Dear Juan Antonio, I personally feel that adding phase correction to the XAFS FT is highly desirable, and I encouraged its implementation in Athena. The reasons are the following: 1) Peaks in non-phase corrected FT are substantially in error. 2) The non-linearity of the phase shifts in high-Z materials leads to multiple-peaks, thus blurring the FT. 3) Theoretical phase shifts are good enough that adding phase correction tends to correct the peak positions and the problems due to non-linearities. 4) Adding phase correction does no-harm to the fits. That is, one gets the same results whether or not phase correction is included. 5) Adding phase correction gives a FT which can be more easily interpreted "by eye", that is the peaks have a more physical interpretation. On the contrary, non-phase corrected FTs can be mis-interpreted. Overall, my view is that the phase correction is like a prescription lens which gives a sharper image. While the image may not be perfect, at least it's generally much superior to the non-phase corrected FT. J. Rehr On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Juan Antonio [iso-8859-1] Maci� Agull� wrote:
Hi all,
I have read Phase corrected Fourier transforms in Athena manual and now I have a big doubt, �phase correction or not in a publication?
I have read also that this correction is different (more complete) in Artemis and I am not sure if I should correct also in Artemis and which path should I use and why.
I saw many papers dealing with EXAFS fits and they showed a "calculated" bond distance, I think it is: d = Reff + deltaR, right?
I also ask for a paper where I can find that deltaE is ok (even for high-Z backscatterers) if deltaE < 10eV.
I have high correlations between ss and SO2, and deltaR and deltaE. I tried different fits but I can not eliminate them, then...is the fit wrong?
Sorry for these easy questions but I am a novice in XAFS.
Thank you very much.
Best regards, JA