On 05/31/2016 03:34 PM, sb2c08@gmail.com wrote:
This is very helpful thank you. To give a little bit of context, the reaction is a solution of W(CO)6 irradiated at 266nm, to give W(CO)5*, it would be good to find the overall change of CO distance, especially as the multi scattering dominates the EXAFS. Just as a final point, the difference spectrum is taken from the normalised after and before laser spectra, so supposing the difference is fitted directly in Artemis (and coordination number is known/assumed), the amplitude factor will give an indication of the % change, supposing the Debye-Waller factor is similar to the ground state W(CO)6? But normalisation I find is the first difficult issue.
In general specific questions are better than general questions. The way you posed your question initially seemed awfully open-ended and I am always unenthusiastic about open-ended questions. A question about a specific material -- W(CO)6 in your case -- seems much more to the point. Some of us here spend a lot of time trying to intuit what is meant by the questions posed on this list. Specificity is much appreciated. Are you actually asking me whether I think the sigma^2 will be the same for W(CO)5 as for W(CO)6? I truly have no idea. If you have been reading this list for a while, you will note that a lot of us so-called-experts make a big deal out of "interpretation" and "defensible results" and "prior knowledge" and the like. The need for things like "interpretation" and "prior knowledge" is the reason that Artemis (and any program like it) requires a human driver. While EXAFS fitting can be automated for certain kinds of well-defined problems, real research problems are really hard. That's kind of why they are research problems! Setting the W(CO)5 sigma^2 to its ground state value certainly sounds like a reasonable assumption. I am hoping you know a heck of a lot more about the chemistry of your sample than I do -- whether that assumption is defensible is something that you will have to evaluate for yourself. Ultimately, that is how hard data analysis is done -- you make a model, you test the model against the data, and you defend the results. EXAFS never /solves/ structures. Never. I really mean that -- never. But EXAFS analysis can be consistent with your data and part of a defensible story. That's what you're doing here. HTH, B -- Bruce Ravel ------------------------------------ bravel@bnl.gov National Institute of Standards and Technology Synchrotron Science Group at NSLS-II Building 535A Upton NY, 11973 Homepage: http://bruceravel.github.io/home/ Software: https://github.com/bruceravel Demeter: http://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/