Gareth Seward has been working steadily over the summer and has got some of our graphics converted over to the new Pro Essentials graphics library.
See the following attachments (you must be logged in) and please note the new zoom graphics capabilities now available...
I notice that one needs to run the CalcZAF.msi installer again in order to get the updated example (NISTBIN, Pouchou, etc) binary k-ratio input files for CalcZAF error distribution calculations, now that additional x-ray lines are supported. Basically the "absorber only" integer flag is now 13 rather than 7. These files are updated:
Directory of C:\ProgramData\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA
09/27/2015 04:27 PM 276 auagcu.dat
09/27/2015 04:27 PM 1,102 auagcu2.dat
09/27/2015 04:28 PM 132,323 nistbin.dat
09/27/2015 04:32 PM 21,892 nistbin2.dat
09/27/2015 04:32 PM 19,350 nistbin3.dat
09/27/2015 04:32 PM 37,870 nistbina20.dat
09/27/2015 04:32 PM 26,412 nistbinz10.dat
09/27/2015 04:33 PM 63,504 pouchou.dat
09/27/2015 04:34 PM 219,716 pouchou2.dat
09/27/2015 04:36 PM 6,088 Pouchou2_Au,Cu,Ag_only.dat
09/27/2015 04:37 PM 8,855 pouchoua20.dat
09/27/2015 04:38 PM 8,274 pouchouz10.dat
Hi,
I'm having some problems with calczaf v11.0.8 using the MAC tables.
(1) Typed emitter pair C Ka Ag fine,
(2) then typed emitter pair C Ka Au - subscript out of range,
(3) then selected MAC table - file already open.
(4) Select MAC table again and it works.
Actually I think it boils down to why is C kA Au emitter/absorber pair not in the mac pairs - although its present when viewed as a table?
Thanks
Ben
Quote from: Ben Buse on October 29, 2015, 02:30:18 AM
Hi,
I'm having some problems with calczaf v11.0.8 using the MAC tables.
(1) Typed emitter pair C Ka Ag fine,
(2) then typed emitter pair C Ka Au - subscript out of range,
(3) then selected MAC table - file already open.
(4) Select MAC table again and it works.
Actually I think it boils down to why is C kA Au emitter/absorber pair not in the mac pairs - although its present when viewed as a table?
Thanks
Ben
Oh... my... gosh... an actual bug! :D
Thanks Ben, I apparently broke this MAC emitter-absorber pair code when I when I added support for the Ln, Lg, Lv, Ll, Mg and Mz lines. I already fixed it and I will upload a new version tonight. Thanks again!
MAC value for C ka in Au = 15151.17 (LINEMU Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV)
MAC value for C ka in Au = 15210.00 (CITZMU Heinrich (1966) and Henke and Ebisu (1974))
MAC value for C ka in Au = .00 (MCMASTER McMaster (LLL, 1969) (modified by Rivers))
MAC value for C ka in Au = 16876.73 (MAC30 Heinrich (Fit to Goldstein tables, 1987))
MAC value for C ka in Au = .00 (MACJTA Armstrong (FRAME equations, 1992))
MAC value for C ka in Au = 16642.76 (FFAST Chantler (NIST v 2.1, 2005))
A very nasty absorption correction...
Thanks John, yes so I'm going to use silver instead
Ben
Quote from: Ben Buse on October 29, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Thanks John, yes so I'm going to use silver instead
Ben
Hi Ben,
There actually is an old post on this exact issue:
http://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=48.msg959#msg959
john
Quote from: Ben Buse on October 29, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Thanks John, yes so I'm going to use silver instead
Ben
Hi Ben,
The latest version (11.0.9) fixes this MAC pair display menu issue in CalcZAF.
