On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:00 AM, wrote: 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: amplitude parameter S02 larger than 1 (Anatoly I Frenkel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:57:02 +0000
From: Anatoly I Frenkel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" One possible scenario: If one site has 6 nearest neighbors and the other -
4, and if you choose the site with 4 neighbors to construct FEFF to model
your EXAFS data; and if you set your degeneracy equal to 4 and make your
amplitude factor as S02*x of one site + S02*(1-x) of another site, then
your S02 will come out larger than it should be because it will compensate
for the fact that you underestimate the degeneracy of the 6-coordinated
site. Anatoly ________________________________________
From: ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [
ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] on behalf of
huyanyun@physics.utoronto.ca [huyanyun@physics.utoronto.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:04 PM
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] amplitude parameter S02 larger than 1 Hi Chris, Thank you for your suggestion. But I don't have a standard. Also, I
wonder whether a multiple-site situation could be different from the
normal one-site case with respect to S02. Best,
Yanyun
Quoting Chris Patridge Hi, One thing that could be considered is transferring the SO2 factor
from a reliable source such as a standard and then use that value in
the fit. Chemical transferability of SO2 to similar systems is often
acceptable. You could also try constraining the value in the fit as
well. SO2 and Debye are also correlated so this may also affect the
value. Hope that helps, Chris Sent from my iPhone On Mar 19, 2015, at 6:32 PM, huyanyun@physics.utoronto.ca wrote: Hi all, I know this question has been asked for many times. S02 is expected
to be around, but smaller than 1, a fact that has been explained,
such as in the following previous emails, in our mailing list. http://www.mail-archive.com/ifeffit%40millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/msg02237.htm... http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/2003-February/000230.html However, I am continually get S02 value larger than 1 for a series
of similar samples when I fit data in Artemis. I think my fit is
very good, because my suspected model(based on other technique)
could be verified in XAFS analysis (i.e., defensible in physics),
the statistics is good ( R=0.01, reduced chi-square=31.4,
fit-range:1.5~6 Angstrom, k-range: 3~14 angstrom-1) and all the
parameters such as the bond length, sigma2 are physically
reasonable. The only thing makes me uncomfortable is that parameter
S02 keeps between 1.45 to 1.55 during the fitting. In my system, the absorber atom occupies two crystallographic
sites. So I built a model with paths generated from two FEFF
calculations. For paths generated from the 1st and 2nd FEFF
calculation, the amplitude parameters are set to be S02*P% and
S02*(1-P%) respectively, where P% is the first site occupancy
percentage. Both S02 and P are free parameters during the fit, and
P is an important conclusion I want to extract from XAFS fitting. However, the fit result gives me S02=1.45 ~ 1.55 and P=0.51 ~ 0.56
all the time (i.e., for each path the 'total amplitude' S02*P% or
S02*(1-P%) are about 0.7~0.8, smaller than 1). It looks to me that
I got a 'perfect' fit but I am not sure if S02 larger than one is
defensible. So I have to ask: 1) Is my current fit with S02 larger than one reasonable? If not,
what could be suggested to get around it? 2) What's the meaning of S02? It is interpreted in physics that it
is a reduced electron excitation parameter, but is it possible that
S02 will be affected by any experimental condition? 3) Can anyone share whether you had the multiple site system that
gets S02 larger than one? Looking forward to your help. Best,
Yanyun _______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit _______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit _______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit ------------------------------ _______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit End of Ifeffit Digest, Vol 145, Issue 31
****************************************