Wish List for PFE Features

[jeb]

Getting the ball rolling on a list of features I, and others, would like to see for PFE (got to keep John busy!):

In the "Display Time Dependent (TDI) and Alternating (on/off) Intensities" window, make it remember the element you have selected from sample to sample and/or eliminate the pop-up every time about there being no TDI data when the element selected doesn't have TDI data (or maybe just have it tell the user once that TDI data is only available for elements X, Y, and Z?)

More suggestions to come I'm sure

[John Donovan]

Good idea! 

That "behavior" has been bugging me for a while so I'm really glad you brought it up!

Anyway, all fixed now- enjoy!

[Sandrin Feig]

Hi John

I would like to be able to change the order in which standards are analysed.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.
At the moment the standards are analysed in the order of their “sample number”. If you program 10 standards, it will analyse the one with the lowest number first and the one with the highest number last.

We are in the process of replacing all of our standards. Before we feel confident in using the new ones, we would like to measure them against the old standards. However, if I program a run over night that contains 10 old and 10 new standards, it will first analyse all the old standards since they have lower “sample numbers” before it starts analysing the new ones. Any drift of the instrument will results in different number and would make us believe that the standards are not identical in composition.
Ideally, I would like to analyse the standards in pairs, but for that I have to change the order.

Cheers
Sandrin

[John Donovan]

Hi Sandrin,
Why don't you just run them as "unknowns" and then you can order them in any order you want?

Hint: use this button in the Position window:



Then order them using this spin button:

[BenH]

Hi John.
I frequently report data in mole% oxide form rather than weight percent.  It is a simple calculation in Excel, but it would be nice to be able to have the option to have PFE report oxide wt %  in the export and, if possible on the screen.  Would anyone else like that option?

[John Donovan]

I frequently report data in mole% oxide form rather than weight percent.  It is a simple calculation in Excel, but it would be nice to be able to have the option to have PFE report oxide wt %  in the export and, if possible on the screen.  Would anyone else like that option?

Hi Ben,
I added an option for Oxide Mole Percents in the User Specified Output dialog available from the Output | User Specified Format menu as shown here:



When you use the export to Excel option, you'll get this output which I think is what you want...

[Sandrin Feig]

Hi Sandrin,
Why don't you just run them as "unknowns" and then you can order them in any order you want?

Hint: use this button in the Position window:



Then order them using this spin button:

Hi John

Thank you for the quick reply! And sorry that it took me so long to answer. I have been snowed under with work and just today managed to have a look at the forum again.

Following your suggestions would allow me to analysed the standards as unknowns. I could analyse them in the right order. However, if I turn the standards into unknowns I cannot use them as calibration standards any more.

Ideally, I could use the same spin buttons that work nicely for sorting the unknowns also for manipulating the order of the standard acquisition. That would allow me to analyse the standards in my preferred order and I can still use them to calibrate.

Cheers
Sandrin 

[John Donovan]

Ideally, I could use the same spin buttons that work nicely for sorting the unknowns also for manipulating the order of the standard acquisition. That would allow me to analyse the standards in my preferred order and I can still use them to calibrate.

Hi Sandrin,
If you are only trying to compare the old standards with the new standards, it doesn't really matter that they are unknowns. You're just going to do it once or twice right?

I could allow the user to change the standard acquisition order in the Automate! list, but it's not a trivial change.  Do you need it for any other purposes?  Note that if there is standard intensity drift, the standard drift correction if PFE works *really* well as long as you run the primary standard both *before* and *after* the secondary standard. So just select all your standards and just run them twice using the "After" checkbox in Automate!

Also you should try out the Evaluate standard program. It allows one to compare all standards in a run for one element at a time as seen here:



Good for evaluating ones standards for self consistency. Standard #14 is my SiO2 standard. The program automatically uses the standard with the highest concentration as the primary standard. John Fournelle and Paul Carpenter came up with this idea.

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi John,

I am jumping in here and ask for something similar to what Sandrin is asking for, namely the option to have a user-defined order of tasks.

What I have in mind is an option that opens a pop-up window/second window where I could define a task list either by drag and drop or similar to the "add standards to run" option and where I can mix and match unknowns and calibration standards. The current function to recalibrate standards after x hours does not completely fulfill my needs because:

1) I would prefer to have control on when the new calibration will happen (between two physical samples) rather after a certain time interval.

2) More importantly, depending on the analytical problem i am investigating, sometimes I would like to recalibrate some elements at different intervals than others. Currently it is either all or none in my understanding. But let's say I want to do calcium in olivine, I may want to run the calcium calibration more often (let's say every 30 analysis) while I only want to re-calibrate the Mg, Fe, Si standards at the beginning and at the end the entire run. With the current setting, depending on what mineral I am looking at, running all standards in short intervals would otherwise add significant time to the run.

