PROBEUSERS Archives

September 2018

PROBEUSERS@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Deon van Niekerk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
JEOL-Focused Probe Users List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 4 Sep 2018 05:49:41 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
Hi Julian,

Yep :) The same material.

It's always possible that I missed a discrepancy between setups; I'll have a fresh pair of eyes look at it.

The calibration and unknown setups are measuring the same number of elements on the same spectrometer/xtal. I've never had a problem with it.

I hear what you say about flipping the xtals. But I don't think this is the issue in this case. I always flip xtals and I have never, until after this time's belt/wire replacement, had this problem. This problem exists systematically despite having run peak search on every element for every point on both calibration and as unknown (the peak positions are always reported as being the same).

I'll let the service engineer who replaced the parts see if Ron's suggestion is at play, and I'll try approaching the peaks uniformly. I'll give the list a shout when I've made progress later in the month.

Thanks & Best,
Deon.

****
JEOL Probe Users Listserver

Moderator: Anette von der Handt, [log in to unmask],
Electron Microprobe Lab, University of Minnesota

Post a message: send your message to [log in to unmask]

Unsubscribe: send "SIGNOFF PROBEUSERS" to [log in to unmask]

On-line help and FAQ: http://probelab.geo.umn.edu/jeoluserlist.html

*

ATOM RSS1 RSS2