[Ifeffit] Inconsistency of the amplitude reduction factor
Bruce Ravel
bravel at bnl.gov
Thu Sep 18 08:11:03 CDT 2014
On 09/18/2014 08:20 AM, HOON Kim wrote:
> I'd like to be more specific about my obtained results,
>
> At reference state (that means without any applied current), the
> amplitude reduction factor was 0.77
> At 20% charge, it was 0.67
> 40% charge = 0.66
> 60% charge = 0.63
> 80% charge = 0.68
> full charge = 0.67
My other comment on this thread is that you are not being specific
enough. Without error bars, it is not possible to interpret those
numbers in any physically meaningful way. Similarly, without knowing
the uncertainty, it is hard for us to comment substantively on your
question.
I would imagine that, given the likely size of your error bars, 0.63 and
0.68 are not different results. In fact, it is possible that 0.63 and
0.77 are not different in any defensible way. That may be yet more
likely given the possibility of systematic error due to changes in
morphology -- which would not be properly captured in the statistical
error bars -- as I mentioned in my last post.
Remember: ALWAYS cite error bars with numbers from a fit!
B
--
Bruce Ravel ------------------------------------ bravel at bnl.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Synchrotron Science Group at NSLS --- Beamlines U7A, X24A, X23A2
Building 535A
Upton NY, 11973
Homepage: http://bruceravel.github.io/home/
Software: https://github.com/bruceravel
Demeter: http://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/
More information about the Ifeffit
mailing list