With regard to Ben Wade's MAN plots for F Ka on TAP and the TiO2 outlier, here are some more of my wandering thoughts.

1. The MACs for F Ka in TiO2 are quite large. For F Ka in Ti the tables MACs (from CalcZAF) are:

`MAC value for F Ka in Ti = 14588.35 (LINEMU Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV)`

MAC value for F Ka in Ti = 14540.00 (CITZMU Heinrich (1966) and Henke and Ebisu (1974))

MAC value for F Ka in Ti = .00 (MCMASTER McMaster (LLL, 1969) (modified by Rivers))

MAC value for F Ka in Ti = 14986.59 (MAC30 Heinrich (Fit to Goldstein tables, 1987))

MAC value for F Ka in Ti = .00 (MACJTA Armstrong (FRAME equations, 1992))

MAC value for F Ka in Ti = 14277.71 (FFAST Chantler (NIST v 2.1, 2005))

MAC value for F Ka in Ti = 14500.00 (USERMAC User Defined MAC Table)

and for F ka in O they are:

`MAC value for F Ka in O = 12439.63 (LINEMU Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV)`

MAC value for F Ka in O = 12390.00 (CITZMU Heinrich (1966) and Henke and Ebisu (1974))

MAC value for F Ka in O = .00 (MCMASTER McMaster (LLL, 1969) (modified by Rivers))

MAC value for F Ka in O = 11927.75 (MAC30 Heinrich (Fit to Goldstein tables, 1987))

MAC value for F Ka in O = .00 (MACJTA Armstrong (FRAME equations, 1992))

MAC value for F Ka in O = 11863.62 (FFAST Chantler (NIST v 2.1, 2005))

MAC value for F Ka in O = 12400.00 (USERMAC User Defined MAC Table)

I don't have Ben's MDB file handy at the university, but yesterday from home I tried selecting the lowest MAC table values (FFAST), and the MAN fit for TiO2 (#559) was still about the same amount over the trend line. So it doesn't seem possible that the MAC could be off that much.

Interestingly if we look at the calculated MAN absorption corrections as seen here (from running PFE in DebugMode):

`MAN fit data for Mg ka, SP4 TAP, 15 keV`

Std J MANSet Npts Z-bar Cps AbsCor

504 1 1 1 14.3913 .715813 1.58141

501 2 1 2 10.7106 .523931 1.49128

541 3 1 3 12.0184 .548867 1.43226

559 4 1 4 16.3937 .584618 1.83249 <- TiO2

578 5 1 5 20.5879 .668368 2.41281

701 6 1 6 10.7190 .618357 1.33443

503 7 1 7 13.4430 .615176 1.54753

549 8 1 8 6.12880 .349537 1.25008

571 9 1 9 11.7470 .557961 1.40367

575 10 1 10 10.6460 .638117 1.31164

589 11 1 11 14.0000 .831370 1.09576

594 12 1 12 4.00000 .280255 .964030

602 13 1 13 27.0000 .713668 3.01841

619 14 1 14 21.0000 .834364 1.82118

514 15 1 15 26.6522 .592982 3.27371

we can see that the largest corrections are for F Ka in some of the other standards. So it could be the MAN continuum absorption correction, but why is TiO2 more of an outlier than the other standards with larger corrections?

Note: many years ago I attempted to apply a true continuum absorption correction using Myklebust's continuum expression, but I got worse regression results than just using the normal phi-rho-z bulk absorption correction...