Dear Bruce, I recently collected EXAFS data on the *Tris(bipyridine)ruthenium(II) dichloride Ru 2 compound-photosensitizer in solution form. In order to compare EXAFS data to XRD data, I uploaded the XRD coordinates of this crystal structure from cambridge database in a FEFF calculation page in ARTEMIS. I ran FEFF on the x,y and z coordinates of this standard compound in Artemis and summed all paths to compare with my experimental data(collected in solution form in fluorescence mode)* *I have 2 problems* *1) I found a glitch when running FEFF in ARTEMIS. In order to compare XRD coordinates to EXAFS data, I upload the XRD coordinates in a FEFF calculation page, run FEFF and sum all paths. Now* *a) **f I upload the XRD coordinates in a FEFF calculation page without having the EXAFS artemis file present, I get different fits compared to* *b) if I first upload the EXAFS experimental file and then run FEFF on the XRD cartesian coordinates. It seems that **the sum of all paths from the FEFF calculation page tend to mimic the experimental EXAFS file which has first been uploaded and is not a true presentation of how the FT should be.* * * *-Please let me know if this is unclear and I can send you my EXAFS file as well as the XRD coordinates which I obtained from Cambridge structural databse* * * *2) Another problem which I have with my EXAFS data is that I have a peak at 2.5 Angstrom which does not match XRD coordinates and is not present if I run FEFF on XRD coordinates only(true comparison as I don't add the the experimental file in Artemis). Could this peak be due to the Ru standard somehow? All measurements were done in fluorescence mode (F/Io) at 20 K in cryostat using a germanium detector. I simultaneously collected EXAFS measurements on Ru metal standard between Iref and IT ionization chambers.* * * *Thank you for your help,* *Sincerely* *Best Regards* *Dooshaye Moonshiram*