Latta, Drew E
drew-latta at uiowa.edu
Wed Oct 15 17:46:09 CDT 2014
It sounds like you are putting a lot of UO2 in the beam, and I might be worried about self-absorption in fluorescence data. I’m not sure about transmission, if you have lots of absorption (edge step of >>1) then you’ll be doing EXAFS on pinholes and thin spots.
What are you getting for transmission edge steps on that sort of sample? “Good” UO2 data for me can have an edge-step in transmission of 0.10 or less.
In my personal experience as little as ~2 mg U /square cm in UO2 will result in good data. YMMV based on beamline.
From: ifeffit-bounces at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [mailto:ifeffit-bounces at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] On Behalf Of Ke Yuan
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:20 AM
To: bravel at bnl.gov; ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
Subject: [Ifeffit] Ke
Thanks for your comments! I studied Shelly's paper and found my data does looks different, especially the first peak at 1.9 A, seems it splits into two in my case.
I prepared this sample by pressing UO2 powder into a hole (2mm deep), which might have significant self-absorption effect, because it's not dilute and thin. Do you think this will change the peak amplitude?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ifeffit