Hello.
After having some troubles recording a good EXAFS spectrum with some old
InSb111 crystals
I started wondering if it might be better to use Ge220 instead.
Anybody have some experience with that?
Lisa
___
Ifeffit mailing list
I do it just fine with Si111 (ALS 10.3.2). Do you have some evidence that the
energy resolution or flux isn't what it should be? For instance,
have you recorded a S XANES spectrum on sulfate? That has a sharp, intense
peak.
mam
On 5/11/2015 8:16 AM, Lisa Bovenkamp wrote:
Hello.
Hello.
No, the resolution is fine. I can do XANES fine with InSb111. We use those for
years.
Just had problems with EXAFS because for this long range the flux has to be
more stable
from the crystals.
Lisa
___
Ifeffit mailing list
Hi Lisa,
Just to second Matthew's suggestion, Si(111) should work fine for Ca K
edge. In my experience, using high angle makes it much more
challenging to keep a stable beam -- roll errors become more important, and
thermal load can also be worse (power density on 1st crystal, heating from
Another possibility is that the L-edges of In and Sb are giving
considerable energy-dependence to
the beam in the EXAFS region...any non-linearity between detectors will
make extraction of the EXAFS
problematic. Looking at CAMD's XAS beamline mono specs
Hi Robert, Lisa,
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Robert Gordon ragor...@alumni.sfu.ca
wrote:
Another possibility is that the L-edges of In and Sb are giving
considerable energy-dependence to
the beam in the EXAFS region...any non-linearity between detectors will
make extraction of the
