Bruce, Thanks for the advice. I've run through the list, redone processing and started the analysis with said list in mind, and the most plausible solution is that I shouldn't be using a crystalline material for the FEFF calculation. One interesting thing (at least to my untrained eye) to note is that the shapes of the first path and the peak that I'm trying to fit (this is before any attempt at fitting) are nearly identical, but the FEFF path is shifted about 2~3 angstroms higher than the peak. The only improvement that I could muster is that the e0 variable has gone down from 80 to 50. -Dave Baker ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- North Carolina State University Dept. of Physics 2700 Stinton Dr. Box 8202 Raleigh, NC 27695 Ph: 919-515-5017 Fax:919-515-7331 email: dabaker@unity.ncsu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- On Tuesday 28 October 2003 11:00 pm, Dave Baker wrote:
I am a novice student in the EXAFS world, and I am starting to work my way through Athena and Artemis. Currently, I'm working with amorphous GeTe and the Atoms/FEFF runs are based on the crystalline data. I have performed a fit in Artemis of the Ge K edge, and my e0 for three contributing paths is exceedingly large, (-70 ~ -80 volts). Two questions: 1.) What symptom is this an indicator of, and 2.) What are some possible solutions?
Hi Dave, Glad to see you were able to get started using the software after that very short conversation we had at X11A a couple weeks ago. I have seen this effect on occassion when, for some silly reason, I have made the Feff calculation using the wrong edge (i.e. K instead of L3 or vice versa). Another possible indication of an absurdly large e0 shift might be if the distances between atoms in the feff calculation are very different than the distances between atoms in the real material. That is, if the material used in the feff calculation is a very poor approximation of the real material. Another possibility that occurs to me from the way you phrased your question is that you are allowing e0 to float independently for each path. That's almost certainly not physically supportable. At least as a first stab at theproblem, you should use the same e0 for each path. One thing you might try is to not allow everything to vary in the fit. Try fixing e0 to be something sensible -- like 0.0. Vary all the rest of the parameters to get a sense of how the parameters behave and how well they describe the data. This sort of manual examination of the parameter space might help give you a clue of why you are getting such an odd result. HTH, B