I am cutting at R=3.35. I also tried to go up to 4.0 to provide more freedom and to include the SS TM-O at 3.6.
It seems that including MS was not fruitful at the moment. I found the contribution very tiny, Importance < 10. I included the path at 3.6, and it fits well, but when I include the Na, the CN_Na goes to high values (>10) and errors (~+/- 50)
I also tried to restrict the CN of TM to force the Na to take place and get good results. Also useless. I was checking the data in R_real and the TM and Na paths. I see the TM path is in phase while the Na path is not. I wonder if this is affecting the fit. How should I constrain the fitting to solve this situation?
I ran a quick FEFF simulation just to see what is present under that
second peak in the FT.
There are many more shells than just TM and Na...e.g.
There is significant multiple scattering and another backscattering
peak (Fe-O) at
3.6Angstroms. All of these are going to spread underneath that peak
in the FT. You might
also be getting some interference from the 4.07A MS stuff. It
doesn't seem a surprise that
just including TM and Na is giving problems.
What is your high-R cutoff? Have you tried including
multiple-scattering or that 4th backscattering
contribution?
cheers,
Robert
On 2024-01-09 12:06 a.m., Otal Eugenio
wrote:
Dear all,
Happy New Year!
I am dealing with the fitting of NaMn0.3Fe0.4Ni0.3O2 second
shell.
I have Mn, Ni, and Fe at 2.9772Å and Na at 3.1859Å, showing
only one shell. If I use any of the transition metals (dZ
<5) for fitting the second coordination shell. fitting is
fine, but when I introduce the Na path, the fitting has no
sense, CN_Na grows and also its error.
Even including Na, I have Nvary = 10 and Ninp = 13.98, so I am
getting out of ideas and nothing helpful in the ifeffit
Archive until now.
Is there any strategy for dealing with mixed second
coordination shells? I am attaching the file exported from
Larch and the cif file.