Such a function would really put the capability of PFE to correct for drift to a whole other level.

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi John,

this one would be a "nice to have" for efficiency and being lazy.

Problem: When I am peaking the spectrometers on the assigned standards, I do not always agree with the results (because some peaking methods seem to work better for some elements but I want to run them as a batch). However, the post-scan confirmation option is not my optimal solution because a) it runs the scan twice which takes time and b) the program wants to handle them one after another which requires me to be present at the machine (and c) sometimes I have problems with overlapping windows that I cannot close for some reason and require me to kill the program).

My dream solution: The peaking runs are all stored and can be looked at under the "Run" option (which is great). I would love to have a button here that saves the new peak position automatically to the set-up if I want to switch from gaussian to maximum intensity or even user-defined (right now I am writing them down and have to type them in one by one).

Thanks.

[Anette von der Handt]

And a third one (hey, that is fun):

I really like the option that I can define background positions in a wavescan and the software automatically applies them to the next unknown acquisition.

It would be great to have the additional option to define the positions by straight typing them in as well. When I try to pick them graphically, I always end up with values like 5.03 instead of 5.00. Then I have to go into the set-up, change it there and have to plot it again (because I often print them out for user reference or class) which ends up really time consuming when I have a large number of elements and scans (I have a very varied user base here).

However, I understand that I may be alone with this "problem".

[John Donovan]

1) I would prefer to have control on when the new calibration will happen (between two physical samples) rather after a certain time interval.

2) More importantly, depending on the analytical problem i am investigating, sometimes I would like to recalibrate some elements at different intervals than others. Currently it is either all or none in my understanding. But let's say I want to do calcium in olivine, I may want to run the calcium calibration more often (let's say every 30 analysis) while I only want to re-calibrate the Mg, Fe, Si standards at the beginning and at the end the entire run. With the current setting, depending on what mineral I am looking at, running all standards in short intervals would otherwise add significant time to the run.

Hi Anette,
As we discussed off line I will need to think how I can best implement this idea in the current software paradigm. Everything is possible, but some things are easier than others!   

In the meantime it's good to hear you have the HVAC in your lab working better. I feel so spoiled in my lab where the temperature is always 72.0 +/- 0.2 F!

Also hopefully a combination of the automatic "before" and "after" standardizations with the interval standardization will get you through this.

[John Donovan]

Problem: When I am peaking the spectrometers on the assigned standards, I do not always agree with the results (because some peaking methods seem to work better for some elements but I want to run them as a batch). However, the post-scan confirmation option is not my optimal solution because a) it runs the scan twice which takes time and b) the program wants to handle them one after another which requires me to be present at the machine (and c) sometimes I have problems with overlapping windows that I cannot close for some reason and require me to kill the program).

My dream solution: The peaking runs are all stored and can be looked at under the "Run" option (which is great). I would love to have a button here that saves the new peak position automatically to the set-up if I want to switch from gaussian to maximum intensity or even user-defined (right now I am writing them down and have to type them in one by one).

Hi Anette,
The idea of a way to save the selected peak position with the mouse from the Run | Display, Export PHA, Peak Scans menu dialog is easy and I will implement that ASAP.

Frankly, it's been bugging me too!
john

[John Donovan]

I really like the option that I can define background positions in a wavescan and the software automatically applies them to the next unknown acquisition.

It would be great to have the additional option to define the positions by straight typing them in as well. When I try to pick them graphically, I always end up with values like 5.03 instead of 5.00. Then I have to go into the set-up, change it there and have to plot it again (because I often print them out for user reference or class) which ends up really time consuming when I have a large number of elements and scans (I have a very varied user base here).

However, I understand that I may be alone with this "problem".

I guess you must really like "round numbers"! 

Note the new feature here that allows you to see exactly what the background offset is that you are selecting:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=42.msg253#msg253

[John Donovan]

Problem: When I am peaking the spectrometers on the assigned standards, I do not always agree with the results (because some peaking methods seem to work better for some elements but I want to run them as a batch). However, the post-scan confirmation option is not my optimal solution because a) it runs the scan twice which takes time and b) the program wants to handle them one after another which requires me to be present at the machine (and c) sometimes I have problems with overlapping windows that I cannot close for some reason and require me to kill the program).

My dream solution: The peaking runs are all stored and can be looked at under the "Run" option (which is great). I would love to have a button here that saves the new peak position automatically to the set-up if I want to switch from gaussian to maximum intensity or even user-defined (right now I am writing them down and have to type them in one by one).

Your wish is granted...   

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=42.msg473#msg473