Wish List for PFE Features

[John Donovan]

SP3 at the minute, I hadn't thought of trying to add SP5 to our instrument. I might have a think about that!
Our SXES-LR on the 8530F takes up the SP5 position, hence our instrument only having 4 "traditional" WDS.

I was just thinking then you could just have a fifth spectrometer used only for this SXES purpose... but to make it work I think you'd have to set the DisableSpectrometerNumber keyword to 5 in the Probewin.ini so the program essentially ignores it for automation as shown here:

[hardware]
DisableSpectrometerNumber=5      ; disable spectrometer flag allows a single spectrometer to be ignored by the program

And of course you'd have to enter dummy values for a 5th spectrometer in the SCALERS.DAT and MOTORS.DAT configuration files.

For the Analytical | Update Dead Time Constants - is there an equivalent way of doing this for CalcImage?
At the minute I'm doing exactly as you suggest - dividing the measured intensities across the board by an order of magnitude or two, which wouldn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things, but it would be nice if I didn't have to!

The updated dead time constants from the PFE dialog will be applied to the CalcImage maps automatically as long as you update the dead time constants in the sample used for the "Sample Setup" in CalcImage, from Probe for EPMA using the Analytical | Update Dead Time Constants menu.  I will try to modify the "sanity check" in the SCALERS.DAT file...

I'll see what I can do about creating some demo data for quant mapping with the combined WDS and SXES: the work I've been doing has all been on client data. I work quite a lot with light elements, and the SXES is a game changer for this.

No rush, but that's very interesting to hear.   It's too bad JEOL doesn't provide us with a way to read that spectrometer directly in Probe for EPMA.  You should bug them about this.  I know that Anette and Mia Kraft were working on this before Anette left for UBC.

[John Donovan]

Yeah, I've got the SXES data going in to PfE and CalcImage.

It'd be great if I could put a dead time value as low as 0.0001us or something ridiculously small in to scalers.dat. My worry is that the very large CPS/nA values I get from integrating the SXES peaks is getting inappropriately dead time corrected.

We have modified the SCALERS.DAT "sanity check" to allow dead time values as low as 0.0001 us.

Update using the Probe for EPMA Help | Update Probe for EPMA menu as usual.

[JonF]

Thanks very much!

[Rom]

Hello everyone,
I just noted that "Display results as oxides" and "calculate atomic percents" in "calculate options" of Analyse do not work together.
It will be good if we can look at our results in at% and in stoichiometric form (on the picture I would like to see ZnO 100% ).
If it possible, off course.
Thank you!
   

[John Donovan]

Hello everyone,
I just noted that "Display results as oxides" and "calculate atomic percents" in "calculate options" of Analyse do not work together.
It will be good if we can look at our results in at% and in stoichiometric form (on the picture I would like to see ZnO 100% ).
If it possible, off course.
Thank you!

I think you are asking for mole percent output.

This option is available when using the User Specified Output from the Analyze! window for selected samples or from the Output menu for standard or unknown samples:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=71.msg350#msg350

[Rom]

Thank you, John.
I know that the possibility exists, we can also easily recalculate our results in excel etc.
The benefit of using the options through "Analyse" is speed - we can very quick transform our data to convenient form - just for quick estimation without data saving.
Another point - it logically should work if we choose "Display results as oxides" and "calculate atomic percents" in "calculate options".
But if it is difficult to correct the code - let's forget the question, it is not a big point which deserves lots of discussions))

[John Donovan]

Another point - it logically should work if we choose "Display results as oxides" and "calculate atomic percents" in "calculate options".
But if it is difficult to correct the code - let's forget the question, it is not a big point which deserves lots of discussions))

Yes, it is possible to add this output to the Analyze! window output. The problem is that some users expect to see oxide weight percent output *and* elemental atomic percent output.  I know that I do.  Changing the current behavior might upset some users.  That is why we only added mole oxide output in the user specified output where it doesn't disrupt the current behavior of the software.

I will start a poll and if there is overwhelming support for changing the behavior of these options I will consider implementing it.

[John Donovan]

Another point - it logically should work if we choose "Display results as oxides" and "calculate atomic percents" in "calculate options".
But if it is difficult to correct the code - let's forget the question, it is not a big point which deserves lots of discussions))

Yes, it is possible to add this output to the Analyze! window output. The problem is that some users expect to see oxide weight percent output *and* elemental atomic percent output.  I know that I do.  Changing the current behavior might upset some users.  That is why we only added mole oxide output in the user specified output where it doesn't disrupt the current behavior of the software.

I will start a poll and if there is overwhelming support for changing the behavior of these options I will consider implementing it.

I sometimes think I'm too helpful!  (I blame my mother who always told me: "Be useful"!)

I thought of a way to preserve the current default of elemental atomic output, but allow for the choice of mole oxide output when desired. Here is what the new calculation Options dialog looks like now in v. 13.7.8:



The default will always be atomic percent, but one can now select mole oxide output instead.  Here the default atomic percent output:



And here is the optional mole oxide percent output:



Hope that makes *everyone* happy...     

[Rom]

It is great, thank you and your mom.
Could you guess why the option doesn't active for me? Off course, I updated the software version.
 Thank you!

[John Donovan]

It is great, thank you and your mom.
Could you guess why the option doesn't active for me? Off course, I updated the software version.
 Thank you!

You'll have to make a new probe file, since this flag is not available in old databases.

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi,

Do you think there is a way to add the blank correction choices to the report and data output options? It could be just the unknown number used as the blank to have listed in either format.

[Rom]

It is great, thank you and your mom.
Could you guess why the option doesn't active for me? Off course, I updated the software version.
 Thank you!

You'll have to make a new probe file, since this flag is not available in old databases.

It is working!
Thank you.

[John Donovan]

Hi,

Do you think there is a way to add the blank correction choices to the report and data output options? It could be just the unknown number used as the blank to have listed in either format.

Your wish is my command!   

Now in v. 13.7.9 check the user specified output format from the Analyze! window (for output of selected samples) or from the Output menu (for all unknowns or standards) and note the new output option shown here:



This output includes the unknown sample number utilized as the assigned blank sample, the blank level (the "true" concentration of trace element in the blank sample) and the blank value (the difference between the blank level and the measured concentration in the blank sample for that spectrometer/crystal).

During quantification, the blank value is converted into a k-ratio intensity based on the composition of the actual unknown sample in question (relative to the blank sample itself), and then subtracted during the matrix iteration.  This allows any matrix differences between the blank sample and the unknown sample to be accounted for quantitatively.



Note that these blank parameters are the same for all data points within a sample as they are calculated from the blank sample level and the blank sample measurement average. Though of course in the case of duplicate elements (e.g., measuring Ti on all 5 spectrometers), they will likely be slightly different for each duplicate element (different spectrometer).

Finally we also added output of these blank parameters to the Report button output table as seen here:



The blank correction itself is described in these topics:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=29.0
https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=454.0
https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=1397.0

[dawncruth]

Can we get export filter for totals >102 (or whatever we chose)?

[dawncruth]

Can we add a default value to the wavescan limits?