It's definitely a misnomer. I use overabsorption and encourage others to do
so. I suppose to track it down would require going
back over the seminal papers on the subject.
mam
On 11/16/2010 10:19 AM, Scott Calvin wrote:
Hi all,
As some of you know, I'm currently working on a
I tried a few searches, but rapidly get lost in other uses of the
term. My guess is we borrowed it from some other spectroscopy, much
the way we borrowed Debye-Waller factor from XRD, and then proceeded
to change its meaning. But it would be nice to be able to track that
down.
--Scott
It's a term taken from x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, or probably
really any fluorescence spectroscopy, where it has very sensible
meaning: the attenuation of the fluorescence signal by the sample
itself. I would even say it is used mostly correctly in XAFS, or at
least with a similar intent as
Hi all,
I think this comes from the misunderstanding of the effect and the try
to explain it as the additional absorption of outgoing light. Am I right?
kicaj
W dniu 10-11-16 19:19, Scott Calvin pisze:
Hi all,
As some of you know, I'm currently working on a textbook on XAFS
analysis.
Dear All
I would like to grow UO2 thin films on STO (SrTiO3) substrate but I found that
Sr K-edge 16105 and U L3-edge is 17166. Do you think there will be any
interference?
Best,
Mohamed
___
Ifeffit mailing list
Dear Mohamed,
I think you will have some kind of over or self -absorption from the
substrate, specially in geometries other than grazing incidence. I have
performed that kind of experiments in fluorescence and in transmission. The
result was that the absorption coefficient signal I was interested
I'm assuming that the desire is to measure the EXAFS of the UO2, not the SrTiO3
substratem right?
The ratio of the signal from the SrTiO3 to the UO2 would depend on the
thickness of the UO2 and the incidence and takeoff angle
(assuming you do fluorescence). There shouldn't be much interference
