Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
It seems worth mentioning again that our JEOL and Cameca "factory approved" software products can run alongside the JEOL or Cameca OEM applications (usually on separate computers), but connected to the same instrument *simultaneously* along with the OEM applications at the same time.

In the past this was not possible due to the nature of the instrument communications, but since the introduction of TCP/IP networked EPMA instruments starting with the JEOL 8900 and the Cameca SX100, there is essentially no practical limit to the number of computers/applications that can connect to the instrument at the same time. This provides enormous flexibility for both the developer and users.

I remember at the time when we first got this network communication working on an EPMA instrument and it was cool to watch a spectrometer start to move from one computer and even before it finished, start the same spectrometer moving in a different direction from the other computer and the spectrometer would slow down and reverse direction and proceed to completion.  Wow I thought.  This is going to be fun!

Just for illustration here is a JEOL 8200/8500 showing the JEOL UNIX software and the Probe for EPMA software running simultaneously. This is also true for the JEOL 8230/8530 instruments running the new PC based JEOL software applications.

And here is a Cameca SX100 instrument showing both the Cameca PeakSight software and the Probe for EPMA (and Thermo EDS) software running at the same time:

So the point is, with Probe Software EPMA applications, one gets to keep everything they already have with their instrument, but by making a simple network connection to the existing instrument network, one can open up a new world of analytical possibilities for improving accuracy and precision (and most importantly, laboratory throughput!).

I'm also attaching (please login to see attachments), a PPSX (Power Point Presentation Show) file below that describes some of these improvements that I presented recently.  Sorry for the "advertising" nature of this post, but some people aren't aware of these cool networking capabilities of their instruments and we would like to help.    :)

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Probe for EPMA Utilities / Re: Grapher/Surfer Tips and Tricks
« Last post by John Donovan on December 14, 2017, 11:15:13 pm »
The new CalcImage scripts when run with Surfer 13 or higher will automatically take care of the JEOL "anti-Cartesian" stage coordinate system as described here:

But just for general interest what happens if one manually loads a JEOL (anti-Cartesian) oriented GRD file directly into Surfer? Here we select a color relief map option, then select a GRD file as prompted, and we get this:

Not much to look at I know. But if we turn off the "hill shading" and click the View | Fit to Window icon, we get this:

Still looks strange right?  That's because the default in Surfer is "Terrain" color palette and Cartesian orientation. But if we select the Heat palette we get this:

It almost looks normal, but for reasons beyond my understanding, Golden Software has their Heat palette going from white to orange to black, while we microscopists prefer black to orange to white for our thermal palettes. This is not an issue for the CalcImage scripts because we generate our preferred palettes automatically, but when loading a GRD file in Surfer manually it might be better to go with one of the rainbow palettes like this:

In any event, the issue now is that this is still a Cartesian orientation, so we need to check the Reverse Axis checkboxes (from the Scaling tab), for both the X and Y axes like this:

Now it's starting to look like something.  Of course all this is only necessary because we didn't run the script automatically from Surfer! Makes me appreciate all the effort put into developing these scripts!
Probe Image / Re: Beam map aspect ratio not correct
« Last post by Probeman on December 14, 2017, 07:12:12 pm »
Here's an example from my Sx100 at UofO:

In this example, the values are the same for X and Y, though if I had more carefully calibrated them, they would probably be slightly different.  Note that the scan rotation changes slightly as the mag increases (sorry the fractional decimal point isn't visible in this view).

Bringing this post back for someone.  I should point out that the above example on my Sx100 shows a square image because the number of X and Y calibration (microns) are the same. But because Probe Image utilizes square pixels (unlike Probe for EPMA which has a separate aspect ratio parameter), to obtain a say 4:3 image aspect ratio, one simply determines the X and Y FOVs (in microns) and enters them in the above Beam Scan Calibration dialog in Probe Image from the Setup | Probe Image Setup menu.

One can easily calibrate their beam scan using the new beam scan calibration menu in CalcImage here:

by simply acquiring both a stage map and a beam scan on roughly the same area (where one can see three features on both images) and calibrating it using three fiducials as described in the link above.  In CalcImage this is the Processing | Calibrate Beam Scan From Stage Scan menu.
EPMA Sample Preparation / Re: Carbonate staining
« Last post by ericwgh on December 13, 2017, 05:22:23 pm »
Can I follow up on this? Same question and little carbonate experience.

Does this staining method affect the Fe content of the carbonate? Or are any other minor elements (Sr, Mg) leached out?

I also have no idea whether thin sections need to be repolished after the staining to produce a flat non-pitted surface for EMP analysis. The student that is interested in this wants to have polished stained thin sections made commercially, and my interpretation from reading the Cambridge website below is that you need a glass cover slide to archive the staining, since "stain is delicate and is easily removed".