john
Here is the new Penepma12 GUI in Standard, showing a log plot of HfSiO4 at 15 keV (modeled down to 400 eV):
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/oldpics/i63.tinypic.com/212e7tu.jpg)
Quote from: UofO EPMA Lab on September 28, 2015, 10:37:23 AM
I notice that one needs to run the CalcZAF.msi installer again in order to get the updated example (NISTBIN, Pouchou, etc) binary k-ratio input files for CalcZAF error distribution calculations, now that additional x-ray lines are supported. Basically the "absorber only" integer flag is now 13 rather than 7. These files are updated:
Directory of C:\ProgramData\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA
09/27/2015 04:27 PM 276 auagcu.dat
09/27/2015 04:27 PM 1,102 auagcu2.dat
09/27/2015 04:28 PM 132,323 nistbin.dat
09/27/2015 04:32 PM 21,892 nistbin2.dat
09/27/2015 04:32 PM 19,350 nistbin3.dat
09/27/2015 04:32 PM 37,870 nistbina20.dat
09/27/2015 04:32 PM 26,412 nistbinz10.dat
09/27/2015 04:33 PM 63,504 pouchou.dat
09/27/2015 04:34 PM 219,716 pouchou2.dat
09/27/2015 04:36 PM 6,088 Pouchou2_Au,Cu,Ag_only.dat
09/27/2015 04:37 PM 8,855 pouchoua20.dat
09/27/2015 04:38 PM 8,274 pouchouz10.dat
I'm attaching the Pouchou2.dat CalcZAF input file, without B Ka and Cu La k-ratios, for matrix correction evaluations below. The file format for these CalcZAF binary k-ratio input files are described here:
An example of the file format is seen here:
79 29 2 5 15. 52.5 .8015 .1983 .7400 .0
79 29 2 5 15. 52.5 .6036 .3964 .5110 .0
79 29 2 5 15. 52.5 .4010 .5992 .3120 .0
79 29 2 5 15. 52.5 .2012 .7985 .1450 .0
The data file format assumes one line for each binary. The first two columns are the atomic numbers of the two binary components to be calculated. The second two columns are the x-ray lines to use ( 1 = ka, 2 = kb, 3 = la, 4 = lb, 5 = ma, 6 = mb, 7 = Ln, 8 = Lg, 9 = Lv 10 = Ll, 11 = Mg, 12 = Mz, 13 = specified, that is, do not calculate the intensity). The next two columns are the operating voltage and take-off angle. The next two columns are the weight fractions of the binary components. The last two columns contains the k-exp values for calculation of k-calc/k-exp. If the second element x-ray line is "specified" (iray = "13"), then no experimental k-ratio value is required.
Note that although the k-ratio file format example above has two emitting elements (so that two k-ratio error sets will be calculated), only one emitting element per line is actually required, as in the following example (where the x-ray line of "13" in the fourth column indicates an "absorber only", specifically an element by difference from 1.0):
13 26 1 13 20 52.5 0.241 .0 0.124 .0
13 26 1 13 25 52.5 0.241 .0 0.098 .0
13 26 1 13 30 52.5 0.241 .0 0.083 .0
26 13 1 13 20 52.5 0.759 .0 0.736 .0
26 13 1 13 25 52.5 0.759 .0 0.742 .0
26 13 1 13 30 52.5 0.759 .0 0.748 .0
Here's the sexy new histogram and concentration vs error plots in CalcZAF (see attached because we're moving to our own image server and I can't stand to use TinyPic any longer!).
I added the spectrometer position equations as graphics to the latest version of CalcZAF:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_09_04_16_8_29_17.png)
Here is the calculate temperature rise dialog in CalcZAF (see Run menu). It is based on electron dose and thermal conductivity.
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/395_09_12_16_11_38_35.png)
You can download the latest CalcZAF here:
https://www.probesoftware.com/resources/
john
All,
Because correction of fluorescence by (and for) beta emission lines is now the default in CalcZAF (and Probe for EPMA), some people with older versions of CalcZAF or Probe for EPMA have reported getting warnings that some absorption edges are missing from the absorption edge table (XEDGE.DAT).
These tables were updated around the time that I implemented this more rigorous fluorescence correction, but the CalcZAF.msi installer update from the Help menu *does not* overwrite these existing .DAT files. Why? Because some people have edited these .DAT files manually and don't want them updated...
If you are seeing such warnings in the CalcZAF or Probe for EPMA log window such as these:
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- K l3 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Mn l2 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Ag m3 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Cd m3 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Cd m5 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Cs m3 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Mo m3 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Pd m3 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Rh m3 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Ru m3 absorption edge is zero
WARNING in ZAFFlu2- Sn m3 absorption edge is zero
first of all, don't panic. These secondary fluorescence effects from beta lines are trivial in almost all instances and the warnings can be ignored. Second, if you want you can download the .DAT files attached below and overwrite your existing .DAT files that are in the
C:\ProgramData\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA
folder for Win 7 and later, or the
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA
folder for XP and older. Please note that by default Microsoft makes these folders invisible for some silly reason- so you'll have to go into the folder options tab and make them visible (yet the application folder which is not writable, is visible!).
