Matt and Max, Thank you for your responses, the information was really helpful in trying to understand what would lead to the changes in Io between scans. My knowledge of the infrastructure and mechanics of the beamline in front of Io is limited, and this short discussion has been very insightful. I wanted to make clear I was not trying to call out a specific issue with a beamline, but rather better inform myself about the how beamlines in general are setup and the mechanics behind it.
It is hard to find a specific text or manuscript that covers topics along this line. Not just with XAFS, the same could be said about a number of other spectroscopy/analytical techniques. Being able to pose questions of this nature to the list is really helpful and provides an insight and source of information that is not readily available. All the Best, Todd Luxton, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division Waste Management Branch Mailing Address: 5995 Center Hill Ave Cincinnati, OH 45243 Phone: Office: (513) 569-7210 Cell: (513) 319-5104 Fax: (513) 569-7879 Email: luxton.t...@epa.gov<mailto:luxton.t...@epa.gov> “A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself” Franklin D. Rosevelt From: Ifeffit [mailto:ifeffit-boun...@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] On Behalf Of Matt Newville Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 6:41 PM To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit <ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov> Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Question about Io during data collection Hi Todd, On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Luxton, Todd <luxton.t...@epa.gov<mailto:luxton.t...@epa.gov>> wrote: All: Recently our group was at the APS collecting Pb L(III) spectra on an ID line using quick XAFS. Data was collected from -200 to +800 eV for Pb L(III) at 0.2 eV steps with a count rate of 0.025 seconds. Each scan took about 2.5 minutes to complete. During our measurements we began noting issues with the linearity of scans collected in the extended region of the same sample. After poking around in the data we noticed that Io was not linear throughout the measurement for a portion of the scans. This was not always the true (see Athena project attached to the email, and images attache to the email). I was always under the impression that Io should ideally remain linear throughout the energy region scanned, or at least remain unchanged between replicate scans. We worked with the beamline scientists to try alleviate/fix the issue, but it kept persisting. I realize this is not an IFEFFIT issue, but I was hoping someone might be able to help me understand what was going on and why this was happening? If I have not included enough information for the question please let me know. It's a little hard to see much detail from the blurry images, but I0 is definitely falling in dramatically different ways for the different scans. My guess (from similar experience trying to do continuous XAFS scans at another APS ID line) is that the undulator is not tracking with the monochromator correctly in some of the scans. This tracking is definitely challenging for us. I suspect MR-CAT does small, constant energy steps per time point, but I'm not sure of this. There is no way I can scan my undulator at 25 ms per energy point. What I see (and from talking to the undulator control folks at the APS), there is about a 0.5 second "settling time" for the devices during which time is pointless to ask for another move. So, when I do QXAFS at 13-ID-E, I set up "a normal XAFS scan", with 0.05 Ang^-1 steps and move the mono energy between these points in a fixed time -- so doing a ~4 eV move per time point at 10 Ang^-1. But I find that if I try to go faster than about 100 ms per point, I see oscillations in I0, as the undulator lags behind and then tries to catch up. That can put oscillations in I0, but what you're seeing is it just falling off, like the tracking just isn't working. For those not at the APS, the undulators cannot be hardware-synchronized (perhaps that is "yet", but we've been waiting a long time). One can move the undulator at a constant rate in gap (mm) velocity, and then try to synchronize the mono energy to that... I don't do that and I'm pretty sure that MR-CAT does not either. Anyway, I would suspect the tracking of the undulator. Hope that helps, --Matt
_______________________________________________ Ifeffit mailing list Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
