pymca-users Mailing List for PyMca
Brought to you by:
vasole
Menu
▾
▴
pymca-users — PyMca users general purpose mailing list.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(4) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(3) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
(11) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(4) |
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(5) |
May
|
Jun
(5) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(6) |
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(7) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(10) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(9) |
May
|
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
|
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(17) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(5) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
(9) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(18) |
Apr
(11) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(14) |
May
(8) |
Jun
|
Jul
(12) |
Aug
|
Sep
(7) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(11) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(9) |
Mar
|
Apr
(5) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(5) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(10) |
Dec
|
| 2021 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(7) |
Apr
|
May
(7) |
Jun
(14) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(18) |
Dec
|
| 2022 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(16) |
Apr
(10) |
May
(8) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(19) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(9) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2023 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
|
May
(7) |
Jun
(22) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2024 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(3) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2025 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-10-13 06:01:25
|
Dear John, I gave a link to version XMI-MSIM version 6 because i) I had used it and ii) version 7 started to include Google Analytics Please feel free to use any version equal to version 6 or higher. Best regards, Armando On 12/10/2025 20:53, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Amando, et. al. > > It's been some time and I am updating my installations of PyMCA and > XMI-MSIM (if it needs it). > > PyMCA should be easy. > > In a recent post, you gave a link to XMI-MSIM for a version 6, and > the page is dated Sep 15, 2023. If I look at "Help/About" in the > version I have been using, it says "Copyright 2010-2020" and is > version 8.1. It is accompanied by a PDF manual for version 8.0 > dated Feb 7, 2020. > > Which is recommended? > > Thanks, > > John > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-10-12 18:54:27
|
Amando, et. al. It's been some time and I am updating my installations of PyMCA and XMI-MSIM (if it needs it). PyMCA should be easy. In a recent post, you gave a link to XMI-MSIM for a version 6, and the page is dated Sep 15, 2023. If I look at "Help/About" in the version I have been using, it says "Copyright 2010-2020" and is version 8.1. It is accompanied by a PDF manual for version 8.0 dated Feb 7, 2020. Which is recommended? Thanks, John |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-09-09 11:41:07
|
Dear Per, Not really. If you take the Steel example with its configuration you do not have to do anything in particular to simulate a spectrum. The generated spectrum will use the background of the steel sample, but if you use the Monte Carlo code, it will also simulate a background. Just change the sample composition to match what you want to simulate. If what you want is to work with an actual spectrum you have measured, then yes, you will have to calibrate it in energy (and analyze it in the normal way but the tutorials are good enough to achieve that goal). Best regards, Armando On 09/09/2025 09:58, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Dear Armando, > > Thank you for the answer. > I assume I need to do the calibration, but for that to work I need to > know what the background is in order to identify the peaks. > |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-09-09 08:14:50
|
Dear Armando, Thank you for the answer. I assume I need to do the calibration, but for that to work I need to know what the background is in order to identify the peaks. /Per Per Baecklund Pumpvägen 3 757 56 Uppsala Sweden ________________________________ Från: PyMca general purpose mailing list. <pym...@li...> Skickat: den 28 augusti 2025 12:30 Till: pym...@li... <pym...@li...> Ämne: Re: [PyMca] Intensities from theoretical sample Dear Per, The simplest way to achieve that is to take a look at the Step 7 in: http://www.silx.org/doc/PyMca/dev/training/quantification/index.html You can feed PyMca with some starting data and then fill the conditions of the setup you want to evaluate. You can use any of the files supplied with PyMca. For instance the file Steel.spe located under: C:\Program Files\PyMca 5.9.4\lib\PyMca5\PyMcaData You can also install the Monte Carlo code XMIMSIM and use the PyMca generated fit configuration file to properly account for the scattering peaks: https://github.com/tschoonj/xmimsim/releases/tag/XMI-MSIM-6.0 If everything is properly installed, XMI-MSIM should be accessible from PyMca Main window Tools menu. The example below corresponds to its usage with the Steel.cfg fit configuration file also supplied with PyMca. [cid:par...