Wish List for PFE Features

[Malcolm Roberts]

I actually followed the more logical route and dragged and dropped the mdb onto open PfEPMA. That doesn't work.......... it would not have dawned on me to try it any other way. I treated as I would surfer......... or word........

[John Donovan]

I actually followed the more logical route and dragged and dropped the mdb onto open PfEPMA. That doesn't work.......... it would not have dawned on me to try it any other way. I treated as I would surfer......... or word........

Actually I think Gareth is correct- the most logical action is to double click the file to open it.

You can set that from the right click menu as seen here:



Then click the Choose Default Program... option and then Browse button as seen here:



and browse to the Probewin.exe file and click Open and OK as seen here:



You only need to do this once. Note the MDB file icon now shows the PFE icon instead of Microsoft Access icon in Windows Explorer.

At one time I was thinking of allowing the user to merge probe runs by dragging and dropping an MDB file on the open PFE app, as you tried... that is why PFE embeds the MDB file instead of opening it.

[John Donovan]

Wish: Right now the "Custom" output window has three different check boxes which give us the option to export measured concentrations elemental wt%, oxide wt% and/or at%. Would it be possible to add two additional check boxes to export calculated detection limits in oxide wt% and/or at%, in addition to the existing option to export them in elemental wt%?

Hi Owen,
It's a good idea!

Question: I updated PFE to 10.9.7 this morning on various lab and personal computers, and when I opened the updated PFE on 32-bit machines, I got the message "C:\Probe Software\Probe For EPMA\STANDARD.MDB was automatically updated for new database fields". I didn't see this message on the 64-bit machines. Everything still seems to work fine, I was just wondering what was going on here - didn't see anything obviously new in STANDARD. Again, functionality not affected, just curious.

Good idea to check the version.txt file where you will see this:

06/27/15   Finish EDS and CL import to Standard.exe.
v. 10.9.4

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=40.msg138#msg138

Basically I added tables for EDS and CL spectra to the Standard.mdb file.

[John Donovan]

Good idea to check the version.txt file where you will see this:

06/27/15   Finish EDS and CL import to Standard.exe.
v. 10.9.4

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=40.msg138#msg138

Basically I added tables for EDS and CL spectra to the Standard.mdb file.

Wondered if that was it - I'll be interested to see where this goes. Thanks!

Try it out and tell me!

It accepts EMSA format files and you can have multiple spectra per standard stored as shown here:

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=534.msg2963#msg2963

EDS files must have a single column of data (at this time) and CL files must have two columns of data, one for the CL spectrum (faraday out) and one for the dark spectrum (faraday in).

[Karsten Goemann]

It would be nice if the standards in the "Assigned (Primary) Standard" and "Interference Standard" drop down menus in the standard "Assigment Properties" dialog were sorted in some way, probably best by the standard number, or alphabetically.

At the moment they seem to appear in the order in which they were added to the run, which can make standards hard to find if there in those drop down menus are a lot in the run.

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi,

can I please have a default keyword in the probewin.ini for the "Use confirm during acquisition" in the Automate! window (I never use it, have the automate confirm delay up at 60s so that I don't have to hit pause and always have to remember to uncheck the box).

Thank you!

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi,

when I set up MAN backgrounds in the "Element/Cations" window, this background type is only applied to the unknowns but the standards are set to off-peak still.

To change them for all elements at once (being lazy) can I please have a button or tick mark box in the "Acquisition properties" window when I highlight the entire row in the "Acquisition Options" window.

Thanks!

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi,

I wish there would be a tick box option in the Analysis window to show "only acquired data".

Thank you!

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi,

I wish that the "Automate Probe Image" option in PFE - Automate! will be implemented soon so that I can do a serial acquisition of spot analysis in PFE and then maps in ProbeImage overnight.

Thank you!

[Ben Buse]

Hi,

I've just started using PFE for carbon analysis instead of the Jeol software. It looks good, both the calibration curve option and using phi-rho-z option with a blank assignment to remove contamination. Plus the acquire standards again at end of run.

Just a couple of suggestions, with calibration curve would it be possible to add other curve fitting routines, or more particularly force a straight line?

Using blank assignment, what do you think of the idea of being able to add standards as blank correction sample assigments, for example in this case I've acquired a series of 0-1wt.% C in Steel standards and it be nice to use the 0 wt.% C as the blank correction when using phi-rho-z option. But mainly for testing - allowing comparison of the two methods for the data. I surpose once you found which worked best your'd only need to do one or the other

Ben

[John Donovan]

 

Hi,
I've just started using PFE for carbon analysis instead of the Jeol software. It looks good, both the calibration curve option and using phi-rho-z option with a blank assignment to remove contamination. Plus the acquire standards again at end of run.