Replacing your existing .DAT files with these newer files will fix the warnings about missing absorption edges. Please let me know if you have any trouble at all and I (or your Probe Software specialist) will be happy to assist you.
john
I changed the maximum allowable incident beam energy in CalcZAF and Standard from 50 keV, to 100 keV. Why? Because Paul Carpenter asked why not!
I am not quite sure why that limitation was there to begin with, but I think the analytical expressions will continue to perform OK at these higher beam energies (because some physics gets simpler at very high energies?). Do I have any empirical evidence to support that guess? No. But if someone has any empirical measurements in bulk materials at energies above 50 keV, please feel free to share them here with us.
As for the Penepma Monte Carlo calculations in Standard, the Penepma 2012 full spectrum simulations should be fine, with the possible exception of the boundary fluorescence simulations using the Penfluor/Fanal codes, which by default only simulates electron beam energies between 5 keV and 50 keV. So again, if anyone has synthetic boundary (couples) in bulk samples, please share them here so we can test the codes at these higher beam energies.
The original boundary fluorescence paper here:
http://epmalab.uoregon.edu/publ/Llovet,%20et%20al.,%20Secondary%20fluorescence%20in%20electron%20probe%20microanalysis%20of%20couple%20materials.pdf
noted some divergence in the continuum fluorescence at higher beam energies, so that is one possible area of concern. So for example, measurements of an Al or Mg couple adjacent to Zn or Cu would be very interesting to compare to the Monte Carlo calculations (since this is pure continuum fluorescence situation).
john
John,
Thank you for making this change, as it really was an artificial limitation in the code. Current microprobe and SEM instruments are probably limited to operating voltages less than 50 kV (I know that on the JEOL the HV system can indeed run at 50 but the system is now limited to 40 kV I think, to reduce the possibility of arcing in the HV system).
X-ray photon absorption knows no boundaries. X-ray fluorescence spectrometry can be performed on instruments up to ~ 70 kV (WDS systems). The absorption correction would use the same code we use for EPMA with the same mass absorption coefficients being applicable. High energy electron beams are used for various procedures up to MeV range, and clearly there a different set of macs would apply.
The SDD X-ray spectrometer has decreasing efficiency above ~15 kV but in principle one could analyze K-lines using the EDS detector for systems where analysis using L or M lines is problematic; this requires analysis at higher accelerating voltage.
A point worth considering is that almost none of the macs we use were actually measured, they are fitted values. So the "range" of applicability does not exist. Equally, low kV analysis is a regime for which the correction algorithms were not developed but that does not prohibit their use, and indeed the phi-rho-z algorithm works well with most attention on the accuracy of mac values at low kV.
Paul
Quote from: Paul Carpenter on June 02, 2017, 07:08:10 AM
A point worth considering is that almost none of the macs we use were actually measured, they are fitted values. So the "range" of applicability does not exist. Equally, low kV analysis is a regime for which the correction algorithms were not developed but that does not prohibit their use, and indeed the phi-rho-z algorithm works well with most attention on the accuracy of mac values at low kV.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Yes, with the welcome exception of the empirical MAC measurements for low energy x-rays by Pouchou and Bastin, etc., whose use in CalcZAF is discussed here:
http://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=890.msg5699#msg5699
Fortunately, as you mentioned, the rest of the periodic table (except for some emission energies near some absorption edges), typically has significantly smaller MACs for most other emission lines.
So have you ever come across any x-ray measurements at beam energies above 50 keV?
john
Just following up on the Quantitative Microanalysis using WDS and EDS course at Lehigh Microscopy School this year 2017. We use CalcZAF for discussion and demonstration of the correction parameters for both bulk and particle analysis. The entry formats for formula, weight percent, and standard database are excellent ways to conveniently enter compositions to then show correction parameters for various compounds.
We also use the CalcZAF input file to show how one can walk through the measured k-ratios for the Cu-Au as well as Si-Ir measurements discussed in the course.