@es...] Of course you can use the Monte Carlo code without using PyMca at all. In that case you will have to learn how to define a setup using XMI-MSIM and not PyMca. Best regards, Armando On 27/08/2025 12:38, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: Hi, I am trying to generate intensities from some simple theoretical samples with a characteristic energy as the source. Is there a way to do this with e.g. PyMcaBatch? /Per Per Baecklund Pumpvägen 3 757 56 Uppsala Sweden _______________________________________________ PyMca-users mailing list PyM...@li...<mailto:PyM...@li...> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-08-28 10:30:21
|
Dear Per, The simplest way to achieve that is to take a look at the Step 7 in: http://www.silx.org/doc/PyMca/dev/training/quantification/index.html You can feed PyMca with some starting data and then fill the conditions of the setup you want to evaluate. You can use any of the files supplied with PyMca. For instance the file Steel.spe located under: C:\Program Files\PyMca 5.9.4\lib\PyMca5\PyMcaData You can also install the Monte Carlo code XMIMSIM and use the PyMca generated fit configuration file to properly account for the scattering peaks: https://github.com/tschoonj/xmimsim/releases/tag/XMI-MSIM-6.0 If everything is properly installed, XMI-MSIM should be accessible from PyMca Main window Tools menu. The example below corresponds to its usage with the Steel.cfg fit configuration file also supplied with PyMca. Of course you can use the Monte Carlo code without using PyMca at all. In that case you will have to learn how to define a setup using XMI-MSIM and not PyMca. Best regards, Armando On 27/08/2025 12:38, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to generate intensities from some simple theoretical > samples with a characteristic energy as the source. > Is there a way to do this with e.g. PyMcaBatch? > > > /Per > > Per Baecklund > Pumpvägen 3 > 757 56 Uppsala > Sweden > > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-08-27 11:12:38
|
Hi, I am trying to generate intensities from some simple theoretical samples with a characteristic energy as the source. Is there a way to do this with e.g. PyMcaBatch? /Per Per Baecklund Pumpvägen 3 757 56 Uppsala Sweden |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-07-24 15:15:14
|
Dear Armando, Thank you for your help. I installed the Visual Studio runtime libraries and it resolved the issue. Best, Myrsini ________________________________ From: PyMca general purpose mailing list. <pym...@li...> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 17:37 To: pym...@li... <pym...@li...> Subject: Re: [PyMca] windows64 -PyMca installation issue Dear Myrsini, Most likely you need to install the Visual Studio runtime libraries on your system. Please follow the instructions at: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/windows/latest-supported-vc-redist?view=msvc-170 or use directly the link: https://aka.ms/vs/17/release/vc_redist.x64.exe Best regards, Armando On 24/07/2025 15:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: Dear PyMca users, I receive the following error message when installing PyMca on my Windows system: The code execution cannot proceed because VCRUNTIME140.dll was not found. Reinstalling the program may fix this problem. I reinstalled it, but the issue persists. The application doesn't launch after I download the .exe file. Could you please suggest a possible solution? Best, Myrsini _______________________________________________ PyMca-users mailing list PyM...@li...<mailto:PyM...@li...> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-07-24 14:37:48
|
Dear Myrsini, Most likely you need to install the Visual Studio runtime libraries on your system. Please follow the instructions at: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/windows/latest-supported-vc-redist?view=msvc-170 or use directly the link: https://aka.ms/vs/17/release/vc_redist.x64.exe Best regards, Armando On 24/07/2025 15:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Dear PyMca users, > > I receive the following error message when installing PyMca on my > Windows system: _The code execution cannot proceed because > VCRUNTIME140.dll was not found. Reinstalling the program may fix this > problem_. > > I reinstalled it, but the issue persists. The application doesn't > launch after I download the .exe file. Could you please suggest a > possible solution? > > Best, > Myrsini > > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-07-24 13:59:36
|
Dear PyMca users, I receive the following error message when installing PyMca on my Windows system: The code execution cannot proceed because VCRUNTIME140.dll was not found. Reinstalling the program may fix this problem. I reinstalled it, but the issue persists. The application doesn't launch after I download the .exe file. Could you please suggest a possible solution? Best, Myrsini |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-07-24 07:17:18
