วีดีโอ

To remove a component from the component list, you must first remove any relational constraints from other components that are linked to the component you are attempting to cut. The Cut button is the correct way to remove the selected component. Any relational constraints (eg b * 0.5, where b heading label of the component you wish to cut) to the component you wish to remove can be replaced by entering # in the constraint followed by a numerical value.

I am not an expert in UPS, but I would think it would not be possible to fit components to UPS data. I suspect that UPS spectra represent patterns that you match to known states of materials. I do not have extensive experience of UPS.

There is a new version of CasaXPS 2.3.27PR2.2 in which the flood gun parameters are added to newly created VAMAS file. The parameters used for the flood gun will be added to the VAMAS block comment. To view the VAMAS block comment you can use the options on the Tile Display Parameter , Display property page options. www.casaxps.com/CasaXPSx64/downloadWin64.htm

The toolbars can be enabled using the View menu on the CasaXPS Main Window. The Win32 version of CasaXPS that will be used at the South Wales Workshop next month can be downloaded via the link www.casaxps.com/CasaXPSx32/downloadWin32.htm

First two vanadium oxide videos are uploaded to the channel. More to follow.

Yes. In version 2.3.26 a toolbar button allows the transfer of spectra, components and the residual through the clipboard. I will make a video to illustrate the export with the residual, but if you send me an email I can send you a screenshot that explains the steps easily and quickly. neal@casaxps.com

@@casaxpscasasoftware4605 thank you so much! I'll write you an email in a sec

The accuracy of the elemental composition depends on escape depth, transmission and relative sensitivity factors. It is possible, for these data, the calibration was not perfect. The video attempts to show how to compute a depth scale using elemental and silicon intensity, calibrated by making assumptions about points in the profile where the surface is effectively bulk elemental and bulk oxide. Since these two sources for photoemission signal are very close in energy, I did not worry about the relationship between Si and O, which would depend on kinetic energy of the electron. These data were provided as-is, without any means for me to verify the calibration of the intensity scale for the instrument, so I would not draw any conclusions from the elemental composition using these results for O/Si ratio.

The Edit VAMAS block fields dialog window offers the current dwell-time and number of scans. The total acquisition time is dwell-time multiplied by the number of scans. These values can be corrected for a spectrum within the dialog window which applies to the VAMAS block displayed in the lefthand pane of CasaXPS. The dialog window is available from the second toolbar, 7th toolbar button from the righthand end of the toolbar.

@@casaxpscasasoftware4605 Thank you very much! I did not know this toolbar allows to make changes to the spectrum!

If your institute is on the list of academic site licenses (www.casaxps.com/links/academic_site_licenses.htm) then you need to send details of your affiliation to neal@casaxps.com. Students or employees of universities with site licenses are eligible to receive a license at no cost. If not, then to purchase a license, please send an email to neal@casaxps.com requesting a quotation for a license.

There are varying views on the use of energy calibration for charge compensated spectra. In my experience, I find energy calibration based on selecting photoemission on "known" chemistry is preferrable to using unknown chemistry. The interaction of adventitious carbon with the material below is too often unknown and requires the fitting of a peak model to identify CH type chemistry. The energy of a component in a peak model with multiple peaks is subject to error, hence I tend to look elsewhere to obtain a consistent energy calibration between different measurements. Energy calibration with high precision is often my motivation for energy calibration. That is, I am less interested in accurate binding energy that precise relationships between the energy of peaks measurement under different conditions.

This video was made to illustrate the use of constrained components in a peak model. The background to Fe 2p is the shape with greatest uncertainty, while the role of the peak model is to create a set of constrained bell-shaped curves that, given the background, models the data envelope attributed to an oxidation states of iron. The number of optimisation parameters for each ensemble of components is limited by relational constraints, so effectively the peak model should be interpreted as a complex component that can be used as part of a peak model aimed at mixed state oxides.

Please see the new video: th-cam.com/video/1c7jjxaC6Wk/w-d-xo.html

Please see the new video: th-cam.com/video/1c7jjxaC6Wk/w-d-xo.html You must calculate error bars using the Browser Operations illustrated in the new video.