The comparison of mac values from the different data sets is very useful as well.
Finally, the log window output includes the mac value for the sample, f-of-chi (i.e., f(x)), and the components of the ZAF correction. We also compare C with calculated k as an interpretation of the ZAF factor. The "use all correction algorithms" checkbox is used to effectively summarize the two measurements for the Si-Ir alloy that clearly shows the need to have a standard similar to the sample for accurate quantitative analysis. It is probably the most important demonstration in the course, and is important for both general microanalysis and those who use standardless EDS.
When I talk about software tools for the microanalyst, I usually discuss Casino, then CalcZAF, then DTSA-II, GMRfilm, and finally Penelope. These are all excellent tools that can be used to quickly highlight problems and solutions in EPMA.
Cheers,
Paul Carpenter
Quote from: Paul Carpenter on June 16, 2017, 12:41:25 PM
When I talk about software tools for the microanalyst, I usually discuss Casino, then CalcZAF, then DTSA-II, GMRfilm, and finally Penelope. These are all excellent tools that can be used to quickly highlight problems and solutions in EPMA.
Hi Paul,
Glad to hear Lehigh went well this year with two concurrent probe sessions (one local and one remote)!
Also it's good to know what free, downloadable applications are most useful for the community. If you have any additional comments you want to add about available EPMA/SEM applications please feel free to add your thoughts here also:
http://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=927.0
I think you had mentioned some ImageJ or Matlab? image processing scripts or macros at EMAS that you have found useful?
john
We just realized today that when the web site switched over to https for secure connections, the Help | Update CalcZAF code in CalcZAF will no longer work for automatic updating from the application. So, just as was the case for Probe for EPMA, one has to manually download the latest CalcZAF installer from this link:
https://probesoftware.com/download/CalcZAF.msi
Then run the installer once to get the new https: compatible secure download version. After this, one can again simply use the Help | Update CalcZAF menu to update the application as usual.
In addition, we also realized that the "Interactive Help" buttons as described here by Karsten Goemann:
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=67.0
were also broken by the new https:// secure connection, so updating CalcZAF to the latest version (12.4.5) will fix all these button links.
Again, if you have Probe for EPMA you can update both CalcZAF and Standard simply using the Help | Update Probe for EPMA menu in PFE (if you've already updated to the "secure download" version of PFE).
Please let us know if you have any questions at all about this process.
Recently Ben Hanson at Corning Glass asked why the MACJTA.DAT mass absorption coefficients table did not contain MACs for emitters less than 1 keV. Armstrong's tabulated values which are found in the MACMATK.DAT, MACMATL.DAT and MACMATM.DAT text files show that he tabulated emitters down to boron.
The MACJTA.DAT binary file that I generated in 2008 does not contain emitters of energy less than 1 keV which was because there was a line of code from the McMaster MAC fit code that I did not modify when I added Armstrong's FRAME equations.
So I changed the code to only skip emission lines with energies less than 0.1 keV when calculating MACs using Armstrong's FRAME equations, which subsequently allows Ka emitters down to boron.
I really don't think any one should be using MACs generated using the FRAME fit equations. My impression is that the default MAC table (LINEMU.DAT) is more than adequate, unless one is quantifying very low energy emission lines, in which case one should really be utilizing empirically measured MACs as listed in the Empirical MACs menu in CalcZAF and Probe for EPMA.
In any case, I've attached the newly generated MACJTA.DAT binary file below (remember to login to see attachments), and if you want, this new file should be copied to your C:\ProgramData\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA folder. Note that the ProgramData folder is hidden by default in Windows, so you'll need to "unhide" it using the Folder Options in Windows Explorer if it is not visible on your computer.
But just for general interest here is a comparison of some emitter - absorber pairs as generated from CalcZAF (from the X-ray menu) using the new MACJTA.DAT file attached below:
MAC value for O Ka in Si = 8155.72 (LINEMU Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV)
MAC value for O Ka in Si = 8790.00 (CITZMU Heinrich (1966) and Henke and Ebisu (1974))
MAC value for O Ka in Si = .00 (MCMASTER McMaster (LLL, 1969) (modified by Rivers))
MAC value for O Ka in Si = 8063.47 (MAC30 Heinrich (Fit to Goldstein tables, 1987))
MAC value for O Ka in Si = 8669.79 (MACJTA Armstrong (FRAME equations, 1992))
MAC value for O Ka in Si = 7544.10 (FFAST Chantler (NIST v 2.1, 2005))
MAC value for O Ka in Si = 8790.00 (USERMAC User Defined MAC Table)
Note that the McMaster value is zero because those equations are only designed for photons greater than 1 keV.