|
Dear Michał, In order to provide correct normalized percentages one would have to be sure that all elements present in the sample are measured and that all the measured elements actually come from the sample. Those conditions cannot be warranted and the normalization cannot be applied. Therefore to say 0.05 mass fraction or 5 % mass proportion is just a question of taste and I do not see any added benefit. Without going any further, in the steel example provided with PyMca, the measured mass fractions for Cr, V, Fe, Ni and Mn are correct and, for instance, to go from an Fe mass fraction of 0.64 to a 64 % concentration does not require a huge effort. Furthermore, the sum of the mass fractions of those elements amounts to 0.97. This particular case is quite good, but a normalization to 100 % would modify the concentrations of all the elements when in fact, the actual sample composition contains more than 2 % of Mo that is not measured due to the used excitation energy. Best regards, Armando On 21/07/2025 09:59, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Dear Armando, > > I use pyMCA to analyze elemental content in metal alloys. However, > metallurgists are accustomed to using percentages instead of mass > fractions. Would it be possible to add a switch to display the > analysis result as a percentage? > > To obtain the result in percentages, I slightly modified the program > code, but not everyone knows how to do this. > > Another interesting option would be the ability to normalize the > results to 100%. > > --- > Best regards, > Michał Olejnik > Poland > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-07-21 07:59:46
|
Dear Armando, I use pyMCA to analyze elemental content in metal alloys. However, metallurgists are accustomed to using percentages instead of mass fractions. Would it be possible to add a switch to display the analysis result as a percentage? To obtain the result in percentages, I slightly modified the program code, but not everyone knows how to do this. Another interesting option would be the ability to normalize the results to 100%. --- Best regards, Michał Olejnik Poland |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-30 14:06:31
|
Dear Amando, Many thanks for the responses. Kind regards Edward Sichangi On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:38 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < pym...@li...> wrote: > Dear Edward, > > That can have multiple explanations (bad description of the experiment, > sample, geometry...) but none of them has anything to do with PyMca itself. > Best regards, > > Armando > > On 26/06/2025 17:14, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > > Dear Armando, > > Thank you for the responses. > I have included the multiple energies as you advised and both the K alpha > and K beta peaks for Compton and Rayleigh scattering have appeared. > However, just as the earlier case, the simulated peaks are more intense > than the experimental counterparts. > > Kindly see the attached spectra. > > Kind regards > > Edward Sichangi > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:13 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < > pym...@li...> wrote: > >> But have you filled all the energies emitted by your tube??? Run your >> simulation with something similar to the table below. >> >> DISCLAIMER: I do not know if your tube has anything to select a single >> energy nor if the ratios below apply to the emission of your tube. In the >> configuration you sent us you are using a monochromatic beam. Without >> optical elements, you must have multiple energies coming out of your X-ray >> tube and not a single one. >> >> On 25/06/2025 18:08, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >> >> Dear members, >> >> Many thanks for the responses Armando. I have double clicked the second >> energy table but the results are still the same. >> >> As you can see from the scatter peaks, why is the simulated one more >> intense than the experimental counterpart. >> >> REGARDS >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:34 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < >> pym...@li...> wrote: >> >>> Dear Armando, >>> >>> Attached kindly find the original spectrum and cfg file I used. >>> >>> Thank you in advance. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:09 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < >>> pym...@li...> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Edward, >>>> My first impression is that you are considering Mo-Ka as exctation beam >>>> and that you have forgotten about Mo-Kb. (double click on the second >>>> energy of the energy table to turn-it pink) >>>> >>>> >>>> Without the original spectrum and the original cfg file it is difficult >>>> to say more. >>>> >>>> Armando >>>> >>>> On 25/06/2025 16:50, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Armando, >>>> >>>> Many thanks for the prompt response. >>>> >>>> The excitation energy is 17.5 keV (X-ray tube) >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < >>>> pym...@li...> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Edward, >>>>> >>>>> Can you provide details about your excitation source? >>>>> >>>>> Armando >>>>> >>>>> On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >>>>> > Dear members, >>>>> > >>>>> > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum using XMI-MSIM >>>>> > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not matching with >>>>> > their experimental counterparts. I would like to know why and how to >>>>> > correct it. >>>>> > >>>>> > See the attached spectra. >>>>> > >>>>> > Thank you in advance. >>>>> > >>>>> > Edward Sichangi >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > PyMca-users mailing list >>>>> > PyM...@li... >>>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PyMca-users mailing list >>>>> PyM...@li... >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PyMca-users mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PyMca-users mailing list >>>> PyM...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PyMca-users mailing list >>> PyM...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-26 17:38:31
|
Dear Edward, That can have multiple explanations (bad description of the experiment, sample, geometry...) but none of them has anything to do with PyMca itself. Best regards, Armando On 26/06/2025 17:14, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Dear Armando, > > Thank you for the responses. > I have included the multiple energies as you advised and both the K > alpha and K beta peaks for Compton and Rayleigh scattering have > appeared. However, just as the earlier case, the simulated peaks are > more intense than the experimental counterparts. > > Kindly see the attached spectra. > > Kind regards > > Edward Sichangi > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:13 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. > <pym...@li...> wrote: > > But have you filled all the energies emitted by your tube??? Run > your simulation with something similar to the table below. > > DISCLAIMER: I do not know if your tube has anything to select a > single energy nor if the ratios below apply to the emission of > your tube. In the configuration you sent us you are using a > monochromatic beam. Without optical elements, you must have > multiple energies coming out of your X-ray tube and not a single one. > > On 25/06/2025 18:08, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >> Dear members, >> >> Many thanks for the responses Armando. I have double clicked the >> second energy table but the results are still the same. >> >> As you can see from the scatter peaks, why is the simulated one >> more intense than the experimental counterpart. >> >> REGARDS >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:34 PM PyMca general purpose mailing >> list. <pym...@li...> wrote: >> >> Dear Armando, >> >> Attached kindly find the original spectrum and cfg file I used. >> >> Thank you in advance. >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:09 PM PyMca general purpose mailing >> list. <pym...@li...> wrote: >> >> Dear Edward, >> >> My first impression is that you are considering Mo-Ka as >> exctation beam and that you have forgotten about Mo-Kb. >> (double click on the second energy of the energy table to >> turn-it pink) >> >> >> Without the original spectrum and the original cfg file >> it is difficult to say more. >> >> Armando >> >> On 25/06/2025 16:50, PyMca general purpose mailing list. >> wrote: >>> Dear Armando, >>> >>> Many thanks for the prompt response. >>> >>> The excitation energy is 17.5 keV (X-ray tube) >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM PyMca general purpose >>> mailing list. <pym...@li...> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Edward, >>> >>> Can you provide details about your excitation source? >>> >>> Armando >>> >>> On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing >>> list. wrote: >>> > Dear members, >>> > >>> > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum >>> using XMI-MSIM >>> > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are >>> not matching with >>> > their experimental counterparts. I would like to >>> know why and how to >>> > correct it. >>> > >>> > See the attached spectra. >>> > >>> > Thank you in advance. >>> > >>> > Edward Sichangi >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PyMca-users mailing list >>> > PyM...@li... >>> > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PyMca-users mailing list >>> PyM...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PyMca-users mailing list >>> PyM...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-26 15:04:58
|
Dear Armando, Thank you for the responses. I have included the multiple energies as you advised and both the K alpha and K beta peaks for Compton and Rayleigh scattering have appeared. However, just as the earlier case, the simulated peaks are more intense than the experimental counterparts. Kindly see the attached spectra. Kind regards Edward Sichangi On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:13 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < pym...@li...