On 01/30/2017 04:31 PM, Fuxiang Zhang wrote:

Dear all, I am new for XAS analysis and now working on solid solution alloys with EXAFS measurements. Here are some general questions about EXAFS fitting that may need your help.

1. In NiCoCr alloys, I always get obvious smaller ss for the pairs of Ni-Cr or Co-Cr than Ni-Co (0.002 vs 0.008-0.011), when measuring the K-edge of Ni and Co, does it suggest that Cr is favorably bonded with Ni and Co?

Possibly, but I'd be skeptical. That sort of alloy is not one of the strengths of XAFS. The backscattering amplitudes of elements close in Z number are pretty similar, making it difficult in a numerical sense to distinguish them. Z-numbers that differ by only 3 or 4 are very hard to distinguish in XAFS. As a result, I would expect uncertainties on your sigma2 values to be rather large. I would also expect correlations between the various amplitude and sigma2 parameters to be high. As a result, I think you would have trouble making a strong and defensible argument. I would certainly be a skeptical reviewer of a manuscript claiming this unless it had a very compelling argument backed up by strong data from another measurement or from theory.

2. In order to get the bond length of different pairs in binary AB system, can I use formula alpha1*Reff and alpha2*Reff to refine the length of pairs of A-A, A-B (simple cubic symmetry)?

The "alpha*reff" thing is a way of expressing all the DeltaR parameters of a purely cubic crystals using a single parameter. That is the only situation in which that formula is, strictly speaking, applicable. https://speakerdeck.com/bruceravel/discussion-of-the-fes2-exafs-analysis-exa... It is a mistake to think that there are magical formulas that can be memorized to make EXAFS analysis easy. No such things exist. Every way of parameterizing the terms in your EXAFS analysis in Artemis must be defensible in the context of the model you are using to try to understand your data. What I mean by defensible is that you can explain to the reviewer of a paper or to a member of your thesis defense jury why the fitting model is reasonable, why you chose to use that parameterization, and how that model helps to answer the scientific question without introducing an unsupportable approximation or some other form of systematic uncertainty. So, the answer to your specific question is "Maybe".

3. The selection of k range in Fourier transformation Parameters seems to have some effect on the fitting results, how to select the range in order to get reasonable results.

This has been discussed plenty in recent months on this mailing list and Scott discussed it at some length in his book. Executive summary: include /data/ in the FT range, not noise. If the measurement is dominated by statistical or systematic uncertainty after some value of k, don't use that part of the measurement. HTH, B

Many thanks

Fuxiang Zhang

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Bruce Ravel ------------------------------------ bravel@bnl.gov National Institute of Standards and Technology Synchrotron Science Group at NSLS-II Building 743, Room 114 Upton NY, 11973 Homepage: http://bruceravel.github.io/home/ Software: https://github.com/bruceravel Demeter: http://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/