Author Topic: calcimage and multipoint backgrounds  (Read 4561 times)

Philipp Poeml

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 222
calcimage and multipoint backgrounds
« on: May 28, 2015, 06:51:02 AM »
Hi John,

is the multipoint background method already implemented in calcimage? And if not, any plans to implent this soon?

Cheers
Philipp

Probeman

  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Never sleeps...
    • John Donovan
Re: calcimage and multipoint backgrounds
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2015, 09:00:26 AM »
Hi John,

is the multipoint background method already implemented in calcimage? And if not, any plans to implent this soon?

Cheers
Philipp

Hi Phillip,
Use of the multi-point bgd in Calcimage (I was wondering when someone would ask about this!), would require the acquisition of multiple (more than two!) off-peak x-ray maps. The problem is that the precision of these maps will be insufficient to benefit from the MLB method.

So we will probably never implement it because of this precision limitation.
john
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 11:33:44 AM by John Donovan »
The only stupid question is the one not asked!

Philipp Poeml

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 222
Re: calcimage and multipoint backgrounds
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2015, 12:56:36 AM »
That is very bad news for mapping actinides and other M-lines... In fact I have acquired the background maps exactly at the position of the multi point background positions, in theory it should work.

All right then, let's go for standard off peak maps then.

Cheers
Philipp

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3304
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: calcimage and multipoint backgrounds
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2015, 08:10:45 AM »
That is very bad news for mapping actinides and other M-lines... In fact I have acquired the background maps exactly at the position of the multi point background positions, in theory it should work.

All right then, let's go for standard off peak maps then.

Cheers
Philipp

Hi Philipp,
Yes, I already said I agree that it will work, but that the precision of xray map pixels is insufficient for the method.

To explain further I mean that the difference in accuracy between normal off peak and multi-point bad methods is smaller than the precision of the map pixels.

Think of it this way: what is your typical off peak pixel dwell time for mapping?  Let's say you are crazy like me and have used offpeak dwell times of 500 msec or so...  to see the difference between normal off peaks and multi point off peaks you might need off peak dwell times of tens or hundreds of seconds.

You can test this for yourself. Acquire some MPB data in PFE and then process it both ways, first using MPB and then subsequently using a normal off peak method. You can do this on the same dataset by selecting the different background methods from the Elements/Cations dialog. See how short an off peak acquisition time you can use and obtain statistically significantly differrent results on the same data.
john
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 03:49:39 PM by John Donovan »
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"