>Dear all, the well-known data are: CaCO3 (20%), CaF2 (35%), SiO2 (1%), Al2O3 (20%), and FeCO3 (24%). The data obtained without PO are: CaCO3 (24%), CaF2 (36%), SiO2 (1%), Al2O3 (17%), and FeCO3 (23%). The data obtained with PO are: CaCO3 (19%), CaF2 (32%), SiO2 (2%), Al2O3 (31%), and FeCO3 (16%). it seems to have a problem among Al2O3 and FeCO3 data after PO.
Mario. Dear all, > > The data collection conditions is: hand grind (35 microns), scan: > 2Theta/Theta Coupled, to steps 2 sec., target Cu, graphite monochromator, > side loading. The correction of preferential orientation has been refined > by March-Dollase model. > > Thanks a lot, > > Mario. > > > > > Dear Mario, >> >> Please tell me a little about the data collection conditions you used >> for >> this work:- >> >> How was the sample prepared (hand ground, micronised in McCrone mill >> ????) >> What was the tube target Cu, Co, other ?? >> >> Cheers >> Ian Madsen >> ________________________________________ >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:48 AM >> To: Rietveld_l@ill.fr >> Subject: Quantitative analysis >> >> Dear all, >> >> I have this question, >> >> I have been refined one mixture (of well-know percentage composition) of >> CaCO3, CaF2, SiO2 and Al2O3, with preferential orientation in CaCO3 >> (104) >> and CaF2 (111) with good results. When I add to the mixture FeCO3 and I >> refine with preferential orientation (104), it happens that when I don´t >> apply the preferential orientation in all this phases, I have correct >> values of percentage composition, but when I apply the preferential >> orientation the refinement is good but with incorrect values of >> percentage >> composition. This experiment has been taken in Bragg Brentano geometry. >> How I should refine this mixture? >> >> Thanks a lot by your help. >> >> Mario Macías >> Universidad Industrial de Santander >> Colombia >> >> > > > >
