[Ifeffit] Question on GDS values: amp

Nicholas.Tse at csiro.au Nicholas.Tse at csiro.au
Tue Aug 2 05:41:11 CDT 2011


Thank you Dominik, I have had a play around with the data and this model is definitely the better model. Just a sidenote, is the general workflow for fitting XAFS data the following:

Fit first shell and get reasonable Enot and Amp and then make set them, then incrementally add more of the scatter paths and adjust the delR for each path correspondingly. Adjusting degeneracy for atom assuming there are slight differences in the atoms spacing.

I know the question is very trivial but I don't seem to be able to find a general guideline for knowing when the fitting process is over in these type of analysis.

Many thanks,

Nic

-----Original Message-----
From: ifeffit-bounces at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [mailto:ifeffit-bounces at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] On Behalf Of Dominik Samuelis
Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2011 7:15 PM
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Question on GDS values: amp

Dear Nic,

I've had a short look into your Artemis file. First of all, it seems that something's wrong with the Gd2O3 structure data in your feff.inp.

Running feff on your feff.inp gives this error:

  Feff 8.40
  ...
  WARNING:  TWO ATOMS VERY CLOSE TOGETHER.  CHECK INPUT.
  atoms        8      14
     8  2.24848E+00  2.70250E+00  0.00000E+00
    14  2.47549E+00  2.70250E+00  0.00000E+00
  Run continues in case you really meant it.
  WARNING:  TWO ATOMS VERY CLOSE TOGETHER.  CHECK INPUT.
  atoms        9      15
     9 -2.24848E+00 -2.70250E+00  0.00000E+00
    15 -2.47549E+00 -2.70250E+00  0.00000E+00
  Run continues in case you really meant it.
[...]

It seems that all your "Gd2" atoms have a duplicate in your "Gd3" atoms, shifted only by ~0.2 angstroms in either x,y, or z direction.

Looking further at your feff.inp, already your ATOMS input somehow looks
broken:

(your ATOMS list)
  *   Gd    0.25000    0.25000    0.25000  Gd1           1.00000
  *   Gd    0.02100    0.00000    0.25000  Gd2           1.00000
  *   Gd    0.54200    0.00000    0.25000  Gd3           1.00000
  *   O     0.12500    0.12500    0.37500  O1            1.00000
  *   O     0.12500    0.37500    0.37500  O2

(my list, cif file from ICSD, Shuenn et al., J. Chin. Chem. Soc. 57 (2010), 938)

Gd	0.25	0.25	0.25	Gd1	1.000		* (8b position)
O	0.3904	0.1513	0.379	O1	1.000		* (48e position)
Gd	0.9710	0	0.25	Gd2	1.000		* (24d position)

Using this crystal data, I was able to fit your data reasonably well (didn't tweak to make the fit perfect though...) - see attached file!

I've also attached the .cif file that I've used, in case you want to compare with yours.

BTW, enot values of >20 eV shouldn't really happen in any fit.

Best regards,
Dominik


On 02.08.2011 04:42, Nicholas.Tse at csiro.au wrote:
> Thank you all the suggestions.
>
> I believe the ATOM model used is representative of what it should be. I generated the FEFF file from the CIF file from the American Mineralogist X'stal DB. The generated FEFF has the edge L3 that should be fine. A simple summation of the scatter paths does roughly produce the pattern for the sample, except for the amplitudes.
>
> The enot was found to be 53.8995 +/- 2.7632.
>
> I have also included the .prj and .apj files for your inspection.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nic
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ifeffit mailing list
> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit


--
Dr. Dominik Samuelis
d.samuelis at fkf.mpg.de
Max-Planck-Institut für Festkörperforschung Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research Heisenbergstr. 1
70569 Stuttgart
Germany
Phone +49-711-689-1769
Fax   +49-711-689-1722
Web   http://www.fkf.mpg.de/maier/




More information about the Ifeffit mailing list