| Filename | Time | Range(s) | Stepsize | Time/pt | Comments |
| 19Jun01.001 | 17:15 | -200,200 | 2 | 1 | Looking for Cu K edge on our way to lower energy. Found it; now let's try Co |
| 19Jun01.002 | 17:38 | Co edge - looks fine, only ~ 1 eV off in calibration | |||
| 19Jun01.003 | 18:10 | Cr edge; looks fine; calibration ~ 1 ev off | |||
| 19Jun01.004 | -10,10 | 0.5 | Ti edge; don't go more than ~ 30 eV below edge | ||
| 19Jun01.005 | 18:40 | -10,50 | 0.5 | Ti edge; weird step and no peak? | |
| 19Jun01.006 | 18:45 | glitch in I0 at ~20 eV above edge; change mono settigs and see if it's still there | |||
| 19Jun01.007 | 19:40 | New beam; see if glitch is still there | |||
| 19Jun01.009 | 20:05 | Remove exit slit assembly, try again; glitch is still there | |||
| 19Jun01.010 | 20:20 | -50,400 | 1 | 1 | Look for more glitches |
| 19Jun01.01x | Cell appears to be too thick; too much absorption
At higher energy, get some transmission at 10 kev, I is 0.55 w/ nothing, 0.31 w/ Al only, & 0.18 w/ Al + membrane => perhaps the electrolyte? Calculate est. thickness using www-cxro.lbl.gov; if electrolyte is ~1 mm thick, as Fabio estimates, this may e enuf to account for absorption seen Turning up gain on It b 100 allows a very slight Ti edge to be seen |
||||
| 19Jun01.014 | 8:30 | -10,30 | 1 | 1 | Next day; still only very small Ti edge - actually, this "edge" is merely the glitch just above the Ti edge |
| 20Jun01.001 | 8:40 | -20,20,50,200 | 0.5,1,1 | 2,2,2 | Just the membrane + Al backing; these are fine spectra |
| 20Jun01.002 | |||||
| Membrane gives good spectra; try cell again. Many glitches; much lower transmitted current -> probably too much absorption. | |||||
| 20Jun01.005 | 10:00 | 4,4,4 | Cell again; get same glitches as w/ shorter tim/point, merely better statistics | ||
| 20Jun01.006 | 10:40 | 2,2,2 | Wider beam (18 mm instead of 8 mm); retry cell | ||
| 20Jun01.007 | 11:20 | Try another cell; 27.5 mg | |||
| 20Jun01.008 | 12:31 | -10,10 | 1 | 1 | Fluorescence on the Ti membrane. |
| 20Jun01.009 | 12:36 | -10,20,100 | 0.5,1 | 1,1 | Fluorescence on a wider range. |
| 20Jun01.010 | 12:56 | ||||
| 20Jun01.012 | 13:12 | Fluorescence of cell after vertical positioning | |||
| 20Jun01.013 | 13:40 | -20,20,50,200 | 0.5,1 | 2,2,2 | Fluorescence exafs scan on Ti cell. Noisy, but there's some exafs present. Let's try a longer scan. |
| 20Jun01.014 | 14:20 | -20,20,100,500 | 0.5,1,12 | 3,3,3,3 | |
| 20Jun01.015 | |||||
| 20Jun01.016 | 16:08 | -20,0,100 | 0.5,1 | 1,1 | Back of membrane (through Al foil) fluorescence, to check why we're not getting signal |
| 20Jun01.017 | 18:22 | -20,20,100,500 | 0.5,1,2 | 1,1,1 | Exafs scan test. Edge jump of about 0.6. Almost linear soon after |
| 20Jun01.018 | 18:36 | -20,20,25k | 0.5,0.5k | 3,3 | Ti B exafs scan with longer integration times in hopes of less noise, and longer range. One small peak and no oscillations thereafter. Oscillations confined to a very small region after the edge. Strange Io, varies a great deal. |
| 20Jun01.019 | 18:52 | -20,20,500 | 0.5,1.0 | 3,3 | Ti B third exafs scan. shorter range. 1 good scan. See 21Jun01.013-014 for 2 more exafs scans. |
| 20Jun01.020 | 20:57 | -20,20,500 | 0.5,1 | 3,3 | Ti C exafs scan. shorter range. 1 good scan. See 21Jun01.015-016 for two more Ti C scans. |
| 20Jun01.021 | 21:47 | -20,20,500 | 0.5,1 | 3,3 | Ti D exafs scan. shorter range. 1 good scan. See 21Jun01.018-019 for 2 more exafs scans. |
| 20Jun01.022 | " | " | " | Ti E exafs scan. Beam interrupted. | |
| 20Jun01.023 | " | " | " | Ti E exafs scan. 1 good scan | |
| 20Jun01.024 | 01:04 | -20,20,500 | 0.5,1 | 3,3 | Ti E exafs scan. Problem with Io, beam shifted. Big glitch in Io, even after we got the beam back in place. It is possible that the first small peak is due to the glitch rather than to the pre-edge. Computer in loop. Needed reboot. |
| 21Jun01.001 | 02:07 | -20,20,500 | 0.5,1 | 3,3 | Ti E exafs scan. Note: typo in comments line. x=0.0 after one cycle for Ti E |
| 21Jun01.002 | 02:58 | " | " | " | " |
| 21Jun01.003-012 | 03:54 | " | " | " | Ti F exafs scan (10 scans) |
| 21Jun01.013-.014 | 10:04 | -20,20,500 | 0.5,1 | 3,3 | Ti B Li(4/3+x)Ti(5/3)O4, x=0.75; 2 more exafs scans. Beam dump during second scan. |
| 21Jun01.015-016 | 11:54 | " | " | " | Ti C; 2 more exafs scans. Last scan was not good....25 minutes left to go and no oscillations. |
| 21Jun01.017 | 12:42 | " | " | " | Ti C exafs scan. Note: glitches in Io early in the energy
range. Do not mistake this for the pre-edge! |
| 21Jun01.018-019 | 13:22 | " | " | " | Ti D exafs scans. |
| 21Jun01.020-21 | 16:17 | -20,20 | 0.5 | 2 | PV10R1 energy calibration. At 20 we are right before the edge. |
| 21Jun01.022 | 16:24 | 0,50 | 0.5 | 2 | PV10R1 energy calibration. New range 0,50. |
| 21Jun01.023 | 16:29 | -20,20 | 0.5 | 2 | Energy calibration for PV10R1. The derivative was broad and showed the edge about 33 eV after Eo. Derivative graph shows 12.69 keV. |
| 21Jun01.024 | 17:10 | 0,50 | 0.5 | 2 | PV10R1 energy calibration with a reference. Eo for the the reference Se foil is 12.66 keV, about 30 eV below the edge of our sample. |
| 21Jun01.025 | 17:20 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 10,2,1,0.05k | 2,2,2,2 | PV10R1 exafs scans (3) However, at approx 5 ,mintes into run. scan stated that detector has exceeded 10 volts and may be saturated. Intensity and current have dropped considerably after 10 after 10 minutes into the scan. After 20 minutes, I aborted scan and shut off beam line. Reason: the reference Se fell off of place. |
| 21Jun01.026-028 | 18:01 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 10,2,1,0.05k | 2,2,2,2 | exafs scans. Beam dumped during third scan. |
| 21Jun01.029 | 21:43 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 10,2,1,0.05k | 2,2,2,2 | oops, reference beam had voltage > 10 volts. Reduce gain on Ir and start again. |
| 21Jun01.030 | 21:47 | " | " | " | PV10R1 exafs scan |
| 21Jun01.031 | 22:19 | -1,1 | 0.1 | 1 | PV15R1 vertical motor scan....wrong range--oops and sample way too low. Adjust motors and recalibrate. |
| 21Jun01.032 | 22:28 | -10,10 | 0.1 | 1 | vertical motor scan 2 |
| 21Jun01.033 | 22:34 | -10,4 | 0.1 | 1 | horizontal motor scan |
| 21Jun01.034 | 22:39 | -10,10 | 0.1 | 1 | oops typo in range for vertical motor scan. |
| 21.Jun01.035 | 22:43 | -10,10 | 0.1 | 1 | vertical motor scan |
| 21Jun01.036 | 22:47 | -10,10 | 0.1 | 1 | horizontal motor scan. Sample is quite even. |
| 21Jun01.037-039 | 22:47 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 0.1 | 1 | PV15R1 exafs scans |
| 21Jun01.040 | 00:58 | scan aborted | |||
| 22Jun01.001-003 | 00:59 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 10,2,1,0.05k | 2,2,2,2 | PVw/Ga exafs scans. Glitches in Io appear in the exafs around 13425-500 and after, well after the edge. |
| 22Jun01.004 | 02:43 | " | " | " | PV10R1 In K edge exafs scans. Maximized It with vertical and horizontal motor scans. Energy calibration with In reference shows very similar Eos. Aborted--getting much too much noise. Increase gain for Io and It, tweak current suppression. Decreased current by an order of magnitude. Numbers are good on feedback, but signal on oscilloscope begins to oscillate wildly on its way to losing lock. |
| 22Jun01.005 | 03:03 | -10,10 | 0.1 | 1 | PV10R vertical motor scan after recalibrating. |
| 22Jun01.006 | 03:10 | -10,4 | 0.1 | 1 | horiztontal motor scan |
| 22Jun01.007-009 | 03:11 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 10,2,1,0.05k | 2,2,2,2 | PV10R1 exafs scans (In K edge). Scan 1 is now much less noisy than the first attempt. Scans are very similar but there is a slight decrease in amplitude after each scan. |
| 22Jun01.010 | 04:25 | -10,10 | 0.1 | 1 | PV15R1 vertical motor scan at In K edge. |
| 22Jun01.011 | 04:26 | -10,4 | 0.1 | 1 | PV15R1 horizontal motor scan |
| 22Jun01.012-021 | 04:30 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 10,2,0.05k | 2,2,2,2 | PV15R1 exafs scans. Scans 18 and on are not good.... |
| 22Jun01.022 | 09:33 | -10,10 | 0.1 | 1 | PVw/Ga Vertical motor scan #1- oops scanned for horizontal by
accident. Beam dump til 1 pm. argg! |
| 22Jun01.023-031 | 15:01 | various motor scan by Joe Woicik after big problems
with Io and gain. Joe worked over an hour trying to diagnose problem...we got up and running for exafs scans but Joe is still uncertain about the cause. There must be some problem with the lock on the monochromator after the long beam dump. Unfortunately, with the gain at 9, our scan is noisy but Io and It are much too weak with a lower gain. |
|||
| 22Jun01.032-40 | 15:19 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 10,2,0.05k | 2,2,2,2 | PVw/Ga In K edge exafs scans. |
| 23Jun01.041-48 | 09:39 | -200,-100,-20,50,22k | 10,2,0.05k | 2,2,2,2 | PVw/Ga In K edge exafs scans. Aborted 48 (enough scans). |