On Saturday 29 July 2006 17:24, you wrote:
> 4) The formalism underlying GNXAS is very elegant and reading the original
> papers is great. I suggest it is highly worth the effort.
This is true. They are indeed very interesting papers. The physics
or physical chemistry students reading this list
On Saturday 29 July 2006 22:10, Matt Newville wrote:
> > Yes, it's for smallish molecules. Typical center-scatterer distances are
> > <4-5A in the examples I've seen. What 'other approaches' to XANES
> > are publically available which work better than FEFF8.1?
>
> I wish I knew!
I cannot speak t
Hi Matthew,
Including only bare-bones ASCII in/out is, IMHO, the only way to obtain
true portability, and it has worked. I vaguely recall that they use some
sort of verifier on their code to screen out system dependencies.
I don't understand this.
If it uses a g(r) approach, then I imagine
Hello everyone,
there seems to be an interesting exchange of ideas going on. Let me contribute
a few ideas or bits of information:
1) I don't believe anybody holds the right to speak in the name of the
"international community", whatever that means. The scientific process is
rather complex a
Feff deliberately did not include graphics or analysis, with the hope /
expectation that lots of other people would do this. This turned out to
be true, and very many analysis programs use Feff. It is perhaps
interesting that this has not happened for GNXAS. In contrast, it is
uninteresting fo
Thanks. Do you mean that it's available as source-code only? Is there any
tutorial material available? If it does background subtraction, does that
mean
you feed it raw signal-vs-energy files?
mam
- Original Message -
From: "Francesco Giannici" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ifeffit"
Hi Matthew,
One reason I can think of for GNXAS to be less popular than
FEFF is that it hasn't been compiled for Windows.
Oh, I think you're right. FEFF made a conscious effort to be portable,
and easy to use. In John's defense of this approach, by aiming for a
wide and diverse user base, bu
1. how to get mxan: as far as i know, mxan is available free of charge,
although not ready for download. you should directly contact maurizio dot
benfatto @ lnf dot infn dot it. caveat: the documentation is *very* short, and
there is no interface, so here's another reason to keep in touch with t
On Thursday 27 July 2006 14:22, Matthew Marcus wrote:
> Other reasons for the popularity of FEFF include its longer history
I believe that the early references for both GNXAS and Feff6 date from 1991.
> That reminds me - I'm a co-author on a paper, which was submitted to PRL, in
> which we used
On Thursday 27 July 2006 14:22, Matthew Marcus wrote:
> Other reasons for the popularity of FEFF include its longer history,
Actually the early references for both GNXAS and FEFF6 date from 1991.
To paraphrase Steve Zabinsky (the fellow who did much of the work on Feff6)
"if you make it easy to
Dear all,
to mam : your referee is a dumb, clearly ! feff8 can do both. One more
quick and dirty referee. Some journals do money nowadays. Easy to answer
there is an EXAFS card, which is not made for XANES, clearly...
to all : gnxas is not designed to be easy to use; it is not designed as a
"bla
11 matches
Mail list logo
