Thank you to all for your generous help... has been very important your
information..

Mario.



Mario,
>
> From the information that you just gave, it appears that the corundum 012
> and siderite 012 are not well resolved causing more of the siderite 012
> intensity to be attributed to the corundum 012 and an overestimation of
> corundum.  If it is a microabsorption problem, you wouldn't get a good QPA
> data without PO correction to start with. If you can, reduce the receiving
> slit size and run the sample again or don't correct for PO.
>
> Dipo Omotoso
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: October 28, 2008 8:24 AM
> To: Rietveld_l@ill.fr
> Subject: RE: Quantitative analysis
>
>>Dear all,
>
> the well-known data are: CaCO3 (20%), CaF2 (35%), SiO2 (1%), Al2O3 (20%),
> and FeCO3 (24%). The data obtained without PO are: CaCO3 (24%), CaF2
> (36%), SiO2 (1%), Al2O3 (17%), and FeCO3 (23%). The data obtained with PO
> are: CaCO3 (19%), CaF2 (32%), SiO2 (2%), Al2O3 (31%), and FeCO3 (16%).
> it seems to have a problem among Al2O3 and FeCO3 data after PO.
>
> Mario.
>
>
>  Dear all,
>>
>> The data collection conditions is: hand grind (35 microns), scan:
>> 2Theta/Theta Coupled, to steps 2 sec., target Cu, graphite
>> monochromator, side loading. The correction of preferential
>> orientation has been refined by March-Dollase model.
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>>
>> Mario.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Mario,
>>>
>>> Please tell me a little about the data collection conditions you used
>>> for this work:-
>>>
>>> How was the sample prepared (hand ground, micronised in McCrone mill
>>> ????)
>>> What was the tube target Cu, Co, other ??
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Ian Madsen
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:48 AM
>>> To: Rietveld_l@ill.fr
>>> Subject: Quantitative analysis
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I have this question,
>>>
>>> I have been refined one mixture (of well-know percentage composition)
>>> of CaCO3, CaF2, SiO2 and Al2O3, with preferential orientation in
>>> CaCO3
>>> (104)
>>> and CaF2 (111) with good results. When I add to the mixture FeCO3 and
>>> I refine with preferential orientation (104), it happens that when I
>>> don´t apply the preferential orientation in all this phases, I have
>>> correct values of percentage composition, but when I apply the
>>> preferential orientation the refinement is good but with incorrect
>>> values of percentage composition. This experiment has been taken in
>>> Bragg Brentano geometry.
>>> How I should refine this mixture?
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot by your help.
>>>
>>> Mario Macías
>>> Universidad Industrial de Santander
>>> Colombia
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



Reply via email to