Hi Folks,
Over on the github pages for larch, Mauro and Bruce raised an issue
about the flattening in Athena. See
https://github.com/xraypy/xraylarch/issues/44
I've added a flattened output from Larch's pre_edge() function, but
the question has been raised of whether this is better than the
What I typically do for XANES is divide mu-mu_pre_edge_line by a linear
function which goes through the post-edge oscillations.
This division goes over the whole data range, including pre-edge. If the data
has obvious curvature in the post-edge, I'll use a higher-order
polynomial. For
Hi Matthew,
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Matthew Marcus mamar...@lbl.gov wrote:
What I typically do for XANES is divide mu-mu_pre_edge_line by a linear
function which goes through the post-edge oscillations.
This division goes over the whole data range, including pre-edge. If the
data
The way I commonly do pre-edge is to fit with some form plus a power-law
singularity representing the initial rise of the edge, then
subtract out that some form. Now, that form can be either linear,
linear+E^(-2.7) (for transmission), or linear+ another power-law
singularity centered at the
The question of whether it is appropriate to use flattened data for
quantitative analysis is something I've been thinking about a lot recently.
In my specific case, I am analyzing XMCD data at the Co L-edge. To obtain
the XMCD, I measure XAS with total electron yield detection using a ~70%
left or
You say that the flipping difference (p - n) is 0 in pre-edge and far post-edge
regions, which is as it should be, but then say that the
slopes of p- and n- post-edges, considered separately, are different. I must
be misunderstanding because those two statements would seem to be
inconsistent.
OK, I guess I don't know what 'standard normalization' is. It looks from the
quotient that you'll need some sort of curved post-edge.
I guess the division didn't work because the electron energy distribution is
different pre- and post-edge, so the magnetic effects are
different and vary across
By standard normalization, I meant subtraction of a linear pre-edge and
multiplication by a constant. If this treatment is applied to the XAS
spectra before subtraction, one does not obtain an XMCD spectrum that goes
to zero in the post edge region for the data I described. As you noted,
that is
I'm not sure what 'flattening' means. Does that mean dividing by a linear or
other polynomial function, fitted to the post-edge?
mam
On 5/15/2013 1:43 PM, George Sterbinsky wrote:
By standard normalization, I meant subtraction of a linear pre-edge and
multiplication by a constant. If