> wrote: > But have you filled all the energies emitted by your tube??? Run your > simulation with something similar to the table below. > > DISCLAIMER: I do not know if your tube has anything to select a single > energy nor if the ratios below apply to the emission of your tube. In the > configuration you sent us you are using a monochromatic beam. Without > optical elements, you must have multiple energies coming out of your X-ray > tube and not a single one. > > On 25/06/2025 18:08, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > > Dear members, > > Many thanks for the responses Armando. I have double clicked the second > energy table but the results are still the same. > > As you can see from the scatter peaks, why is the simulated one more > intense than the experimental counterpart. > > REGARDS > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:34 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < > pym...@li...> wrote: > >> Dear Armando, >> >> Attached kindly find the original spectrum and cfg file I used. >> >> Thank you in advance. >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:09 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < >> pym...@li...> wrote: >> >>> Dear Edward, >>> My first impression is that you are considering Mo-Ka as exctation beam >>> and that you have forgotten about Mo-Kb. (double click on the second >>> energy of the energy table to turn-it pink) >>> >>> >>> Without the original spectrum and the original cfg file it is difficult >>> to say more. >>> >>> Armando >>> >>> On 25/06/2025 16:50, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >>> >>> Dear Armando, >>> >>> Many thanks for the prompt response. >>> >>> The excitation energy is 17.5 keV (X-ray tube) >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < >>> pym...@li...> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Edward, >>>> >>>> Can you provide details about your excitation source? >>>> >>>> Armando >>>> >>>> On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >>>> > Dear members, >>>> > >>>> > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum using XMI-MSIM >>>> > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not matching with >>>> > their experimental counterparts. I would like to know why and how to >>>> > correct it. >>>> > >>>> > See the attached spectra. >>>> > >>>> > Thank you in advance. >>>> > >>>> > Edward Sichangi >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > PyMca-users mailing list >>>> > PyM...@li... >>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PyMca-users mailing list >>>> PyM...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PyMca-users mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PyMca-users mailing list >>> PyM...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-25 17:13:31
|
But have you filled all the energies emitted by your tube??? Run your simulation with something similar to the table below. DISCLAIMER: I do not know if your tube has anything to select a single energy nor if the ratios below apply to the emission of your tube. In the configuration you sent us you are using a monochromatic beam. Without optical elements, you must have multiple energies coming out of your X-ray tube and not a single one. On 25/06/2025 18:08, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Dear members, > > Many thanks for the responses Armando. I have double clicked the > second energy table but the results are still the same. > > As you can see from the scatter peaks, why is the simulated one more > intense than the experimental counterpart. > > REGARDS > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:34 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. > <pym...@li...> wrote: > > Dear Armando, > > Attached kindly find the original spectrum and cfg file I used. > > Thank you in advance. > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:09 PM PyMca general purpose mailing > list. <pym...@li...> wrote: > > Dear Edward, > > My first impression is that you are considering Mo-Ka as > exctation beam and that you have forgotten about Mo-Kb. > (double click on the second energy of the energy table to > turn-it pink) > > > Without the original spectrum and the original cfg file it is > difficult to say more. > > Armando > > On 25/06/2025 16:50, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >> Dear Armando, >> >> Many thanks for the prompt response. >> >> The excitation energy is 17.5 keV (X-ray tube) >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM PyMca general purpose mailing >> list. <pym...@li...> wrote: >> >> Dear Edward, >> >> Can you provide details about your excitation source? >> >> Armando >> >> On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. >> wrote: >> > Dear members, >> > >> > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum >> using XMI-MSIM >> > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not >> matching with >> > their experimental counterparts. I would like to >> know why and how to >> > correct it. >> > >> > See the attached spectra. >> > >> > Thank you in advance. >> > >> > Edward Sichangi >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PyMca-users mailing list >> > PyM...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-25 15:58:33
|