MAC value for Mg ka in Fe = 5239.40 (LINEMU Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV)
MAC value for Mg ka in Fe = 6120.70 (CITZMU Heinrich (1966) and Henke and Ebisu (1974))
MAC value for Mg ka in Fe = 5395.10 (MCMASTER McMaster (LLL, 1969) (modified by Rivers))
MAC value for Mg ka in Fe = 5518.65 (MAC30 Heinrich (Fit to Goldstein tables, 1987))
MAC value for Mg ka in Fe = 6089.59 (MACJTA Armstrong (FRAME equations, 1992))
MAC value for Mg ka in Fe = 5089.56 (FFAST Chantler (NIST v 2.1, 2005))
MAC value for Mg ka in Fe = 5522.00 (USERMAC User Defined MAC Table)
By the way, I do not know why the MAC values generated from Armstrong's FRAME equations are slightly different from his tabulated values (in CITZMU.DAT).
MAC value for Na Ka in Mg = 814.41 (LINEMU Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV)
MAC value for Na Ka in Mg = 770.10 (CITZMU Heinrich (1966) and Henke and Ebisu (1974))
MAC value for Na Ka in Mg = 884.35 (MCMASTER McMaster (LLL, 1969) (modified by Rivers))
MAC value for Na Ka in Mg = 811.13 (MAC30 Heinrich (Fit to Goldstein tables, 1987))
MAC value for Na Ka in Mg = 783.81 (MACJTA Armstrong (FRAME equations, 1992))
MAC value for Na Ka in Mg = 746.84 (FFAST Chantler (NIST v 2.1, 2005))
MAC value for Na Ka in Mg = 810.00 (USERMAC User Defined MAC Table)
But here is where the "wheels come off" for the FRAME equations (apparently the FRAME equations from Armstrong were subsequently improved by Armstrong in his MACMAT*.DAT files tabulation):
MAC value for C ka in Ag = 8178.73 (LINEMU Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV)
MAC value for C ka in Ag = 5507.00 (CITZMU Heinrich (1966) and Henke and Ebisu (1974))
MAC value for C ka in Ag = .00 (MCMASTER McMaster (LLL, 1969) (modified by Rivers))
MAC value for C ka in Ag = 5545.52 (MAC30 Heinrich (Fit to Goldstein tables, 1987))
MAC value for C ka in Ag = 43402.74 (MACJTA Armstrong (FRAME equations, 1992))
MAC value for C ka in Ag = 5809.43 (FFAST Chantler (NIST v 2.1, 2005))
MAC value for C ka in Ag = 8190.00 (USERMAC User Defined MAC Table)
Again I suggest staying with the default (LINEMU.DAT) values from Henke for most work.
Philipp Poeml recently pointed out to us that an error is given in CalcZAF when attempting to edit the "additional" x-ray line energies in the default x-ray line database. This has now been fixed and is ready for updating.
Update CalcZAF by simply using the Help | Update CalcZAF menu. If you have Probe for EPMA, simply use the Help | Update Probe for EPMA menu, and all will be automatically updated.
This error occurred only when editing the default x-ray line and/or the default x-ray fluorescent yield databases using these menus in CalcZAF:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_11_04_19_3_49_06.png)
*and* when the x-ray line being edited was one of the "additional" x-ray lines, e.g., Ln, Lg, Lv, Ll, Mg, or Mz emission lines.
The quantification of these "additional" x-ray lines was working fine, just the edit code was not quite right. Anyway, all fixed now! ;D
This is a tiny change, but we recently modified the CalcZAF Export Format (from the Probe for EPMA Analyze! window right click menu) to export the full sample type, name and line number (if not outputting the intensity averages), so when the data is loaded into CalcZAF using the File | Open menu, the full sample name/line number shows as seen here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_27_08_19_10_17_51.png)
This can be useful in some circumstances, e.g., for some reason one is proccesing multiple data lines in CalcZAF exported from PFE.
