Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The latest release of CalcZAF includes the most recent matrix.mdb k-ratio database, which now contains over half a million (565K) k-ratio intensities. This database can be found in the C:\ProgramData\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA folder.

The matrix.mdb is a Microsoft Access (2000) relational database which contains k-ratio intensities calculated from binary compounds and pure elements from Penepma (Penfluor/Fanal). These binary compositions range from 1% to 99% with 11 compositions per binary for electron beam energies between 5 and 50 keV for elements carbon to californium. More details are found in this topic above. For calculations using the full Penepma code see here:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=151.0

There are a number of benefits to these intensity calculations, the primary one being that the Penepma code is not "tuned" to a particular dataset, as is the case for the analytical expressions that we normally utilize in our matrix corrections.  These intensity calculations are purely based on the best quantum mechanical models (and fundamental parameters) available at the time.

So one possible use of this intensity database could be in comparing these "untuned" calculated intensities with calculations from our analytical expressions, and note where we see significant discrepancies, which we could possibly resolve through empirical measurements.

In addition this matrix.mdb database is also utilized for matrix corrections in Probe for EPMA (and CalcZAF) by fitting the intensities to hyperbolic expressions via so called "alpha factors". This is described in more detail here in the forum:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=47.0

And also in a paper published by Donovan, Pinard and Demers which describes this method in detail here:

https://epmalab.uoregon.edu/publ/high_speed_matrix_corrections_for_quantitative_xray_microanalysis_based_on_monte_carlo_simulated_kratio_intensities.pdf

The main takeaway from the above work is that the alpha factor method works quite well, except in cases of extreme fluorescence, so in some instances where the analytical expressions fail, this method might be somewhat useful.

On a more adventurous note, it might also be interesting to attempt to utilize this database of k-ratio intensities to train a neural net. However, the database is still incomplete with some areas of the periodic table still being calculated. But if someone is interested in pursuing this line of inquiry, I'd be pleased to participate.
2
JEOL / Re: JEOL optical camera feed for remote desktop
« Last post by glennpoirier on February 23, 2021, 12:25:15 PM »
Thanks for this Jason,
I bought a USB capture stick and had an OM microscope image on my PfE computer in less than 5 minutes. A bit fuzzier than the original but perfectly useable.
My 8230 is using the older IAI camera.
Cheers
Glenn
3
CalcImage / Re: New Features in CalcImage
« Last post by John Donovan on February 22, 2021, 06:08:21 PM »
Finally we recently added a new feature that displays additional stage extents information in the CalcImage Project | Specify Quantitative Parameters menu dialog as seen here:



Remember, anyone (faculty, student, client or customer) that uses our software on your microprobe can receive a free copy of the software for reprocessing of point or map data.  You can get the latest distribution files by updating both CalcZAF and Probe for EPMA from their respective Help menus. Then simply go to the C:\ProgramData\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA folder and grab these two files:

ProbeForEPMA.msi
CalcZAF.msi

Installing these two packages will allow anyone to reprocess their point or map data on any Windows computer (and Apple computers using the Parallels virtual Windows product).  Of course they will also need their data files, which for Probe for EPMA are the .MDB files (and .BIM files if present).

For CalcImage they will need the PrbImg map files.  However, if the PrbImg map files have already been added to a CalcImage project, they will only need the files in the UserData folder, since the PrbImg files are converted to .GRD files during that process.

Please let us know if you have any questions about this.

Just a quick note that we noticed that this stage extents display feature in CalcImage was not working properly when creating a new project (as opposed to opening an existing project), so we just uploaded a new PFE update today to fix that.  Update from the Probe for EPMA Help menu and you will get this latest update.
4
DTSA II / Re: simulation X-ray counts
« Last post by NicholasRitchie on February 22, 2021, 07:41:20 AM »
The short answer is that the tabulated values are reported in flux per milli-steradian and don't account for detector efficiency.

If you account from the solid angle subtended by the detector and the efficiency of the detector (fractional number of x-rays measured per incident x-ray as a function of x-ray energy), the numbers will agree.
The tabulated data is intended to expose the generated and emitted data in a manner that is useful for other types of measurements than EDS - like WDS.
5
DTSA II / simulation X-ray counts
« Last post by HaydeeHampton on February 22, 2021, 07:20:13 AM »
I’m trying to understand how the emitted characteristic X-ray counts in DTSA-II’s simulation report table relate to the counts in the simulated spectrum.

