Thanks, Pam and Jon for the clarifications. 
Again, does this approach take care of low angle peak
asymmetry better?
thanks,

nandini

--- "Whitfield, Pamela"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nandini
> 
> The best people to reply on behalf of fundamental
> parameters would be Alan
> Coehlo or Arnt Kern.   
> But until they do here goes....
> 
> The more general form is convolution-based profile
> fitting.  This can be
> used for all peak profile types, whereas 'pure'
> fundamental parameters has
> only been inmplemented for the simple Bragg-Brentano
> case (no
> monochromators).  Other geometries have to be
> empirically modelled using a
> standard and some sort of user-defined convolution
> on top of the source
> profile.  Better fits can often be obtained using
> this type of fitting than
> the normal pseudo-Voigt or Pearson VII functions (in
> my experience at
> least).  Where convolution-based fitting really
> comes into its own in in
> complex quantitative Rietveld analysis where the
> number of refined variables
> would become untenable for normal peak fitting. 
> Using convolution-based
> fitting it is possible to cope with upwards of 10
> phases with severe peak
> overlap and still get good results with good
> stability. For example,
> quantitative Rietveld analysis of cements is
> becoming routine.
> 
> Pam 
> 
> Dr Pamela Whitfield CChem MRSC
> Energy Materials Group
> Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental
> Technology
> Building M12
> National Research Council Canada
> 1200 Montreal Road
> Ottawa  ON   K1A 0R6
> CANADA
> Tel: (613) 998 8462         Fax: (613) 991 2384
> Email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ICPET WWW: http://icpet-itpce.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nandini Devi Radhamonyamma
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: June 4, 2004 6:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> Is the fundamental parameter approach better than
> mathematical approach used in most of the Rietveld
> refinement programs? Does that mean programs which
> use
> that approach are better? Any suggestions?
> 
> Nandini
> 
> 
>       
>               
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 



        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 

Reply via email to