Based on a suggestion by Brian Joy in the linked post here:
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=508.msg9243#msg9243
we first added some additional parameter output in CalcZAF (and PFE in DebugMode). First in the normal CalcZAF intensity to concentration output we added (an additional column of, as you will soon see why) the assigned standard numbers just before the unk/std matrix factor ratios:
Chromite from Raw K-ratios-elemental
STANDARD PARAMETERS (TOA= 40):
ELEMENT STDNUM STDCONC STDKFAC Z-BAR ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR
Fe Ka 895 72.080 .6781 20.9954 .9969 1.0000 1.0662 1.0629
Cr Ka 24 68.337 .6400 18.9506 .9962 .9999 1.0719 1.0678
Ti Ka 22 59.939 .5547 16.3920 .9950 1.0000 1.0861 1.0806
Al Ka 13 52.926 .4353 10.6462 1.1676 1.0000 1.0412 1.2157
Mn Ka 25 77.446 .7341 21.1658 .9973 1.0000 1.0578 1.0549
ELEMENT STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)e F(x)s Eo Ec Eo/Ec
Fe Ka 1.0939 .9747 .9846 .9877 15.00 7.1120 2.1091
Cr Ka 1.1038 .9712 .9799 .9837 15.00 5.9900 2.5042
Ti Ka 1.1251 .9653 .9720 .9770 15.00 4.9670 3.0199
Al Ka 1.0604 .9819 .8874 .7600 15.00 1.5600 9.6154
Mn Ka 1.0808 .9787 .9827 .9854 15.00 6.5390 2.2939
SAMPLE: 1, TOA: 40, ITERATIONS: 3, Z-BAR: 17.53337
ELEMENT ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)u Ec Eo/Ec MACs STDNUM uZAF/sZAF
Fe ka 1.0235 1.0000 1.1012 1.1271 1.1454 .9614 .9620 7.1120 2.1091 175.948 895 1.0604
Cr ka .9993 .9530 1.0946 1.0425 1.1351 .9643 .9806 5.9900 2.5042 82.3870 24 .97631
Ti ka 1.0058 .8822 1.0859 .9634 1.1191 .9703 .9665 4.9670 3.0199 135.747 22 .89154
Al ka 1.6720 .9995 .9812 1.6398 .9537 1.0288 .5307 1.5600 9.6154 2436.99 13 1.3488
Mn ka .9973 .9958 1.1182 1.1104 1.1618 .9625 .9853 6.5390 2.2939 64.2586 25 1.0526
ELEMENT K-RAW K-VALUE ELEMWT% OXIDWT% ATOMIC% FORMULA KILOVOL
Fe ka .27180 .18431 20.774 ----- 10.316 .241 15.00
Cr ka .47690 .30522 31.818 ----- 16.971 .397 15.00
Ti ka .00550 .00305 .294 ----- .170 .004 15.00
Al ka .10830 .04715 7.731 ----- 7.947 .186 15.00
Mn ka .00200 .00147 .163 ----- .082 .002 15.00
Mg 6.290 ----- 7.177 .168
V .122 ----- .066 .002
O 33.040 ----- 57.270 1.340
TOTAL: 100.232 ----- 100.000 2.340
And then we added the separate unk/std matrix factors for the absorption, fluorescence and and atomic number factors as seen here:
SAMPLE: 1, TOA: 40, ITERATIONS: 3, Z-BAR: 17.53337
ELEMENT ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)u Ec Eo/Ec MACs STDNUM uZAF/sZAF uA/sA uF/sF uZ/sZ
Fe ka 1.0235 1.0000 1.1012 1.1271 1.1454 .9614 .9620 7.1120 2.1091 175.948 895 1.0604 1.0267 1.0000 1.0328
Cr ka .9993 .9530 1.0946 1.0425 1.1351 .9643 .9806 5.9900 2.5042 82.3870 24 .97631 1.0031 .9531 1.0212
Ti ka 1.0058 .8822 1.0859 .9634 1.1191 .9703 .9665 4.9670 3.0199 135.747 22 .89154 1.0108 .8822 .9998
Al ka 1.6720 .9995 .9812 1.6398 .9537 1.0288 .5307 1.5600 9.6154 2436.99 13 1.3488 1.4320 .9995 .9424
Mn ka .9973 .9958 1.1182 1.1104 1.1618 .9625 .9853 6.5390 2.2939 64.2586 25 1.0526 1.0000 .9958 1.0571
ELEMENT K-RAW K-VALUE ELEMWT% OXIDWT% ATOMIC% FORMULA KILOVOL
Fe ka .27180 .18431 20.774 ----- 10.316 .241 15.00
Cr ka .47690 .30522 31.818 ----- 16.971 .397 15.00
Ti ka .00550 .00305 .294 ----- .170 .004 15.00
Al ka .10830 .04715 7.731 ----- 7.947 .186 15.00
Mn ka .00200 .00147 .163 ----- .082 .002 15.00
Mg 6.290 ----- 7.177 .168
V .122 ----- .066 .002
O 33.040 ----- 57.270 1.340
TOTAL: 100.232 ----- 100.000 2.340
The reason for the extra std number column is that these separate A, F and Z factors are only output when the user checks the "Verbose Mode" menu (in the Output menu). And when that menu is checked there is a lot more output so the std numbers in the standard section scroll off the screen.