Just a couple of suggestions, with calibration curve would it be possible to add other curve fitting routines, or more particularly force a straight line?

Using blank assignment, what do you think of the idea of being able to add standards as blank correction sample assigments, for example in this case I've acquired a series of 0-1wt.% C in Steel standards and it be nice to use the 0 wt.% C as the blank correction when using phi-rho-z option. But mainly for testing - allowing comparison of the two methods for the data. I surpose once you found which worked best your'd only need to do one or the other

Ben

Hi Ben,
Yes, several steel companies use our calibration curve method (in PFE) and it does work, but one does have to be careful. And one needs several standards with a good matrix match and covering a range of concentrations for the element of interest. And one needs "fresh" carbon in steel standards as well, since carbon-steel standards slowly degrade over about 3 to 5 years.

As for the zero point option, that is already in PFE in the Analytical | Analysis Options as seen here:



I'm sure you are aware that due to the native hydrocarbon and contamination effects, a zero concentration might not correspond to a zero intensity (and of course it goes without saying that this zero point option can only be applied to off-peak elements).

Also see this topic:

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=461.msg2539#msg2539

As for the force a straight line fit option, that is a good idea, but I'd have to implement that option separately for each element- don't you think?  And that will require a bit more work.
john

[John Donovan]

Hi,

I wish there would be a tick box option in the Analysis window to show "only acquired data".

Thank you!

Your wish is granted!  Download v. 10.9.9.

[John Donovan]

Hi,

can I please have a default keyword in the probewin.ini for the "Use confirm during acquisition" in the Automate! window (I never use it, have the automate confirm delay up at 60s so that I don't have to hit pause and always have to remember to uncheck the box).

Thank you!

Your wish is granted!  Download v. 10.9.9. 

See new keyword in the [software] section.

[Ben Buse]

Hi,
I've just started using PFE for carbon analysis instead of the Jeol software. It looks good, both the calibration curve option and using phi-rho-z option with a blank assignment to remove contamination. Plus the acquire standards again at end of run.

Just a couple of suggestions, with calibration curve would it be possible to add other curve fitting routines, or more particularly force a straight line?

Using blank assignment, what do you think of the idea of being able to add standards as blank correction sample assigments, for example in this case I've acquired a series of 0-1wt.% C in Steel standards and it be nice to use the 0 wt.% C as the blank correction when using phi-rho-z option. But mainly for testing - allowing comparison of the two methods for the data. I surpose once you found which worked best your'd only need to do one or the other

Ben

Hi Ben,
Yes, several steel companies use our calibration curve method (in PFE) and it does work, but one does have to be careful. And one needs several standards with a good matrix match and covering a range of concentrations for the element of interest. And one needs "fresh" carbon in steel standards as well, since carbon-steel standards slowly degrade over about 3 to 5 years.

As for the zero point option, that is already in PFE in the Analytical | Analysis Options as seen here:



I'm sure you are aware that due to the native hydrocarbon and contamination effects, a zero concentration might not correspond to a zero intensity (and of course it goes without saying that this zero point option can only be applied to off-peak elements).

Also see this topic:

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=461.msg2539#msg2539

As for the force a straight line fit option, that is a good idea, but I'd have to implement that option separately for each element- don't you think?  And that will require a bit more work.
john

Hi John,

Thanks yes I just processed my data and calibration curve looks good. (Regarding force straight line, yes you would need it for each element although you could initially do it just for carbon, -but it would take time - maybe add to the list for the future - when you have a bit of spare time!)

But I realized my error - I can't use phi-rho-z and blank correction to remove contamination. For this is not the point of blank correction - it just subtracts intensity from the unknown. Whereas I need it to subtract the intensity from the unknown and the standard.

Have you any plans to implement an option of subtracting intensity from unknown and standard. This would then allow carbon analysis through phi-rho-z - which would be good when the concentrations don't correspond well with calibration curve standards. I've previously done it using calczaf - and modifying the intensities for standards and unknowns

Thanks

Ben

[John Donovan]

Have you any plans to implement an option of subtracting intensity from unknown and standard. This would then allow carbon analysis through phi-rho-z - which would be good when the concentrations don't correspond well with calibration curve standards. I've previously done it using calczaf - and modifying the intensities for standards and unknowns

Hi Ben,
This sounds a bit like the correlated pixel quantification method that Philippe Pinard had me implement in CalcImage for their carbon analyses. They wanted to acquire the same pixels on their unknown and standard in order to to normalize out the effects from overlapping carbon contamination rings from their analyses. See here:

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=114.msg3258#msg3258

You might also check this discussion:

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=48.0