Re: [Ifeffit] Imidazole multiple scattering in Artemis

2024-04-02 Thread Robert Gordon

Hi Chris,

Multiple scattering can be quite important, particularly in systems with 
higher local symmetry
(i.e. focused multiple scattering - many equivalent paths). It occurs 
along with back-scattering,
so you should include the Fe-N1 path. Conveniently, you can constrain 
the MS path based on
the back-scattering - i.e. the MS distance is dependent on the 
back-scatter distances and
scattering angle...you can also constrain the msrd (e.g. add in 
quadrature).


Prof. Dr. Thorsten Ressler's program "WinXAS" has the constraints as 
options built in...very convenient.


cheers,
-R.

On 2024-04-02 4:18 p.m., Chris Pollock wrote:
Hi everyone, I've been using Artremis for quite a while, but have only 
recently come across a case where the inclusion of multiple scattering 
seems to be important for fitting some data and wanted to ask what is 
probably a super basic question

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi everyone,
I've been using Artremis for quite a while, but have only recently 
come across a case where the inclusion of multiple scattering seems to 
be important for fitting some data and wanted to ask what is probably 
a super basic question to make sure I don't mess anything up.


I've recently collected some data on a metalloenzyme with a quite 
histidine-rich active site and, since it's been shown previously that 
multiple scattering is important for fitting the longer range 
scattering for these types of systems, I wanted to make sure I capture 
this in my Artemis fits.  The data appear to show scattering 
contributions from N3, C2, and N1 in the imidazole ring, and FEFF 
seems to agree that those paths are the most important, though it 
calculates the MS intensity to be significantly greater than the 
single scattering for the farther N (N1).  So, my super naive question 
is:  To include multiple scattering paths in the fits--say, the 
Fe-N3-N1 triangle--is it correct to include the Fe-N3-N1 multiple 
scattering path in addition to the Fe-N3 and Fe-N1 single scattering 
paths, or would that effectively be double counting the farther 
nitrogen (N1)?


Thanks in advance!

___
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
https://urldefense.us/v3/__http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!e3LBBsmlwMGZaAMh6d0bjYYUvXc2xJjo7Qj85xKoWNiUhCoSg7jW4tJxIJ8wKnwO4mRWkhG6Q0xCpVGpR1hNGDZd3F0Z0-s-aDLp6wo$ 
Unsubscribe:https://urldefense.us/v3/__http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!e3LBBsmlwMGZaAMh6d0bjYYUvXc2xJjo7Qj85xKoWNiUhCoSg7jW4tJxIJ8wKnwO4mRWkhG6Q0xCpVGpR1hNGDZd3F0Z0-s-7hcQvO8$ 
___
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit


Re: [Ifeffit] Imidazole multiple scattering in Artemis

2024-04-02 Thread Matthew Newville
Hi Chris,

Using the single-scattering and multiple-scattering paths that have the same 
scattering atoms is not double counting. In general, including all the paths 
from a Feff calculation is what you ought to do to account for all of the 
EXAFS.  But many paths will have weak contributions, and so can often be 
neglected.

It gets more tricky to avoid double-counting if you mix paths from multiple 
Feff calculations, but it sounds like that is not what you're doing.

Cheers,

--Matt



From: Ifeffit  on behalf of Chris 
Pollock 
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:18 PM
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit 
Subject: [Ifeffit] Imidazole multiple scattering in Artemis

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Hi everyone,
I've been using Artremis for quite a while, but have only recently come across 
a case where the inclusion of multiple scattering seems to be important for 
fitting some data and wanted to ask what is probably a super basic question to 
make sure I don't mess anything up.

I've recently collected some data on a metalloenzyme with a quite 
histidine-rich active site and, since it's been shown previously that multiple 
scattering is important for fitting the longer range scattering for these types 
of systems, I wanted to make sure I capture this in my Artemis fits.  The data 
appear to show scattering contributions from N3, C2, and N1 in the imidazole 
ring, and FEFF seems to agree that those paths are the most important, though 
it calculates the MS intensity to be significantly greater than the single 
scattering for the farther N (N1).  So, my super naive question is:  To include 
multiple scattering paths in the fits--say, the Fe-N3-N1 triangle--is it 
correct to include the Fe-N3-N1 multiple scattering path in addition to the 
Fe-N3 and Fe-N1 single scattering paths, or would that effectively be double 
counting the farther nitrogen (N1)?

Thanks in advance!
___
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit


[Ifeffit] Imidazole multiple scattering in Artemis

2024-04-02 Thread Chris Pollock
Hi everyone,
I've been using Artremis for quite a while, but have only recently come
across a case where the inclusion of multiple scattering seems to be
important for fitting some data and wanted to ask what is probably a super
basic question to make sure I don't mess anything up.

I've recently collected some data on a metalloenzyme with a quite
histidine-rich active site and, since it's been shown previously that
multiple scattering is important for fitting the longer range scattering
for these types of systems, I wanted to make sure I capture this in my
Artemis fits.  The data appear to show scattering contributions from N3,
C2, and N1 in the imidazole ring, and FEFF seems to agree that those paths
are the most important, though it calculates the MS intensity to be
significantly greater than the single scattering for the farther N (N1).
So, my super naive question is:  To include multiple scattering paths in
the fits--say, the Fe-N3-N1 triangle--is it correct to include the Fe-N3-N1
multiple scattering path in addition to the Fe-N3 and Fe-N1 single
scattering paths, or would that effectively be double counting the farther
nitrogen (N1)?

Thanks in advance!
___
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit