New Features/Improvements in Standard/CalcZAF

[Ben Buse]

Have you ever wanted to quickly calculate what your expected raw k-ratios will be for two materials?

Nice

[John Donovan]

Have 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?