Any advice?

Many thanks
Eric Hellebrand
Univ. Hawaii
JEOL / Re: JEOL WDS detector dead times
« Last post by Ben Buse on December 13, 2017, 03:01:22 pm »
Hi Philippe,
That looks very interesting, I've just dug out some old data I did.
I'm struggling to remember what i did - but scales are the different spectrometers.
I only included data >900 cps otherwise error was great.
Still considerable error, but you seen on spec 3 (scaler 3), change in gain from 32 to 8 (TAP to PET?) and increase in deadtime


EPMA Sample Preparation / Re: Will the 'real' carbon coat density please stand up?
« Last post by JohnF on December 13, 2017, 09:34:25 am »
Thank you Mike and Ben for your input. We are quite interested in this as we found that there was enough variation in the carbon coats on a sample vs the standard that the analytical totals were wacky, whereas the stoichiometry was perfect (plagioclase). Inputing different coat thickness values in PfE (from StrataGem k-ratios) saved the day. However, we noted that the thickness in StrataGem (which uses mass thickness) is a variable dependent upon density. So getting an accurate density would be rather useful.
Probe for EPMA / Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Last post by Probeman on December 13, 2017, 09:33:44 am »
   So a Holiday Wish: Could you install an option, (which a user can turn off easily), say a key word "AskFirstBeforeDoing". If yes, then when in the code at the first instance of where you check the column kV and see that it is NOT the default, you put up a message on the screen "Do you really want to change from (7) kV to your default (15) kV?" Then if no, the user can remember to go reset the column conditions.
   Would make our probing more funner....

Hi John,
Sounds like you are fighting with yourself for no good reason!   ;)

Why don't you simply save your column conditions to a .PCC file, once you've got everything tuned up the way you like it (e.g., 7 keV). And then even if a previous user (or yourself) changed everything later on, you just go to the Windows menu in Probe for EPMA and select the Load Column Conditions From File menu, select the previously saved column condition, and let the software re-load your "tuned up" column settings for you?

Wouldn't that work for you?
Probe for EPMA / Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Last post by JohnF on December 13, 2017, 09:21:03 am »
Wish Item for Xmas 2017: For the EPMA lab that doesn't always "do it the same way every day".
    We maybe are one of the few labs who doesn't always run their samples at the same column conditions (like we used to in the good ol' days). Now we run some samples 'the old fashioned way, 15 kV" but there are an increasing number of samples we run at 7 or 10 kV. In PfE, there is one default column condition. However, it happens more often than not, we will set up the probe for 7 kV, finish a run, and close the file. Then have the next project also at 7 kV, but if the old brain cells aren't firing quickly enough, I forget to immediately reset the operating conditions in the new file before I start peaking, and the PfE does what you've programmed it to do, it changes the column back to 15 kV, and we have to then spend many minutes realigning the instrument.
   So a Holiday Wish: Could you install an option, (which a user can turn off easily), say a key word "AskFirstBeforeDoing". If yes, then when in the code at the first instance of where you check the column kV and see that it is NOT the default, you put up a message on the screen "Do you really want to change from (7) kV to your default (15) kV?" Then if no, the user can remember to go reset the column conditions.
   Would make our probing more funner....
EPMA Sample Preparation / Re: Sample prep for water-soluble materials
« Last post by Probeman on December 12, 2017, 10:11:53 pm »
edit: I know the user titles on the forum are just automatically generated based on post count, but we should all just take a nerd moment to appreciate that this thread was started by "A lerner, Student"

Ha!  Nice catch.  ;D

Well I just hope we're all "a lerner", when it comes to EPMA, regardless of our user titles!   :)
EPMA Equipment and Parts / Re: Working Cameca SX50 for sale
« Last post by Probeman on December 12, 2017, 03:44:46 pm »
We've realized that our old SX50 is actually more valuable as parts (we just lost a WDS crystal on our Cameca SX100 instrument, so instead of spending $10K for a new crystal from Cameca, we can simply move one over from the old instrument).

However, we are still interested in selling the Bruker Esprit EDS SDD detector and electronics.  It's only 4 or 5 years old (10 sq, 130 eV resolution, Esprit v. 1.9.4 software, +5 WDS inputs), so we are thinking of selling it for around $20K.

Is that too high a price?  What do you all think a Bruker SDD might be worth?

PS it's a straight line EDS detector (not a "dog leg" style as one typically finds on the Cameca under the front optical port), as this one goes in the 5th WDS port in the back, so it could be installed on any SEM or JEOL instrument that has a straight snout EDS port.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10