Hi Sebastian, Is I0 the same for all measurements? Mu being about the same jump just means that about the same amount of absorber is in the beam. It doesn't rule out an instrumentation issue. Start by checking I0, then It. Identify where the
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Sebastian,
Is I0 the same for all measurements? Mu being about the same jump
just means that about
the same amount of absorber is in the beam. It doesn't rule out an
instrumentation issue.
Start by checking I0, then It. Identify where the noise is
manifesting.
-R.
On 2024-04-29 5:17 a.m., Sebastian
Kunze wrote:
Greetings, I recently did in-situ QEXAFS at Ag K-edge, expecting
to see structure loss starting from crystalline (metallic)
state. While we can see that, in addition we also see an
increase in noise(?) in the xanes region (compare start and
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Greetings,
I recently did in-situ QEXAFS at Ag K-edge,
expecting to see structure loss starting from crystalline
(metallic) state. While we can see that, in addition we also
see an increase in noise(?) in the xanes region (compare
start and end in the attached image). I am confused by this
because the amount of material did not change, so I did not
expect a difference in the signal/noise ratio at the
absorption edge. And it is reproducible across several
samples, so not instrument related. Could anyone point me in
the right direction as to what I am missing?
Thank you!
Best,
Sebastian Kunze
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit