is,
   we've measured multiple foils, found their first derivatives, and
   refined the d-spacing and angular offset.  We do this about once
   per run, and the offsets tend to be very consistent.   For sure,
   there is some question about whether the Kraft numbers are
   perfect.   For sure, putting Fe foil at 7110.75 +/- 0.25 eV
   appears to be "most right" to us.
I also believe that we should probably re-measure these metal
   foils (and other compounds) with a single calibration set for
   both Si(111) and Si(311).  We will probably have time to do that
   this summer in the time between "beamline staff can get back to
   the beamline" and "open for outside users".
What I can tell you now is:  I have some data on W metal, WO2,
   and WO3 measured all at the same time on our bending magnet line,
   with Si(111).  An Athena project for this is attached (W.prj).      I cannot vouch for the absolute calibration.
I also attach a set of foils (V, Fe, Cu, Mo) measured with the
   same calibration (and Si(111) on our ID line), after adjusting
   d-space and offset to be close to the Kraft values
   (CalibratedFoils2013.prj).
I also attach a set of foils (Fe, Cu, Au L3, Au L2, Au L1, Pb L3,
   Pb L2, Pb L1 edges) measured in 2016 (again, using Si(111) on our
   ID line), also with the same calibration values
   (FeCu_Au_Pb.prj).  I'm pretty certain these use the same
   d-spacing as the 2013 Foils to at least 5 digits.   For
   completeness, all of the raw data files are also under
   https://github.com/XraySpectroscopy/XASDataLibrary/tree/master/data
In my experience, the Pb L3 edge value has the biggest variation
   in the literature, with values ranging from 13035 to 13055 eV
   (possibly a typo somewhere along the line).  Fortunately, the
   Kraft-based calibration splits the difference and puts the value
   at 13040 eV.
For W in particular, I will look if I have measured this recently
   on our ID line.  I can tell you that I use CdWO4 as a phosphor
   and use that to focus our X-ray beam.   I use this trick all the
   time: any tail from the beam penetrating the phosphor is shortest
   at the peak of the white-line and for CdWO4 that is always
   between 10210 and 10215 eV.
I hope that helps.  I am interested in trying to get all these
   values as accurately as possible, so any comments or suggestions
   would be most welcome.
--Matt
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:14 PM Bare, Simon R
   mailto:srbare@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
All:____
__ __
We are wondering if others agree that the reported values for
       the W L3 and W L2 edges are *incorrect*. We recently noticed
       the following:____
__ __
The ?Edge? ? defined by the inflection point of the
       absorption edge step____
__ __
When using the Ir L_3 edge (11215.0 eV) as a calibration, the
       W L_3 - and L_2 -edges are *10203.4 eV* and *11542.4 eV*,
       respectively. ____
__ __
When using the Pt L_3 edge (11564.0 eV) as a calibration, the
       W L_3 - and L_2 -edges are *10203.3 eV* and *11542.4 eV*,
       respectively.____
__ __
These observations are thus different than the reported
       values of *10207.0 eV* and *11544.0 eV* for the L_3 and L_2
       edges, respectively.____
__ __
Thanks in advance for the discussion and feedback.____
__ __
__ __
Simon R Bare____
/Distinguished Scientist____/
/SSRL, MS69____/
/SLAC National Accelerator Lab____/
/2575 Sand Hill Road____/
/Menlo Park CA 94025____/
__ __
simon.bare@slac.stanford.edu
       mailto:simon.bare@slac.stanford.edu____
Ph: 650-926-2629____
__ __

       ____
__ __
_______________________________________________
       Ifeffit mailing list
       Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
       mailto:Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
       http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
       Unsubscribe:
       http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
--     --Matt Newville http://cars.uchicago.edu> 630-252-0431

   _______________________________________________
   Ifeffit mailing list
   Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
   mailto:Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
   http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
   Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit

Ifeffit mailing list
   Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
   mailto:Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
   http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
   Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
--
--Matt Newville http://cars.uchicago.edu> 630-252-0431
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit

Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit

Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit

------------------------------

End of Ifeffit Digest, Vol 207, Issue 14
****************************************