Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Cameca / Re: Minimum stage movement on SXFive
« Last post by sem-geologist on June 07, 2024, 01:53:00 AM »
Yes, SXFive has the same mechanical stage as SX100, thus for discrete quantitative points the step is 1µm (the limiting factor is 1µm grating and optical encoder). Only in mappings and profiles continuous mode of stepper motors can be used to achieve sub 1µm mechanical precision. But if You need sub µm step for discreet points, what about using beam shift to achieve that?
92
Cameca / Re: Minimum stage movement on SXFive
« Last post by Probeman on June 05, 2024, 05:57:28 PM »
Hello everyone, I am currently investigating a few characteristics of the CAMECA SXFive microprobe, and one of the question in mind is the minimum movement available of the stage in order to make several measurements in a straight line with the maximum resolution available.
Greetings,

I only know that the SX100 minimum stage move is 1 um.  In order to get sub micron stage sampling one needs to use a mapping or scanning function and then quantify that. 
93
Thanks - I upped to 3.0 (was set with a note that the 8530 requires 2.5), will see if that solves it - and when able to slow down will get JEOL to service the scope.
94
Digging through things a bit more, could it be that I need to increase the FaradayWaitInTime=2.5 to something a bit higher rather the BeamCurrentChangeDelay that I made?

I would try that.

We've seen Faraday "wait in" delays to to 2.5 or 2.6 seconds necessary when the Faraday cup gets sticky.  Of course you should also probably call JEOL service and get that fixed.
95
Digging through things a bit more, could it be that I need to increase the FaradayWaitInTime=2.5 to something a bit higher rather the BeamCurrentChangeDelay that I made?
96
JEOL / JEOL 8530, "low probe current (<0.1nA) - filament may be burned out"
« Last post by Nathan C. on June 05, 2024, 11:02:23 AM »
Hi, We have a JEOL 8530 that in the last couple weeks has started having random errors for "low probe current" that are terminating the run.  Yesterday we tried changing the probewin.ini file to up the delay to 1.5 from 1.0, but we still had the issue.  Is there anything more we can do to address this, or is it likely a JEOL hardware issue and we should have them out for service?

We have a stack of runs that need to be completed, so if there's suggestions for a band-aid temporarily to get us through until this can be addressed by JEOL We'd be greatful!

Also - my colleague mentioned he has a vague memory that when John Donovan was out for training when we initially took ownership of the system, he had had to do some adjustment for an issue similar if not the same as this during his visit.  Could we possibly have overwritten the changes to the .ini file when we updated to newer version of the software?
97
Probe Software Inc / Re: Probe Software Company and Product Information
« Last post by John Donovan on June 05, 2024, 08:49:15 AM »
Following up with Julien Allaz's post above we asked Grok (the AI on X.com) the following question:

What are the advantages of electron probe microanalysis?  And Grok responded:

Quote
Electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) is a non-destructive technique that offers several advantages for material characterization. It allows for the determination of the chemical composition of small volumes of a solid material, which is particularly useful for materials science, geoscience, and other fields requiring precise chemical analysis. The primary benefits of EPMA include:

1    Non-destructive analysis: EPMA does not destroy or significantly alter the sample, allowing for further analysis or reuse if needed.
2    High spatial resolution: EPMA can analyze small areas of the sample with a resolution down to a few micrometers, providing detailed information about the chemical composition of different regions within the sample.
3    High sensitivity: EPMA can detect elements in concentrations as low as a few tens of parts per million (ppm), making it suitable for trace element analysis.
4    Simultaneous analysis: EPMA can simultaneously analyze multiple elements in a single measurement, providing a comprehensive understanding of the sample's composition.
5    Quantitative analysis: EPMA can provide quantitative data on the concentration of elements in the sample, allowing for accurate comparisons between different samples or standards.
6    Versatility: EPMA can be applied to a wide range of materials, including metals, alloys, ceramics, minerals, and biological samples.

These advantages make EPMA a powerful tool for researchers and scientists in various fields, providing detailed and accurate information about the chemical composition of their samples.

Then we decided to ask a harder question: How can trace element accuracy and sensitivity be improved in EPMA?  And Grok responded:

Quote
Trace element accuracy and sensitivity in electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) can be improved through various methods and advancements. Here are some strategies based on the information provided:

1    High-brightness electron sources and spectrometers: The use of high-brightness electron sources and spectrometers with high X-ray collection efficiencies can improve the detection limits and analytical capabilities for trace elements.
2    Matrix iterated quantitative blank correction: This technique can help overcome the disadvantages of high detection limits and poor accuracy in trace element analyses by optimizing analytical conditions and making corrections for peak overlap and secondary standard measurements.
3    Advanced software methods: Software tools, such as those provided by Probe Software's Probe for EPMA, can help improve both the accuracy and precision of trace element EPMA analyses through the use of advanced background calibration and correction methods.
4    Ion beam milling and electron counting mode: Using an ion beam to mill the sample and collecting data in electron counting mode with an energy filter can improve the resolution and precision of the analysis.
5    Advanced detectors: The use of advanced detectors, such as the EDX-7200 from Shimadzu, can provide high sensitivity, high speed, and high precision for accurate elemental analysis.
6    Micro-ED data collection in electron counting mode: Collecting Micro-ED data in electron counting mode without a beam stop and using an energy filter can improve the resolution and precision of the analysis.
7    Elemental analysis kits: Utilizing exclusive screening analysis kits for accurate elemental analysis, such as those offered by Shimadzu, can help improve the accuracy and sensitivity of trace element EPMA.
8    Objective and critical examination of sources: For controversial topics or when examining the accuracy and sensitivity of trace element EPMA, it is important to be objective and present views from different perspectives. Examine sources critically and be politically unbiased.
9    Regular updates and advancements in technology: Staying informed about the latest advancements in EPMA technology, such as improved hardware and software, can help improve the accuracy and sensitivity of trace element analyses.
10   Using well-characterized reference samples: The development and use of matrix reference samples with well-characterized trace elements of interest is important for monitoring and improving the accuracy of trace element analyses in EPMA.

By implementing these strategies and utilizing the latest advancements in EPMA technology, researchers can improve the accuracy and sensitivity of trace element analyses in their work.

Interesting that it not only mentioned our "matrix iterated quantitative blank correction", but also it specifically named the Probe for EPMA software!    8)

If you are interested in learning how to improve your trace element EPMA accuracy and sensitivity, see this webinar on our YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KM5lU403VY&ab_channel=ProbeSoftwareInc
98
CalcZAF and Standard / Re: Nasty Boundary Fluorescence Analytical Situations
« Last post by John Donovan on June 04, 2024, 10:18:11 AM »
...And why does it take a long time to simulate those parameters?

The PENFLUOR code is basically the PENELOPE/PENEPMA Monte Carlo code modified to simulate multiple keVs.  Monte Carlo can take a long time to obtain reasonable precision on a PC.  The default is 3600 seconds per keV, but one can reduce that time if precision is not important.

The advantage of PENFLUOR/FANAL is that once the PAR file has been calculated one can extract k-ratios for any keV and element/x-ray line and distance from the boundary in seconds.  Previously we had to run PENEPMA hours for each boundary distance.
99
CalcZAF and Standard / Re: Nasty Boundary Fluorescence Analytical Situations
« Last post by Probeman on June 04, 2024, 09:36:23 AM »
I went through the SF correction and have successfully modeled my own standards file (so many hours!)

So you have run your standards to create .PAR files for your standard compositions using Standard.exe?  Nice!


I have a question regarding the .PAR files used in the FANAL program. What parameters exactly does Standard simulate for set file for an specific material and what information is in the .PAR file? And why does it take a long time to simulate those parameters?

The Standard application merely provides the GUI for the PENFLUOR/FANAL FORTRAN programs.  The PAR calculations are performed in PENFLUOR (the left side of the GUI in Standard), while the boundary fluorescence k-ratios are extracted by FANAL (the right side of the GUI in Standard). 



Note that if the same material is specified for both the beam incident and boundary phases, the k-ratios calculated are for a bulk sample:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=152.0

I've attached the paper on the FORTRAN programs and also the source code  below.  One helpful thing is to look at the output in Excel by checking the "Send To Excel" checkbox. That would the the output to the k-ratios2.dat file and also check here:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=58.msg5895#msg5895

There are some minor modifications to the FANAL code by Donovan, so I've provided both the modified and original code from Llovet.
100
CalcZAF and Standard / Re: Nasty Boundary Fluorescence Analytical Situations
« Last post by Probeman on June 04, 2024, 09:26:19 AM »
Note that if you have Probe for EPMA you can perform a boundary fluorescence correction directly on your unknown data from the Analyze! Window:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=1545.0

Note that the SF boundary correction does not yet incorporate a Bragg defocus calibration, so at the moment it is a worse case scenario correction. Which depends on the orientation of the boundary relative to the Bragg crystal on the spectrometer being utilized.

But I believe a Bragg defocus calibration is currently being developed…

Until this Bragg defocus correction is implemented and one wants to correct for secondary boundary fluorescence (as opposed to FIBing out the sample and mounting the individual grains to avoid fluorescence from nearby phases), you should orient your sample in the stage so that the spectrometer making the trace element is aligned with the boundary. That is the phase boundary you are making measurements adjacent to, should point towards the spectrometer making the trace measurement.  Then as one moves the stage away from the adjacent boundary, there is little to no Bragg defocus effects.

And because the Bragg defocus effects are minimized, the boundary fluorescence model calculated from PENFLUOR/FANAL will not over correct the k-ratios.

Of course the opposite approach can also be attempted whereby one orients their specimen in the sample stage so that the adjacent boundary points directly *away* (at 90 degrees) from the spectrometer making the trace measurement.  And then one limits their trace measurements to points being at least 50 or 100 um away from the adjacent boundary.  Then one might hope that the WDS Bragg defocus reduces the detection of the boundary fluorescence emissions and no boundary fluorescence correction is necessary.

Of course with EDS there are no Bragg defocus effects, so the model from PENFLUOR/FANAL should apply as is for elements measured by EDS.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]