Yes, Monte Carlo error analysis assumes data are pulse counted. If residual standard deviation differs from unity, then the numerically determined error estimates will be incorrect. The noise added to spectra that are not pulse counted will be incorrect, so the model may appear better or worse than is the case.

www.casaxps.com/SW-Workshop/ExperiencedSessionRoscoff2019.pdf

Thank you

Hi Sir, I have a question - In #4:10, electrons arrives on the 000 detector (leftmost) should have the lowest kinetic energy, the binding energy should be higher. But your drawing is reversed.

Yes. There is a configuration option that alters satellite specification. If you enter the string ups source label : He I (1.45,0.4) into the ParameterFile.txt file (CasaXPS.DEF folder) then the two numerical values will provide the scale applied to the alpha and beta satellites of He I. You will need to restart CasaXPS or use the Reload CasaXPS Default Files option on the Options menu of the main CasaXPS window to cause an update of these two scale factors.

There is a link to the Fe Oxide data file on the web-page www.casaxps.com/2326rev1.2V/download.htm

@@casaxpscasasoftware4605 Thank you.

If I understand correctly, IPES is imaging photoemission spectroscopy. If so the IPES is already within CasaXPS. There are many videos looking at imaging XPS. Angle resolved PES is a field I find difficult to offer as a solution in CasaXPS and prefer to leave such algorithms to be implemented by others.

Glad it helped!

Would you please send me a screenshot of what you see in Illustrator? (neal@casaxps.com)

There is a new video in which a new feature is illustrated that is perhaps the solution to your problem: th-cam.com/video/QzsSvq1ET4U/w-d-xo.html. Please let me know if the new EMF export option solves the problem? If so, a new version of CasaXPS will be made available on the CasaXPS web-site.

If you send me an email address I can send you the VAMAS file containing the Fe 2p data.

Hi@@casaxpscasasoftware4605

@@casaxpscasasoftware4605 Hi, I sent you an email.

You might like to download the version of CasaXPS from the web-page: www.casaxps.com/casaxps-training/bgn_course/bg_index.htm. New toolbars designed for profile display are available via the View menu on the Main CasaXPS window. The Colour property page includes more options for displaying depth profiles or spectra. The same mechanism for changing colours for spectra applies to depth profile data. The following video illustrate one of the new colour options aimed at depth profile display. th-cam.com/video/6bqLlXVJYo8/w-d-xo.html More colour options are explained within the video th-cam.com/video/D79FDmO7HT8/w-d-xo.html

@@casaxpscasasoftware4605 Thank you for your response. I've been able to amend my graphs now.

Please export your data as ASCII .csv files and send the files to neal@casaxps.com.

Would you please send me an example of your data where subtraction of a substrate is necessary? neal@casaxps.com

I created a video to answer your question: th-cam.com/video/yVq3ZETYL3s/w-d-xo.html Please let me know if this new video does not provide the answer to your question.

The answer to your question lies in the origin of the RSFs you use to quantify your data. If the RSFs are theoretical, such as Scofield cross-sections, then structures within photoemission peaks that exist because of loss events associated with the atom from which the photoelectron emerged, then in principle, such satellite peaks should be included in the area used to quantify the material. If, however, the RSFs are empirical, then the extent of a peak in terms of satellite peaks depends on how the RSFs where calculated. I should also say that if a satellite peak is a loss peak caused by atoms different from the atom that emitted the photoelectron, then the satellite peak should not be included in the peak area used to quantify composition.

You can download the version used in the video via the link at the top of the web-page: www.casaxps.com/casaxps-training/bgn_course/bg_index.htm The toolbars are enabled via the View menu.

I have added a short video to explain how to remove satellite signal from UPS data: th-cam.com/video/SvkB77G4RWo/w-d-xo.html

Quantification by XPS is challenging because the relationship between photoemission peak, as measured, depends on instrument and the nature of the sample. I would need to see a survey measurement and know more about the sample and instrument before being able to comment on how to understand stoichiometry as measured by XPS. Please send your data to neal@casaxps.com.

The measured value is entered as a range, namely, 290 , 280. An interval starting at binding energy 290 and ending at 280 is defined in the Measured text-box by separating two binding energies by a comma, the result of which is the measured binding energy for each C 1s peak is calculated by searching for the maximum intensity within the range 290 to 280.