> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:11:03 -0400
> From: bravel@bnl.gov
> To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Inconsistency of the amplitude reduction factor
>
> On 09/18/2014 08:20 AM, HOON Kim wrote:
> > I'd like to be more specific about my obtained results,
> >
> > At reference state (that means without any applied current), the
> > amplitude reduction factor was 0.77
> > At 20% charge, it was 0.67
> > 40% charge = 0.66
> > 60% charge = 0.63
> > 80% charge = 0.68
> > full charge = 0.67
>
> My other comment on this thread is that you are not being specific
> enough. Without error bars, it is not possible to interpret those
> numbers in any physically meaningful way. Similarly, without knowing
> the uncertainty, it is hard for us to comment substantively on your
> question.
>
> I would imagine that, given the likely size of your error bars, 0.63 and
> 0.68 are not different results. In fact, it is possible that 0.63 and
> 0.77 are not different in any defensible way. That may be yet more
> likely given the possibility of systematic error due to changes in
> morphology -- which would not be properly captured in the statistical
> error bars -- as I mentioned in my last post.
>
> Remember: ALWAYS cite error bars with numbers from a fit!
>
> B
>
>
> --
> Bruce Ravel ------------------------------------ bravel@bnl.gov
>
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> Synchrotron Science Group at NSLS --- Beamlines U7A, X24A, X23A2
> Building 535A
> Upton NY, 11973
>
> Homepage: http://bruceravel.github.io/home/
> Software: https://github.com/bruceravel
> Demeter: http://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/
> _______________________________________________
> Ifeffit mailing list
> Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit