Wish List for PFE Features

[Probeman]

The Penepma derived matrix correction factors stored in the MATRIX.MDB file have had their access time significantly improved by implementing a new index in the matrix database.

These Monte-Carlo derived k-ratios may be utilized for high speed on-line matrix corrections or model testing and are accessed from the Analytical | ZAF, Phi-Rho-Z, Alpha Factor and Calibration Curve Selections menu as seen here:



and described in more detail here:

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

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi John,

small things. Could you maybe add the "relative line numbers" option to the "save user specified format output", please. It is the only thing I am missing there but it would be very useful.

I also wondered if the "report" output in the Analysis window is customizable? Ideally, I would like to have our Department name in there and maybe a grant number? Maybe also an auto acknowledgement? So I wondered if there is a text file that is read out or if there could be something like that.

Thanks.

[John Donovan]

Could you maybe add the "relative line numbers" option to the "save user specified format output", please. It is the only thing I am missing there but it would be very useful.

Excellent idea. I will add that.  In the meantime you can utilize the "Stage Relative Distance in Microns" output as shown here:



or even the Relative Line Numbers output from the Plot! window:

[John Donovan]

I also wondered if the "report" output in the Analysis window is customizable? Ideally, I would like to have our Department name in there and maybe a grant number? Maybe also an auto acknowledgement? So I wondered if there is a text file that is read out or if there could be something like that.

Your wish is granted!

Simply edit (or add if the keyword is missing) this keyword to the [general] section of the Probewin.ini file:

InstrumentAcknowledgementString="insert your acknowledgement string here"

This string will appear in your Report text at the end as seen here:

St  396 Set   1 chromite (UC # 523-9)
TakeOff = 40.0  KiloVolt = 15.0  Beam Current = 20.0  Beam Size =    5
(Magnification (analytical) =  40000),        Beam Mode = Analog  Spot
(Magnification (default) =        0, Magnification (imaging) =    800)
Image Shift (X,Y):                                          .00,   .00

Compositional analyses were acquired on an electron microprobe equipped with 5 tunable wavelength dispersive spectrometers. Operating conditions were 40 degrees takeoff angle, and a beam energy of 15 keV.
The beam current was 20 nA, and the beam diameter was 5 microns.

Elements were acquired using analyzing crystals LIF for Fe ka, Cr ka, Ti ka, Mn ka, PET for Ca ka, and TAP for Si ka, Mg ka, Al ka.

The standards were MgO synthetic for Mg ka, Al2O3 synthetic for Al ka, SiO2 synthetic for Si ka, TiO2 synthetic for Ti ka, MnO synthetic for Mn ka, Diopside (Chesterman) for Ca ka, Magnetite U.C. #3380 for Fe ka, and Chromite (UC # 523-9) for Cr ka.

The counting time was 20 seconds for all elements. Unknown and standard intensities were corrected for deadtime. Interference corrections were applied to Fe for interference by Mn, and to Mn for interference by Cr.

See J.J. Donovan, D.A. Snyder and M.L. Rivers, An Improved Interference Correction for Trace Element Analysis in Microbeam Analyis, 2: 23-28, 1993

Results are the average of 5 points and detection limits ranged from .012 weight percent for Mg ka to .013 weight percent for Al ka to .018 weight percent for Ca ka to .049 weight percent for Mn ka to .060 weight percent for Cr ka.

Analytical sensitivity (at the 99% confidence level) ranged from .518 percent relative for Al ka to .594 percent relative for Mg ka to .836 percent relative for Fe ka to 17.602 percent relative for Mn ka to 74.196 percent relative for Ca ka.

The matrix correction method was ZAF or Phi-Rho-Z Calculations and the mass absorption coefficients dataset was LINEMU   Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV. The ZAF or Phi-Rho-Z algorithm utilized was Armstrong/Love Scott (default).

See J. T. Armstrong, Quantitative analysis of silicates and oxide minerals: Comparison of Monte-Carlo, ZAF and Phi-Rho-Z procedures, Microbeam Analysis--1988, p 239-246

This instrument was generously funded by NSF EAR-0345908 and the Murdoch Foundation.

[John Donovan]

Could you maybe add the "relative line numbers" option to the "save user specified format output", please. It is the only thing I am missing there but it would be very useful.

Your wish is granted!



I also reformatted the dialog and tried to make it more readable...

[Anette von der Handt]

  Thank you!

[Philippe Pinard]

Request:
Add an option to acquire the EDS spectrum as long as the WDS acquisition is running.

Rationale:
It is always better to have as many counts as possible in the EDS spectrum. If the EDS acquisition ends before the one of WDS we are losing counts.

Implementation:
One way to implement would be to acquire a series of 1-sec EDS spectra and sum them at the end.

[Probeman]

Add an option to acquire the EDS spectrum as long as the WDS acquisition is running.

This is a good idea, but I'll have to think about how one might do this. Currently these are asynchronous processes and I just wait for them to complete individually. 

The other thing one might do is to set the EDS acquisition time to the estimated acquisition time of the WDS acquisition. Yes, the estimated WDS acquisition time is only accurate to 5% or so, but the real culprit in my mind is the deadtime.  Currently I specify "live time" (or as Bruker calls it, "life time" [sic])- that is, the actual integration time (without deadtime) for the EDS acquisition. So depending on the observed deadtime for the sample in question, the acquisition time could take 30 to 60% or more longer than the live time.

You also mentioned in an email that you'd like to control:

- get/set maximum energy (effectively changes the channel energy width)
- get/set maximum pulse throughput (changes the processing time)

from Probe for EPMA. Question: currently the EDS acquisition options are "global", That is, they can be changed manually by the user, but they affect all subsequent acquisitions until they are again changed.  Would it be OK to have the max energy and pulse processing time also be globals or did you need to have them specified for each automated sample differently?

[jeb]

Two more requests:

(1) the ability to change the order that positions are in (just like you can change the order that samples are analyzed in, I would like to be able to change the order of the individual analysis positions).

(2) when a collected unknown sample has been "deleted" from the run, I don't want the analysis spots to still show on the image collected... I think they do...

Thanks John!

[John Donovan]

(1) the ability to change the order that positions are in (just like you can change the order that samples are analyzed in, I would like to be able to change the order of the individual analysis positions).

Ok, it is possible. I just have to think of a nice and intuitive way to do it.  In the meantime, for the purposes of running every other point in a traverse, simply make a copy of the position sample (see the Duplicate As... buttons in the Position window), and delete all the odd numbered lines from one position sample and all the even numbered lines from the other (using a right mouse click on the position grid from the Automate! window), and that will do what you want for the quartz traverses.

(2) when a collected unknown sample has been "deleted" from the run, I don't want the analysis spots to still show on the image collected... I think they do...

That is easy- see this control in the Image Display dialog:



Now, without the deleted points:

[John Donovan]

More of a question than a request, but in Automate, is there a way to have PFE not blank the beam when moving from one position to the next?

May I ask why you want to not blank the beam between position samples?

[Gareth D Hatton]

One reason I can think of is to do polygon mapping using point analysis.  If you set the count time to a low time, around 1 second per point, and aquire lots of points then you could have a reasonable map avoiding specific areas.  However, the major overhead in this analysis is the beam blank between points, it takes about 3 seconds.  This makes it a little impractical for high speed but fine if you use a longer dwell time.

[John Donovan]

One reason I can think of is to do polygon mapping using point analysis.  If you set the count time to a low time, around 1 second per point, and aquire lots of points then you could have a reasonable map avoiding specific areas.  However, the major overhead in this analysis is the beam blank between points, it takes about 3 seconds.  This makes it a little impractical for high speed but fine if you use a longer dwell time.

Something isn't right. The software is already designed to not insert the cup when moving between points in a single position sample...  oh, maybe you are just seeing the beam current measurement at the end of each analysis? You will need this beam current measurement for the beam drift correction.

In fact, there is an option in the Digitize window to *force* the faraday cup to be inserted for moving between points in a single sample, by incrementing the "grain number" as seen here:



So because the "settling time" for the JEOL picoammeter is quite long (and seems to be getting longer with each new probe model!), we have some additional overhead if we want to have our analyses beam drift corrected.

Of course, if the probe is very stable or beam drift isn't a problem then you could disable the beam measurement during sample acquisition by unchecking this box in the Acquire! | Acquisition Options dialog:

[John Donovan]

Actually hadn't thought about that one, but it's a very neat idea. I was more thinking about doing a Confirm a long list of samples, or using Automate for imaging. For example, we do a fair amount of zircon CL imaging, where we import the coordinates into Automate from the ICP laser stage. Automate/Fiducials makes loading the positions and moving around very easy, but 3-4 seconds of PCD insertion/removal for every motion adds up when imaging 1000 zircons (not to mention the extra 1000 mouse clicks, if you're taking the pictures manually).

Again, was more just wondering if this was possible - if it isn't, then it isn't.

Considering that the image acquisition takes a lot more than 3-4 seconds, I don't see your point. 

As I said, the cup insertion is for measuring the beam during analyses.  I'm pretty sure I modified the code so that the faraday wait in time is *not* applied when just moving the stage, only when measuring the beam current.

Also you might check the acquire images option in Acquisition Options, that way your images are acquired automatically during the unknown acquisition as seen here:

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi,

Got already plans for the weekend? I've got something new. I wish that I could apply sample set-ups to analyzed samples. The idea is being able to assign a package set of standard assignments, calculation options, maybe TDI correction on/off - all the various off-line processing options - with one click to multiple samples. That would be a big time saver and then I also don't need to worry that I missed/mixed up any change.

Thanks.
Anette