Contributions from 2 paths
Dear All, I am analyzing Neodymium Oxide with G.I.Feffit. I have two paths and I'm having trouble showing the contributions (chi data, Forward and back Fouirer Transform) to the fit from each path. I ran into a problem with the Sigma2 for the second path, sigma2_2. When I guess sigma2_2 I can print out the individual path contributions to the fit with the fitted parameters factored in. If I define, def ( ), sigma2_2 = sigma2_1 then the path contributions that I try to print out do not have the debye-waller parameters factored in. I have tried the analysis with feffit245 and the path contributions it shows seem be consistent with the fit. So, I figure I must be writing something wrong in my command file. I have attached the fit command files, log files, and contribution graphs for when I guess sigma2_2 and define sigma2_2 = sigma2_1. In the graphs black = data, red = fit, green= contribution from path 2, blue= contribution from path 1. Thanks, Matt McPheeters Dr. Mayanovic's Lab Assistant Missouri State University
Hi Matt,
I am analyzing Neodymium Oxide with G.I.Feffit. I have two paths and I'm having trouble showing the contributions (chi data, Forward and back Fouirer Transform) to the fit from each path. I ran into a problem with the Sigma2 for the second path, sigma2_2.
When I guess sigma2_2 I can print out the individual path contributions to the fit with the fitted parameters factored in. If I define, def ( ), sigma2_2 = sigma2_1 then the path contributions that I try to print out do not have the debye-waller parameters factored in.
Hmm, it seems like the do to me. From sigma2_2=sigma2_1.log it says Variable ... sigma2_1 = 0.00293519 +/- 0.03474220 ... sigma2_2 = 0.00293519 := sigma2_1 Path 1 ... ss2 = 0.002935 Path 2 ... ss2 = 0.002935
I have tried the analysis with feffit245 and the path contributions it shows seem be consistent with the fit. So, I figure I must be writing something wrong in my command file.
The input files look OK to me. There is a concern that your results have very large uncertainties, for example that e0_1 refines to 13.4 +/- 124. I'd guess that starting with a single e0 for the two paths might help. Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the question??? --Matt
participants (2)
-
Matt Newville
-
McPheeters, Matthew