I carried out a Monte Carlo bulk sample simulation of SiO2 and am having trouble matching the emitted characteristic oxygen and silicon X-ray counts in the simulation report table to those in the simulated spectrum. For example using the Si(Li) detector provided with DTSA-II, the O X-ray counts in the spectra are significantly higher (~195,000) than the table (~105,000 –- based on summing O K-L2 and O K-L3). Are they not meant to be roughly the same?

The spectrum counts were estimated using approximate keV peak ranges and the “Integrate peak (background corrected)” tool. I uploaded the spectrum bitmap and report html with this message.

My interest in this was sparked because this same pattern occurs with the detector file I created for our SEM. Any help would be appreciated!

Thank you,

Haydee
6
CalcImage / Re: New Features in CalcImage
« Last post by John Donovan on February 21, 2021, 03:13:01 PM »
Andrew Locock recently asked if we could have a field created in the PrbImg files (which are the mapping intensity files created by Probe Image during map acquisition), that specifies the image stage extents for the map.

Note that the PrbImg file already contains all the information but the user would need to perform a subtraction of the following fields:

[Registration]
X1Pixel=319
Y1Pixel=164
X2Pixel=0
Y2Pixel=0
X3Pixel=319
Y3Pixel=0
X1Real=-35.2848
Y1Real=-33.312
Z1Real=9.6945
X2Real=-35.0304
Y2Real=-33.4432
Z2Real=9.6945
Z3Real=9.6945

In the meantime it is worth noting that the stage extents of the map (stage scan or beam scan) can be obtained also by simply opening the PrbImg (click on the corresponding Tif file), from the Probe Image File | Open menu. Once the PrbImg file is opened, simply click on the Conditions tab to see the following information, including the horizontal and vertical field widths:



In addition, one can also simply open the PrbImg file in CalcImage, and by "hovering" the mouse cursor over the image, the following information will pop up:



Note however that the field width and height are displayed in stage units. In this case the stage units are in mms since the software is in a JEOL configuration.

Finally we recently added a new feature that displays additional stage extents information in the CalcImage Project | Specify Quantitative Parameters menu dialog as seen here:



Remember, anyone (faculty, student, client or customer) that uses our software on your microprobe can receive a free copy of the software for reprocessing of point or map data.  You can get the latest distribution files by updating both CalcZAF and Probe for EPMA from their respective Help menus. Then simply go to the C:\ProgramData\Probe Software\Probe for EPMA folder and grab these two files:

ProbeForEPMA.msi
CalcZAF.msi

Installing these two packages will allow anyone to reprocess their point or map data on any Windows computer (and Apple computers using the Parallels virtual Windows product).  Of course they will also need their data files, which for Probe for EPMA are the .MDB files (and .BIM files if present).

For CalcImage they will need the PrbImg map files.  However, if the PrbImg map files have already been added to a CalcImage project, they will only need the files in the UserData folder, since the PrbImg files are converted to .GRD files during that process.

Please let us know if you have any questions about this.
7
EPMA Standard Materials / Re: Standards for EPMA-Halides
« Last post by Probeman on February 20, 2021, 12:39:34 PM »
Following on the discussion of potential bromine standards, recently I had the opportunity to investigate some CsPbBr3 (22.92 wt% Cs, 35.74 wt% Pb, 41.34 wt% Br) grown by a graduate student in the Chemistry department here; I believe she used the Czochralski method to grow it.

Water should be avoided during polishing, as the compound is at least somewhat soluble in it.

Considering the composition, I was surprised at how well it held up under the beam.  At beam energy = 15 keV, beam current = 10 nA, and the beam finely focused (minimal astigmatism), the Br La count rate and absorbed current tend to be a little unstable.  In contrast, at 20 nA (focused), very bad things happen.  Working with a 10-micron beam diameter at 20 nA gives much better results.

It appears that the compound can handle beam currents below 20 nA (at 15 keV) as long as the beam is defocused to 10 microns.  I'm calling it a winner!

