[Ifeffit] Is good EXAFS data possible with 0.01 transmission coefficient

[Matthew Marcus]

I'm pretty sure he has the opposite problem - the transmission is <0.01.  That's assuming that "transmission coefficient" == "transmission".
	mam

On 7/25/2013 1:33 PM, Scott Calvin wrote:
> Hi Damon,
>
> So you're saying you expect the total absorption of the sample to be less than 0.01 absorption lengths? In other words, if the detectors and electronics were identical, you would expect It = I0 exp(-0.01)?
>
> While possible to measure in transmission, such a sample would normally be measured in fluorescence. If done that way, the measurement is routine.
>
> Or am I misunderstanding your description? (I am not entirely sure what you mean by "transmission coefficient.")
>
> --Scott Calvin
> Sarah Lawrence College
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Damon Turney <dturney at ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi IFEFFIT community,
>>
>> I will make measurements soon at Brookhaven's NSLS to do EXAFS, and my
>> sample is a powder mixture of carbon powder, MnO2 powder, and
>> potassium hydroxide liquid.  The transmission coefficient of 6.5keV
>> x-rays (the Mn K edge is at ~6.5keV) through the sample is ~0.001 to
>> 0.01.  I am told that the ionization chamber detectors can easily
>> detect the x-ray beam after this ~0.01 transmission loss (by
>> increasing the gain on the detector), but I would like to ask the
>> IFEFFIT community if there will be other problems with the EXAFS
>> technique when the transmission coefficient is so low.  Does anybody
>> have comments?
>>
>> Much thanks -- if you have any info I greatly appreciate it!
>> Damon Turney
>> City College of New York
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ifeffit mailing list
>> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
>> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ifeffit mailing list
> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
>