[Ifeffit] (no subject)

[Christopher Patridge]

Zhaomo,

I suspect that you have jumped right into EXAFS.  You should really make 
use of the numerous resources available to get a better handle on data 
analysis.  You would make far better progress in EXAFS than waiting 
around for answers here.

Chris

********************************
Christopher J. Patridge, PhD
NRC Post Doctoral Research Associate
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375
Cell: 315-529-0501

On 1/4/2013 3:48 AM, Zhaomo Tian wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I try to analyze EXAFS data(Cu k-edge was probed) of bare Cu thin film 
> and Cu thin film with CO gas adsorption. However, before the fitting, 
> I found that the first main peak of bare Cu thin film appears at R 
> around 2.2 angstrom, but the nearest neighbor distance of Cu is 
> actually at R around 2.5 angstrom, are there something wrong with my 
> data or is it a normal phenomenon? And when I tried phase correction 
> in Athena or used FEFF calculated 1st path for phase correction in 
> Artemis, the peak became closed to R=2.5 angstrom, which seemed more 
> reasonable. But I guess phase correction is not a necessary process, 
> then what should I do to make the 1st main peak position consistent 
> with the right value?
>
> I also attached other 3 data for CO adsorbed Cu(Cu 1do CO, Cu 2do CO 
> and Cu 5do CO. 1do, 2do and 5do mean that the incident angle of X-ray 
> on sample is 1°, 2° and 5° ), Cu is 300nm thickness thin film 
> deposited on SiO2/Si, and CO was injected through the whole 
> measurement and adsorbed on the Cu surface. Unfortunately, the data 
> for Cu 5do with and without CO are generally the same, I guess this 
> happened because C-Cu, Cu-O or C-O paths are too weak to be observed, 
> major Cu-Cu scattering still dominant even if with CO adsorption, is 
> this right? But Cu 1do CO and Cu 2do CO data are different with bare 
> Cu signal, especially Cu 1do CO, in FT spectrum, it shows a small peak 
> at R around 1.1 angstrom and a shoulder at R around 1.9 angstrom, is 
> it possible for them to stand for C-O and C-Cu path respectively??(I 
> checked C-O and C-Cu distance for CO adsorbed Cu in the reference, 
> both are coincident with such values). Now I have no idea on my 
> situation and come to ask for your he! lp..
>
> Thanks so much!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ifeffit mailing list
> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachments/20130104/f74ad933/attachment.html>