Hi Brian,
This sounds interesting.

When I was at UC Berkeley we needed a Cs standard and so I ordered a CsBr single crystal from an electronics materials supplier.  I gave it to my technician to mount up and he reported to me that it was like trying to polish rubber! Under the beam we found it was also quite unstable but usable with a TDI correction for the standards. 

Your compound seems pretty stable with a defocussed beam, but I bet it would also work if you turn on the TDI correction for standards in PFE (in the Special Options dialog in the Acquire! window).
8
Thanks for your reply, though we are only using it to mount samples for polishing, not examination.

We have a crystalbond 509 stick that I recently found, and it melts at higher temperatures (much higher than the other listings, 121C or 250F) and is more tacky than the white wax we typically use.

I have a feeling I should narrow my search to only wax products.
9
EPMA Standard Materials / Re: Standards for EPMA-Halides
« Last post by Brian Joy on February 16, 2021, 12:54:52 PM »
Following on the discussion of potential bromine standards, recently I had the opportunity to investigate some CsPbBr3 (22.92 wt% Cs, 35.74 wt% Pb, 41.34 wt% Br) grown by a graduate student in the Chemistry department here; I believe she used the Czochralski method to grow it.

Water should be avoided during polishing, as the compound is at least somewhat soluble in it.

Considering the composition, I was surprised at how well it held up under the beam.  At beam energy = 15 keV, beam current = 10 nA, and the beam finely focused (minimal astigmatism), the Br La count rate and absorbed current tend to be a little unstable.  In contrast, at 20 nA (focused), very bad things happen.  Working with a 10-micron beam diameter at 20 nA gives much better results.

It appears that the compound can handle beam currents below 20 nA (at 15 keV) as long as the beam is defocused to 10 microns.  I'm calling it a winner!

10 nA, focused beam:


20 nA, focused beam


20 nA, 10 micron beam diameter

10
JEOL / JEOL optical camera feed for remote desktop
« Last post by Jason Herrin on February 16, 2021, 04:41:53 AM »
Hi all,

This is a copy-and-paste from our email discussion last week. We configured a low-cost solution to capture the video feed from the optical camera on our JXA-8530F when operating through remote desktop. Credit goes to our DIY craftsman and resident “karung guni”, a rag-and-bone man of electron microscopy, Alan Lim.

I have attached an annotated photo that tells the connector story. We have “T’d” off the analogue composite video signal from the microscope camera and fed this into a USB video capture card. The shopping list for this setup includes the capture card ($10), a BNC T-splitter, a short BNC cable, a BNC-to-RCA adapter, and a USB cable. Altogether it should be ~$20, although we had most of this stuff laying around the lab.

We have installed the capture card as one would a USB camera. I have also added images showing how to configure VLC Player to accept the capture card input. You can also use the Camera app in Windows 10.
 
We have Probe Software running on a separate PC, as I assume everyone else does also. Our JEOL PC is not connected to the external network, so our remote desktop procedure is as follows:
 
1) Remote in to the Probe Software PC using whatever viewer our IT department hasn’t banned yet.

2) Remote over to JEOL PC from Probe Software PC. We use VNC Jumper for this (JEOL PC is VNC server, Probe Software PC is VNC client).

3) Open VLC Player on Probe Software PC to see optical feed as needed.
 

Tips:

-If you are sharing the same mouse and keyboard across two laboratory PC’s, I recommend disabling it when working remotely to avoid “lost cursor events”.

-It helps to have at least one big monitor wherever you are working remotely so you can see both PC’s and the camera feed at the same time in the same window.

-If your connection is lagging, it helps to reduce the display on the lab PC that you are connected to (single monitor and/or reduced resolution). More resolution is obviously preferable if bandwidth affords.

-If the camera connection experiences fatal failure, it can be that the $10 capture card is faulty. Alan says to consider buying a spare, because they tend to overheat and fail.

-If you also have access to lab CCTV, increase the size of your spectrometer flags so you can watch ‘em turn. [update: I am told that the post-2019 JEOL models no longer have flagpoles on the spectrometer motors.]
 
Best of luck in all of your remote operating endeavors,

Jason Herrin
NTU Singapore
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10