In Probe for EPMA, if you want to see these matrix factors you will need to first check the DebugMode menu (again from the Output menu) for the unk/std matrix factor ratios, and also the VerboseMode menu for the separate matrix factor ratios.
Hope that is good for everyone.
We recently made a small improvement in the output for Penepma calculations.
Now after you have performed 1 or more Penepma simulation(s) you can output an array of continuum intensities at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 keV energies for all Penepma sub folders (from running Penepma in "batch" mode).
These right now are an average of 5 channels (2 * 2 + 1) at the 1 keV intervals, and the program will ask if you want to output generated or emitted continuum intensities using this new button accessible from the Batch Mode button in the Penepma GUI:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_21_05_22_2_31_37.png)
Then you will get an output file with the average intensities and average variances that can be imported into Excel or whatever.
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_21_05_22_2_31_55.png)
And of course average Z bars calculated using mass and Z fractions.
Continuing our discussion of new features in Probe for EPMA added since early summer, we now have a new effective takeoff angle estimator dialog in the CalcZAF application as shown here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_26_09_23_8_31_51.png)
This dialog in CalcZAF can be used to derive the "effective" takeoff angle on one's WDS spectrometers when there is an apparent disagreement between the various spectrometers as shown here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/395_19_08_22_12_07_26.png)
And discussed previously in several topics:
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1466.msg11339;topicseen#msg11339
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1466.msg11535;topicseen#msg11535
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1535.msg11937#msg11937
The dialog itself is quite simple:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_26_09_23_8_32_06.png)
An example of these effective takeoff calculations are shown here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_26_09_23_8_32_19.png)
This new dialog is an attempt to more easily determine one's effective takeoff angle for various spectrometers instead of simply trying different takeoff angles in CalcZAF as shown here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_20_10_22_8_38_48.png)
Of course the main issue here is accuracy because one is comparing measured k-ratios to a theoretical k-ratio. Therefore, such issues as differences in carbon coating, oxidation layers, hydrocarbon contamination, can become quite important. Especially since to obtain the best sensitivity one would attempt to measure k-ratios that are highly affected by absorption...
Finally, once one has determined the actual "effective" takeoff angles for each spectrometer and crystal combination, one can then edit the SCALERS.DAT file as described here:
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=40.msg12018#msg12018
in order to take advantage of these new takeoff angle calibrations. The use of these effective takeoff angles in the SCALERS.DAT file in the Probe for EPMA absorption correction, won't affect your k-ratios , but it should allow you to obtain consistent concentrations across multiple spectrometers and crystals.
Pretty cool feature, I'd say... 😎
I note that there seems to be a new capability in CalcZAF to calculate intensities (k-ratios) from concentrations using all matrix corrections:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/395_03_11_23_9_01_37.png)
That is to say, this option used to be disabled unless one was calculating concentrations from intensities.
This could be useful in teasing out what is the "correct" k-ratio when evaluating effective take off angles for our various spectrometers:
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1569.0
As many of you know, we distribute the UofO EPMA standard database as the default standard composition database with CalcZAF (and Standard).
