Secondary boundary fluorescence correction in Probe for EPMA

[Probeman]

In case anyone is interested, attached below are the 5, 8, 10, 15 and 20 um Excel sheets for the above inclined geometries.

If anyone wants the complete PENEPMA calculations for these runs just let me know and I can send a download link as it's 46 MB.

Here's an example comparing a vertical boundary (0mdegrees) with a 70 degree sloped (inclined) boundary for Fe Ka in SiO2 adjacent to FeS2 at 15 um from the boundary. The k-ratios are:

0 deg: 0.001343
+70 deg: 0.000513

(0.001343 - 0.000513) / 0.001343 = 61% drop in intensity

at 10 um boundary, k-ratios are:

0 deg: 0.001683
+70 deg: 0.000617

(0.001683 - 0.000513) / 0.001683 = 69% drop in intensity

[Ben Buse]

Hi John
Great your looking at this
Is it now possible to model sloped planar interfaces in FANAL?
The other issue is where the interface is small - inclusions. Below is simulations for cuboids of varying sizes, together with planar interface from DTSA-II, and comparison to FANAL

[Probeman]

Is it now possible to model sloped planar interfaces in FANAL?

Unfortunately, not that I know of.  The sloped interfaces were all generated in PENEPMA, which of course is very time consuming.  I really do not not how to proceed from here as characterizing the actual angle of slope is not possible in an EPMA I suspect.

I should do another system with say a less energetic x-ray and see if the geometry alone dominates or also the x-ray physics.

The other issue is where the interface is small - inclusions. Below is simulations for cuboids of varying sizes, together with planar interface from DTSA-II, and comparison to FANAL

It's nice to see that DTSA2 and PENFLUOR/FANAL agree on a vertical plane geometry.

[John Donovan]

Attached below is the poster from Aurelien Moy and I for M&M 2025 for those who are unable to attend.  For those who will be present at the meeting, the poster session is Thu morning (10-12).

Looking forward to answering any and all questions.