Dear members, Many thanks for the responses Armando. I have double clicked the second energy table but the results are still the same. As you can see from the scatter peaks, why is the simulated one more intense than the experimental counterpart. REGARDS On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:34 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < pym...@li...> wrote: > Dear Armando, > > Attached kindly find the original spectrum and cfg file I used. > > Thank you in advance. > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:09 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < > pym...@li...> wrote: > >> Dear Edward, >> My first impression is that you are considering Mo-Ka as exctation beam >> and that you have forgotten about Mo-Kb. (double click on the second >> energy of the energy table to turn-it pink) >> >> >> Without the original spectrum and the original cfg file it is difficult >> to say more. >> >> Armando >> >> On 25/06/2025 16:50, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >> >> Dear Armando, >> >> Many thanks for the prompt response. >> >> The excitation energy is 17.5 keV (X-ray tube) >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < >> pym...@li...> wrote: >> >>> Dear Edward, >>> >>> Can you provide details about your excitation source? >>> >>> Armando >>> >>> On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >>> > Dear members, >>> > >>> > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum using XMI-MSIM >>> > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not matching with >>> > their experimental counterparts. I would like to know why and how to >>> > correct it. >>> > >>> > See the attached spectra. >>> > >>> > Thank you in advance. >>> > >>> > Edward Sichangi >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PyMca-users mailing list >>> > PyM...@li... >>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PyMca-users mailing list >>> PyM...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-25 15:34:41
|
Dear Armando, Attached kindly find the original spectrum and cfg file I used. Thank you in advance. On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 6:09 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < pym...@li...> wrote: > Dear Edward, > My first impression is that you are considering Mo-Ka as exctation beam > and that you have forgotten about Mo-Kb. (double click on the second > energy of the energy table to turn-it pink) > > > Without the original spectrum and the original cfg file it is difficult to > say more. > > Armando > > On 25/06/2025 16:50, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > > Dear Armando, > > Many thanks for the prompt response. > > The excitation energy is 17.5 keV (X-ray tube) > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < > pym...@li...> wrote: > >> Dear Edward, >> >> Can you provide details about your excitation source? >> >> Armando >> >> On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: >> > Dear members, >> > >> > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum using XMI-MSIM >> > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not matching with >> > their experimental counterparts. I would like to know why and how to >> > correct it. >> > >> > See the attached spectra. >> > >> > Thank you in advance. >> > >> > Edward Sichangi >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PyMca-users mailing list >> > PyM...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PyMca-users mailing list >> PyM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-25 15:08:53
|
Dear Edward, My first impression is that you are considering Mo-Ka as exctation beam and that you have forgotten about Mo-Kb. (double click on the second energy of the energy table to turn-it pink) Without the original spectrum and the original cfg file it is difficult to say more. Armando On 25/06/2025 16:50, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Dear Armando, > > Many thanks for the prompt response. > > The excitation energy is 17.5 keV (X-ray tube) > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. > <pym...@li...> wrote: > > Dear Edward, > > Can you provide details about your excitation source? > > Armando > > On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > > Dear members, > > > > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum using XMI-MSIM > > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not matching > with > > their experimental counterparts. I would like to know why and > how to > > correct it. > > > > See the attached spectra. > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > Edward Sichangi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PyMca-users mailing list > > PyM...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-25 14:40:12
|
Dear Armando, Many thanks for the prompt response. The excitation energy is 17.5 keV (X-ray tube) On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:20 PM PyMca general purpose mailing list. < pym...@li...> wrote: > Dear Edward, > > Can you provide details about your excitation source? > > Armando > > On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > > Dear members, > > > > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum using XMI-MSIM > > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not matching with > > their experimental counterparts. I would like to know why and how to > > correct it. > > > > See the attached spectra. > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > Edward Sichangi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PyMca-users mailing list > > PyM...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users > |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-25 14:20:13
