Author Topic: Wish List for PFE Features  (Read 158201 times)

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #570 on: January 13, 2022, 10:22:24 AM »
You are correct that the Report button only applies to standard or unknown samples.

But what is it exactly that you are looking for that isn't already displayed when one simply lists the raw data for a wavescan sample? I would think that all the parameters that one would want are already displayed for a wavescan as seen here for example:

Wa    1 unknown sample
TakeOff = 40.0  KiloVolt = 15.0  Beam Current = 30.0  Beam Size =    2
(Magnification (analytical) =   4000),        Beam Mode = Analog  Spot
(Magnification (default) =        0, Magnification (imaging) =    100)
Image Shift (X,Y):                                         .00,    .00

Normal Wavescan: Step/Count Scan
Number of Data Lines:  50             Number of 'Good' Data Lines:  50
First/Last Date-Time: 10/01/2003 03:57:26 PM to 10/01/2003 04:03:28 PM

Stage position of first data point:
    1G  16.0000  26.5000  11.2000

ELEM:  Angstro   si ka Angstro   fe ka Angstro   si ka Angstro   si ka   BEAM1
SPEC:                1               2               3               4
CRYST:             TAP             LiF             TAP             TAP
CRY2D:         25.7450          4.0267         25.7450         25.7450
CRYK :         .002180         .000058         .002180         .002180
ORDER:               1               1               1               1
WVTIM:            6.00            6.00            6.00            6.00
ONPEAK         77.6740         134.724         77.6740         77.6740
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"

AndrewLocock

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 70
    • University of Alberta Electron Microprobe Laboratory
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #571 on: January 13, 2022, 10:46:31 AM »
Hello,
I guess that I am asking that these parameters be exported to a file for later reference (so that I don't have to copy and paste them all individually).
When a wavescan is 500 or 1000 lines long, these parameters flash by pretty quickly  ;)

Perhaps the Output | Save Wavescan Output options could be modified to export these parameters for each wavescan?

Cheers, Andrew

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #572 on: January 13, 2022, 11:25:30 AM »
OK, I see. You just don't want to have to cut and paste.

We can work on this. Give us a few days.
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"

AndrewLocock

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 70
    • University of Alberta Electron Microprobe Laboratory
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #573 on: January 13, 2022, 11:52:49 AM »
Yes.
I have been spoiled by the utility of the Report function, and the considerable detail in the output of quantitative analyses.

Thanks!
Andrew

dawncruth

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 47
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #574 on: January 14, 2022, 02:30:41 PM »
I was trying to be a good lab manager and set my PHAs. I *thought* I could save them to a .mdb file. Turns out, no, I cannot save them. Now I have to re-run them  :P

Anyway, is there a feature that allows us to save those non-analytical datasets? Maybe there is and I just don't know where to find it?

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #575 on: January 14, 2022, 02:44:52 PM »
I was trying to be a good lab manager and set my PHAs. I *thought* I could save them to a .mdb file. Turns out, no, I cannot save them. Now I have to re-run them  :P

Anyway, is there a feature that allows us to save those non-analytical datasets? Maybe there is and I just don't know where to find it?

Ummm, yes you can. You just have to have a sample in the run with some elements in it (one for each spectrometer if you want to save PHA settings for all spectrometers).

You can also save individual element setups to the element setup database.

Maybe describe in more detail what you are trying to do?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2022, 09:08:37 PM by John Donovan »
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #576 on: January 15, 2022, 12:11:48 PM »
Hello,
I guess that I am asking that these parameters be exported to a file for later reference (so that I don't have to copy and paste them all individually).
When a wavescan is 500 or 1000 lines long, these parameters flash by pretty quickly  ;)

Perhaps the Output | Save Wavescan Output options could be modified to export these parameters for each wavescan?

