Wish List for PFE Features

[John Donovan]

First of all, the way you have improved the processing of the integrated intensity scans is awesome! I like the option to be able to delete points and that it uses multiple points at the beginning and end for the background. At the moment the limit is set to 20 points at the beginning and end. Is it possible to increase the number to maybe 50? With trace elements we like to do 50% peak and 50% background. Also could you show somewhere of how many points the scan consists?

Hi Sandrin,
Ok, I made the requested changes.  Go ahead and update Probe for EPMA and you will have them.
john

Hi Sandrin,
I was thinking about how I might implement a "status" field for the integrated intensity points so they could be disabled/enabled just like normal data, but I wasn't sure how to handle the display and fitting.

Obviously if one needs to re-enable the disabled point(s) one has to see them.  But then I thought I might be able to utilize the "missing data" option in the display so they are present, but just not displayed... so I'm still thinking about this.

I hate to permanently delete any data (it goes against my core values!), but I wonder how important it would be to you and Karsten to be able to "undelete" the "deleted" integrated intensity scan points?
john

[Julien]

After a couple months of testing PfE on my new instrument (8230), I have been wondering about a couple missing (or removed?) options:

(1) A while ago (2010-2011), when we started the Multipoint Background Crusade for the [Holy] Grail of Trace Analysis, the option to "output multipoint background intensities" would actual export the individual measurements on each single background point set. Now, this feature returns only the background intensity under the peak calculated using the currently selected MPB fitting. It would be desirable to have in the multipoint background output the complete list of counting time, intensity, position... on EACH multipoint background.

(2) An option to export the data from a MAN would be welcome (i.e. an output of the average Z and intensity value of each standard for a selected element - ideally this would run as a batch and export all MAN data for all elements). This would allow for instance to compare MAN data overtime. Currently this cannot be done with Probe for EPMA, unless all these data are acquired in the same MDB file.

(3) It appears that the MAN assignment tool only allow for a maximum of 16 standards. I have been running a 31-elements run with 32 standards, and for some, I could well include over 20 standards in the regression! Not that I want to do this all the time, but for these first testing, I would like to see what "best" standard is suitable for the MAN background correction. Being able to plot all standards without limitation (or a high number, like at least 50-100...) would be ideal.

(4) Any chance we can increase the number of interferences per element (currently limited to 5). With my nasty and weird REE mineral analyses, some element would require at least 6 or 7 interferences corrections to be super accurate.

(5) And a long term project... That we could call hyperMAN, or maybe WoMAN? The idea: combining all MAN fit on one spectrometer to obtain a surface fitting
on ANY spectrometer position.

That's all... for the moment

Julien

[John Donovan]

(1) A while ago (2010-2011), when we started the Multipoint Background Crusade for the [Holy] Grail of Trace Analysis, the option to "output multipoint background intensities" would actual export the individual measurements on each single background point set. Now, this feature returns only the background intensity under the peak calculated using the currently selected MPB fitting. It would be desirable to have in the multipoint background output the complete list of counting time, intensity, position... on EACH multipoint background.

Hi Julien,
I haven't changed this output format- it still outputs the positions and intensities for each MPB:



You're using the MPB output under the Output menu, correct?

(2) An option to export the data from a MAN would be welcome (i.e. an output of the average Z and intensity value of each standard for a selected element - ideally this would run as a batch and export all MAN data for all elements). This would allow for instance to compare MAN data overtime. Currently this cannot be done with Probe for EPMA, unless all these data are acquired in the same MDB file.

The Search.exe application will output all std intensities for a given element and x-ray, but not the average Z.  One can get the average Z output for each standard from the Standard.exe application. 

Or one could write a small code that opens a folder of MDB files and extracts the info you need.

(3) It appears that the MAN assignment tool only allow for a maximum of 16 standards. I have been running a 31-elements run with 32 standards, and for some, I could well include over 20 standards in the regression! Not that I want to do this all the time, but for these first testing, I would like to see what "best" standard is suitable for the MAN background correction. Being able to plot all standards without limitation (or a high number, like at least 50-100...) would be ideal.

I should be able to do this.

(4) Any chance we can increase the number of interferences per element (currently limited to 5). With my nasty and weird REE mineral analyses, some element would require at least 6 or 7 interferences corrections to be super accurate.

Yes, I think this can be done. There is no intrinsic limitation except the space necessary to fit the additional controls in the Elements/Cations dialog. That is a bit of a problem but I will see what can be done.
john

[John Donovan]

(5) And a long term project... That we could call hyperMAN, or maybe WoMAN? The idea: combining all MAN fit on one spectrometer to obtain a surface fitting on ANY spectrometer position.

This reminds me of Steve Kuehn's idea for a full spectrometer scan range background fit.  I think these ideas would be exceedingly difficult to implement, if not impossible. Absorption edges are an issue for one thing!

The nice thing about the MAN background method is that one is making a direct measurement of the continuum *directly under the emission peak*, albeit in materials that do not contain the element of interest!  But still, there is no interpolation or extrapolation, except for the average Z variation!

Trying to extrapolate the background from other spectrometer positions would also be very difficult because WDS spectrometers are so non-linear in their response.  This is exactly why there is no such thing as standardless WDS!
john

[John Donovan]

(3) It appears that the MAN assignment tool only allow for a maximum of 16 standards. I have been running a 31-elements run with 32 standards, and for some, I could well include over 20 standards in the regression! Not that I want to do this all the time, but for these first testing, I would like to see what "best" standard is suitable for the MAN background correction. Being able to plot all standards without limitation (or a high number, like at least 50-100...) would be ideal.

Hi Julien,
I increased the number of MAN standard assignments per element to 36. Here's an example:



Let's see how this works for you.  I could increase it more, but it will eventually slow things down more.

When you are ready please update to v. 11.6.4.
john

[John Donovan]

(4) Any chance we can increase the number of interferences per element (currently limited to 5). With my nasty and weird REE mineral analyses, some element would require at least 6 or 7 interferences corrections to be super accurate.

Hi Julien,
I increased the number interfering elements per element to 6 as seen here:



I could increase it more but I'd have to work harder to fit everything in. By the way, the 6th interfering element will only be available for new MDB files.

When you are ready please update to v.11.6.4.
john

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi,

when acquiring wavescans I would love to be able to acquire simultaneously counts on one or more spectrometers at a fixed position (so like TDI simply). That way I could either monitor carbon contamination or beam damage etc directly. Right now I utilize the JEOL chart recorder at times but it would be nifty to have this as part of my PFE acquisition. Is this already possible or would that be possible to implement?

Thanks!
Anette

[Probeman]

when acquiring wavescans I would love to be able to acquire simultaneously counts on one or more spectrometers at a fixed position (so like TDI simply). That way I could either monitor carbon contamination or beam damage etc directly. Right now I utilize the JEOL chart recorder at times but it would be nifty to have this as part of my PFE acquisition. Is this already possible or would that be possible to implement?

Hi Anette,
I must be missing something because why not just measure carbon as an MAN element on one of your spectrometers to monitor carbon?  You can disable quant on it so it doesn't affect your analysis...

As for beam damage, you can measure absorbed current during any TDI measurement:

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=40.msg4006#msg4006

john

[Anette von der Handt]

Hi John,

sorry, I think I didn't express myself clear enough. For example: I would like to do a (wide-range) wavescan on Spec1 and Spec2 and at the same time keep monitoring peak counts on Spec3 (like a chart recorder). So essentially a mix and match of TDI and wavescan but both being acquired simultaneously in the same wavescan acquisition. And then when plotted Spec1 and Spec2 have spectrometer units as X-axis and Spec2 has time elapsed.

So what I am looking for would be an additional button in the wavescan set-up -> peak/scan options that functions as "Set wavescan to On Peak" and sets the high/low limits to +0/-0 (no spectrometer movement).

Anette

[John Donovan]

sorry, I think I didn't express myself clear enough. For example: I would like to do a (wide-range) wavescan on Spec1 and Spec2 and at the same time keep monitoring peak counts on Spec3 (like a chart recorder). So essentially a mix and match of TDI and wavescan but both being acquired simultaneously in the same wavescan acquisition. And then when plotted Spec1 and Spec2 have spectrometer units as X-axis and Spec2 has time elapsed.

So what I am looking for would be an additional button in the wavescan set-up -> peak/scan options that functions as "Set wavescan to On Peak" and sets the high/low limits to +0/-0 (no spectrometer movement).

OK, I see.  That could/should be doable I think. 

But did you try setting the wavescan range to a very tiny distance? Say +/- 0.001 mm. Maybe that works? 
john

[sckuehn]

Non-proprietary Hardware Interface?   
How about a modern, completely open, fully-documented TCP-IP interface between PFE and the hardware usable by anyone and by any instrument, including both new and old machines and both EPMA and SEM.  In this scenario, John et al. could build the PFE side, and any interested vendors/clients would build their respective machine side. Perhaps most of the configuration information could also be read from the machine at initialization time, reducing (eliminating?) the need for PFE config files.

Questions

• Would this be useful?
• Would there be sufficient client demand to justify doing such a project?  (Imagine if everyone could run the latest PFE and ProbeImage on almost any hardware.)
• Is there any chance that JEOL/Cameca might someday switch to such an interface so PFE would no longer need to support multiple instrument interfaces?  (Are there any potential incentives to encourage this?)
• What additional vendors might want their machines to work with such an interface, thus expanding the market for PFE?

[John Donovan]

Non-proprietary Hardware Interface?   

How about a modern, completely open, fully-documented TCP-IP interface between PFE and the hardware usable by anyone and by any instrument, including both new and old machines and both EPMA and SEM.  In this scenario, John et al. could build the PFE side, and any interested vendors/clients would build their respective machine side. Perhaps most of the configuration information could also be read from the machine at initialization time, reducing (eliminating?) the need for PFE config files.

Hi Steve,
This reminds me of a proposal made by Dale Newbury some 15 or 20 years ago at an industry round table discussion. His proposal was very reasonable and yet was completely ignored by the vendors present.

And besides the near impossibility of getting hardware vendors to agree on a standard instrument interface (look at how hard the UNIX people tried to standardize UNIX and yet failed), this seems to be a solution in search of a problem.  PFE already supports all networked instrument interfaces from JEOL (8900/8200/8500/8230/8530) and Cameca (SX100 and SXFive), so what else is there? 

Yes, there is a Shimadzu microprobe offered in Japan and China, but no Shimadzu user has ever approached Probe Software about our software, and in fact at the last MAS EPMA TC in Madison in May, the Shimadzu reps were present, so I chatted with them about the possibility of providing an interface for their instrument, and gave them my card, but no one from the company has ever contacted me, so I guess they are not interested?

The closest thing to a standard interface for JEOL and Cameca instruments is our Remote Automation Server interface which will run the same script on both JEOL and Cameca instruments.  How is this possible?  By abstracting the instrument interface to be completely hardware independent.  But "underneath the hood", all the instrument specific differences are automatically handled by knowing the instrument configuration from the Probewin.ini and other configuration files.

Check the instrument functions in the Remote Server interface documentation here:

http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=88.0

It is quite complete and utilized by a number of our customers for custom application development.
john

[BenjaminWade]

Hi John
As promised...
1) The ability for alternating on/off data to be used to correct data as per TDI (long term wish)
2) Slightly odd one. On our SXFive (and I assume SX100?) the joystick to control the stage around has two buttons on its base. One for autofocus of Z, the other automatically adds a position at your current XYZ location if storing in locations using PeakSight. Can this button be utilised so that my lazy butt doesnt have to click the "Single Point" button to store in a location?

Cheers

[John Donovan]

1) The ability for alternating on/off data to be used to correct data as per TDI (long term wish)

Hi Ben,
I'm very lazy so I will do this as soon as I think of an elegant way to code it!   

2) Slightly odd one. On our SXFive (and I assume SX100?) the joystick to control the stage around has two buttons on its base. One for autofocus of Z, the other automatically adds a position at your current XYZ location if storing in locations using PeakSight. Can this button be utilised so that my lazy butt doesnt have to click the "Single Point" button to store in a location?

Not odd, but unfortunately the joystick is connected to the Cameca PC, not the instrument, so I cannot access it from the Probe for EPMA computer. Maybe just use the Digitize Image feature to select single points on a BSE or SE or CL image?
john

[BenjaminWade]

Hi John
Ah ok no problems, it keeps me ambidextrous anyway. I usually have one hand on the joystick the other on the mouse clicking single point at the same time. With regards to using the Digitize Image feature, I do also use that and use the PictureSnap window quite a lot to display and save point locations, but find that I have to go and review the points anyway as I seem to have quite an offset from what I think I am clicking on from the image and where it actually is on the sample. This is making sure there is no beam shift enabled as well. Is there some X/Y offset in an ini file somewhere I am missing?

While I am on a roll, another wish...
When calibrating a picture to the stage via 2/3 point calibrations in the PictureSnap window, it would be really good if you could digitally zoom in on the image you are calibrating to make sure the pixel/feature you are clicking on is correct. Mainly an issue when I have whole thin section scans (even at high res) I feel the need to zoom in on the picture to make sure I am clicking on what I think I am.

Cheers