This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

Hi Chris,

Multiple scattering can be quite important, particularly in systems with higher local symmetry
(i.e. focused multiple scattering - many equivalent paths). It occurs along with back-scattering,
so you should include the Fe-N1 path. Conveniently, you can constrain the MS path based on
the back-scattering - i.e. the MS distance is dependent on the back-scatter distances and
scattering angle...you can also constrain the msrd (e.g. add in quadrature).

Prof. Dr. Thorsten Ressler's program "WinXAS" has the constraints as options built in...very convenient.

cheers,
-R.

On 2024-04-02 4:18 p.m., Chris Pollock wrote:

Hi everyone, I've been using Artremis for quite a while, but have only recently come across a case where the inclusion of multiple scattering seems to be important for fitting some data and wanted to ask what is probably a super basic question

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi everyone,

I've been using Artremis for quite a while, but have only recently come across a case where the inclusion of multiple scattering seems to be important for fitting some data and wanted to ask what is probably a super basic question to make sure I don't mess anything up.

I've recently collected some data on a metalloenzyme with a quite histidine-rich active site and, since it's been shown previously that multiple scattering is important for fitting the longer range scattering for these types of systems, I wanted to make sure I capture this in my Artemis fits. The data appear to show scattering contributions from N3, C2, and N1 in the imidazole ring, and FEFF seems to agree that those paths are the most important, though it calculates the MS intensity to be significantly greater than the single scattering for the farther N (N1). So, my super naive question is: To include multiple scattering paths in the fits--say, the Fe-N3-N1 triangle--is it correct to include the Fe-N3-N1 multiple scattering path in addition to the Fe-N3 and Fe-N1 single scattering paths, or would that effectively be double counting the farther nitrogen (N1)?

Thanks in advance!
_______________________________________________
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