Cheers, Andrew

Hi Andrew,
OK, it took a bit longer than we thought but we think we have something that will work for you.  We couldn't modify the std/unk report output because it was too specific to quantification, but instead we added a right click menu item to the Analyze! window as shown here:



The basic output goes to the log window as usual and also to a .TXT file, and the table goes to a .DAT file and optionally an Excel spreadsheet as seen here:



One other thing we did was to modify the report filename to include the sample name so now for the wavescan report (and also the std/unk reports) the file name is specified as:

<probe run>_<sample name>_Report.<ext>

Though it can still be edited by the user. This is nice when one selects multiple samples to output reports on and so now the filenames all are unique.

This wavescan report format is yours for now, so let us know if there's anything else you'd like to see added. We don't know what your intended purpose is with these report outputs.

Update as usual from the Help menu to update Probe for EPMA v. 13.0.7.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2022, 02:36:10 PM by John Donovan »
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"

Brian Joy

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #577 on: January 17, 2022, 01:51:54 PM »




I feel the need to point out that it is not possible to analyze for Pb and As in the same mineral using Pb Lα and As Kα, as both X-ray lines have essentially the same wavelength.  If there is a chance that detectable As and Pb could both be present, then one must use As Lα and Pb Mα.  Unfortunately, when Pb is present in low concentration in sulfides, S Kα, S Kβ, and satellites of each interfere severely with measurement of Pb Mα as well as X-ray lines of a variety of other (minor) elements of potential interest:


Brian Joy
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario
JEOL JXA-8230

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #578 on: January 17, 2022, 02:46:11 PM »
I feel the need to point out that it is not possible to analyze for Pb and As in the same mineral using Pb Lα and As Kα, as both X-ray lines have essentially the same wavelength. 

You might be right, I have not looked at this situation recently.  It may depend on the relative ratios of the intensities.

I do recall trying this interference pair in the past, though I have not looked into it in many years (decades!).  It took about 50 iterations if I remember correctly on data from my ARL SEMQ with a 127 mm Rowland circle. I should give this a try again on my SX100 (160 mm) when I get a chance again and see if it works better on a higher resolution instrument.  Maybe you should try the Probe for EPMA spectral interference correction on your JEOL 140 mm spectrometers. Should be better spectral resolution than the ARL SEMQ spectrometers...

OK, I dug through my ancient files and found this:



Not an ideal results, but considering everything...
« Last Edit: January 17, 2022, 03:14:19 PM by John Donovan »
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"

Brian Joy

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #579 on: January 17, 2022, 03:02:54 PM »
I feel the need to point out that it is not possible to analyze for Pb and As in the same mineral using Pb Lα and As Kα, as both X-ray lines have essentially the same wavelength. 

You might be right, I have not looked at this situation recently.  It may depend on the relative ratios of the intensities.

I do recall trying this interference pair in the past, though I have not looked into it in many years (decades!).  It took about 50 iterations if I remember correctly on data from my ARL SEMQ with a 127 mm Rowland circle. I should give this a try again on my SX100 (160 mm) when I get a chance again and see if it works on a lower resolution instrument.  Maybe you should try the Probe for EPMA spectral interference correction also since your JEOL spectrometers are 140 mm Rowland.  Anyone have a 100mm JEOL spectrometer?

OK, I dug through my ancient files and found this:



Not an ideal results, but considering everything...

Considering everything, it makes more sense to use As Lα and Pb Mα (especially in this case, with no interferences at Pb Mα).  There is no way to distinguish between As Kα and Pb Lα even with R = 160 mm; the respective sine(θ) values are 0.29203 and 0.29181.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2022, 03:04:37 PM by Brian Joy »
Brian Joy
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario
JEOL JXA-8230

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Wish List for PFE Features
« Reply #580 on: January 17, 2022, 03:12:16 PM »
Considering everything, it makes more sense to use As Lα and Pb Mα (especially in this case, with no interferences at Pb Mα). 

Again, you may be right for normal work.  But hey, I like a good algorithm challenge!   ;D

There is no way to distinguish between As Kα and Pb Lα even with R = 160 mm; the respective sine(θ) values are 0.29203 and 0.29181.

You say there is "no way", yet even a low spectral resolution 127mm instrument was able to iterate fairly well.  I'm going to collect some data on this and see.  Maybe we'll learn something...
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"