>>Its best to use the terms axial plane and horizontal plane to avoid
>>confusion.
>
>Alan, I'm confused! What do you mean by those terms?
>I thought "axial divergence" was "beam hits
>different points along the two theta axis" -
>is that a misconception?
John, if you had a point source, a poi
Its best to use the terms axial plane and horizontal plane to avoid
confusion.
Alan, I'm confused! What do you mean by those terms? I thought "axial
divergence" was "beam hits different points along the two theta axis" -
is that a misconception?
Last point, what do you mean by vertical diver
Jim Cline wrote:
>Alan??? Are you listening?
Armel wrote:
>>Bruker providing help to analyze Panalytical data ?-).
You have thrown the bait and I will bite.
I am not an employee of a manufacture and as such I am free to implement
as I choose into TOPAS-Academic (TA) and I do this without regard
On 3 May 2005 at 10:51, Jon Wright wrote:
> >
> Silly question and I think I am missing the point - but how did you fix
> the vertical divergence contribution? I thought LaB6 from NIST had a
> larger crystallite size than either of your values, suggesting something
> has gone wrong in both case
I did some tests on the profile of the first diffraction peak of LaB6,
where I added a secondary soller angle, since I used secondary
soller slits, and I added also the parameter for the horizontal
divergence in the equitorial plane. Finally I added a crystallite-size
parameter CS_L. I did the
Laurel Basciano wrote:
> >xdd "test.dat"
> > CoKa7_Holzer(0.001)
> > Radius(240)
> > LP_Factor(17)
> > axial_conv
> > filament_length 12
> > sample_length 15
> > receiving_slit_length 12
> > primary_soll
Arie,
Yes; Bruker has an interest in this matter.
Jim
At 09:37 AM 5/2/2005, you wrote:
Bruker's Vantex detector is rather similar to PanAnalytical's
X'celerator detector from a fundamental parameters point of view,
not? Maybe I should have formulated my question differently
Is there anybody who kno
Laurel,
At 09:13 AM 5/2/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
Alan Coelho helped us get our instrument parameter file set up for Topas
Academic. We use an X'celerator detector with cobalt radiation (no
monochromator) for most of our work.
Here is an example file:
xdd "test.dat"
CoKa7_Holzer(0.001)
Bruker's Vantex detector is rather similar to PanAnalytical's
X'celerator detector from a fundamental parameters point of view,
not? Maybe I should have formulated my question differently
Is there anybody who knows how to model peak shapes using the
fundamental parameters approach for diffracto
Hi,
Alan Coelho helped us get our instrument parameter file set up for Topas
Academic. We use an X'celerator detector with cobalt radiation (no
monochromator) for most of our work.
Here is an example file:
xdd "test.dat"
CoKa7_Holzer(0.001)
Radius(240)
LP_Factor(17)
Indeed...
A situation not without some complications.
Jim
At 08:00 AM 5/2/2005, you wrote:
Alan??? Are you listening?
Bruker providing help to analyze Panalytical data ?-).
Armel
James P. Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ceramics Division Voice (301)
Alan??? Are you listening?
Bruker providing help to analyze Panalytical data ?-).
Armel
Arie,
Bob Cheary developed the required description/equations for the use of a
psd. But I don't know that they have been implemented in any of the
available FPA codes, except perhaps Topas in launch mode.
Alan??? Are you listening?
Regards,
Jim
At 06:48 AM 5/2/2005, you wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Dear colleagues,
Is there anybody who has experience with describing peak shapes
using the fundamental parameters approach for a typical X'pert-pro
diffractometer setup with an X'celerator detector (fixed incident
slits, 0.02 rad sollers, no monochromator)?
Thanks in advance, Arie
14 matches
Mail list logo