Of course you can make your own (default) standard composition database by importing the standards from your JEOL or Cameca instrument using the Standard application to first create a new standard.mdb file (see attached pre-installation pdf, appendix A for Cameca and appendix B for JEOL) and importing your standard compositions, or you can enter new standard compositions "from scratch".
Of course if you create a new standard.mdb file you will lose access to the UofO standard compositions, so we have now added a copy of that standard database file to the CalcZAF distribution starting with v. 13.6.6. The copy of the UofO standard database is called (appropriately enough!): standard_UofO.mdb.
This is a small thing, but I think worth mentioning.
In the Standard application, one can select a standard (or enter an unknown composition) and have the software calculate nominal spectral interfaces for on-peak or off-peak positions from the Misc Options | Interferences menu dialog.
However, we recently noticed when calculating interferences for a ZnSe standard, that the default crystal for Se La was using an LiF crystal as seen here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_28_04_25_1_05_01.png)
That's why the nominal peak position for Se La is around 625 (in JEOL spectrometer units)! But of course this can be corrected easily by going into the Standard | Modify menu and editing the default crystal utilized by Se La in such calculations and running the calculation again as seen here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_28_04_25_1_05_29.png)
But the real question is why was it using LiF as a default crystal in the first place? Well I'm not sure but at some point the ELEMENTS.DAT must have been edited to switch from Ka to La lines for elements As to Kr, but the default crystal for each was not updated. Here is the original ELEMENTS.DAT file:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_28_04_25_1_05_51.png)
Now the only place this seems to have caused a problem is in the nominal interference calculation in the Standard app. But we've edited the ELEMENTS.DAT file that is distributed in the CalcZAF installer to utilize more appropriate Bragg crystals as the default as seen here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_28_04_25_1_06_06.png)
So, you might want to take a look at your own ELEMENTS.DAT file (in the C:\ProgramData\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA folder), and check that the default lines and crystals are appropriate for elements As to Kr.
I'll also attached the edited ELEMENTS.DAT file below, in case you just want to download it and copy over your existing file, but if you've made edits to this file yourself, you won't want to over write and instead you should use a text editor to make these changes yourself.
As I said previously we don't see these odd default crystals causing a problem anywhere else (in Probe for EPMA this issue is trapped and corrected for automatically), but it's probably worth checking your won ELEMENTS.DAT file and see what's there for the default Bragg crystals for these 4 elements.
Minor improvement in the X-Ray | Calculate Spectrometer Positions dialog in CalcZAF:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_17_01_26_3_11_39.png)
The calculation now displays the 2d of the Bragg crystal, which is especially nice when selecting an LDE type crystal.
Have you ever wanted to quickly calculate what your expected raw k-ratios will be for two materials?
We've modified the Calculate K-ratios for a Range of takeoff Angles window in CalcZAF for this:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_11_03_26_3_06_29.png)
Here's an example output:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_11_03_26_3_06_43.png)
I'm finding it useful for our evaluations of spectrometer k-ratios:
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1569.0
Maybe you will too!
Quote from: John Donovan on March 11, 2026, 03:09:43 PMHave you ever wanted to quickly calculate what your expected raw k-ratios will be for two materials?
Nice
Quote from: Ben Buse on March 12, 2026, 04:34:24 AMQuote from: John Donovan on March 11, 2026, 03:09:43 PMHave you ever wanted to quickly calculate what your expected raw k-ratios will be for two materials?
Nice
Thanks.
My thought is whether we can utilize these (and also raw k-ratio calculations from PENEPMA) to check for proper spectrometer alignment:
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1569.0
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1739.15
Yes, it's a bit circular, but given that we can obtain excellent accuracy in some cases as demonstrated with the MgO, Al2O3 and MgAl2O4 FIGMAS mount, it makes me wonder if we can use these "ideal" k-ratios to decide if there's a problem with our instruments.
One problem I'm seeing though is that the PENEPMA k-ratios are sometimes a percent or so off from the analytical matrix corrections. For example the raw k-ratio for Mg Ka at 25 keV in MgAl2O4 relative to MgO is 0.2682 using CalcZAF Armstrong or the DAM correction as shown above, but with PENEPMA I get 0.2665:
https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1823.msg13926#msg13926
Can you confirm this using PENEPMA or other Monte Carlo methods?