|
Dear Edward, Can you provide details about your excitation source? Armando On 25/06/2025 12:41, PyMca general purpose mailing list. wrote: > Dear members, > > I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum using XMI-MSIM > pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not matching with > their experimental counterparts. I would like to know why and how to > correct it. > > See the attached spectra. > > Thank you in advance. > > Edward Sichangi > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-06-25 10:32:01
|
Dear members, I have attempted to simulate experimental spectrum using XMI-MSIM pymca software but the simulated scatter peaks are not matching with their experimental counterparts. I would like to know why and how to correct it. See the attached spectra. Thank you in advance. Edward Sichangi |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-02-18 11:14:25
|
Dear Armando, Thank you so much for helping out, and for acting so quickly! The new version works great for me. with grateful greetings, Joen Dr. Joen Hermans Assistant professor Conservation Science Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (C&R, FGw) Van 't Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences (HIMS, FNWI) Universiteit van Amsterdam Conservation & Science Rijksmuseum Available on Tue, Wed, Thu and Fri ________________________________ Van: PyMca general purpose mailing list. <pym...@li...> Verzonden: maandag 17 februari 2025 18:49 Aan: pym...@li... <pym...@li...> Onderwerp: Re: [PyMca] PyMca crashes when running NNMA in the ROI Imaging tool Dear Joen, I have just uploaded a newly packaged binary for the MacOS. The PCA and NNMA issues under MacOS should be solved. You can download the program from the usual place. https://sourceforge.net/projects/pymca/files/pymca/PyMca5.9.4/ There are other ROI Imaging plugins that will probably need to be fixed for the MacOS. I just do not have the time now to search for them, to fix them and to make a new release. Best regards, Armando On 13/02/2025 13:45, PyMca general purpose mailing list. via PyMca-users wrote: Dear PyMca community, I'm trying to run an NNMA analysis of a µATR-FTIR dataset (.fsm file) using the PyMca ROI Imaging tool. As soon as I click 'Accept' in the NNMA Configuration Dialog window, using all default settings, PyMca crashes. In the Terminal, the error message reads: "Illegal instruction: 4". I am running PyMca5.9.4 on macOS 11.7.9, and had the same issue with PyMca5.9.1. Any suggestions to fix or work around this issue are very welcome! with gratitude, Joen Hermans |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-02-17 17:49:16
|
Dear Joen, I have just uploaded a newly packaged binary for the MacOS. The PCA and NNMA issues under MacOS should be solved. You can download the program from the usual place. https://sourceforge.net/projects/pymca/files/pymca/PyMca5.9.4/ There are other ROI Imaging plugins that will probably need to be fixed for the MacOS. I just do not have the time now to search for them, to fix them and to make a new release. Best regards, Armando On 13/02/2025 13:45, PyMca general purpose mailing list. via PyMca-users wrote: > Dear PyMca community, > > I'm trying to run an NNMA analysis of a µATR-FTIR dataset (.fsm file) > using the PyMca ROI Imaging tool. As soon as I click 'Accept' in the > NNMA Configuration Dialog window, using all default settings, PyMca > crashes. In the Terminal, the error message reads: "Illegal > instruction: 4". I am running PyMca5.9.4 on macOS 11.7.9, and had the > same issue with PyMca5.9.1. > Any suggestions to fix or work around this issue are very welcome! > > with gratitude, > Joen Hermans |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-02-14 17:20:55
|
Dear Joen, Thanks for the report. I have just reproduced the issue. Basically anything opening a thread in the ROI Imaging Tool crashes. For instance, the PCA analysis crashes too. I will check if it can be easily solved. It might be just dependent on the Qt binding used or version (PySide6 in the frozen binary). Best regards, Armando On 13/02/2025 13:45, PyMca general purpose mailing list. via PyMca-users wrote: > Dear PyMca community, > > I'm trying to run an NNMA analysis of a µATR-FTIR dataset (.fsm file) > using the PyMca ROI Imaging tool. As soon as I click 'Accept' in the > NNMA Configuration Dialog window, using all default settings, PyMca > crashes. In the Terminal, the error message reads: "Illegal > instruction: 4". I am running PyMca5.9.4 on macOS 11.7.9, and had the > same issue with PyMca5.9.1. > Any suggestions to fix or work around this issue are very welcome! > > with gratitude, > Joen Hermans > > Dr. Joen Hermans > > /Assistant professor Conservation Science// > /* > * > > Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (C&R, FGw) > > Van 't Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences (HIMS, FNWI) > > *Universiteit van Amsterdam* > > > Conservation & Science > > *Rijksmuseum* > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PyMca-users mailing list > PyM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pymca-users |
|
From: PyMca g. p. m. list. <pym...@li...> - 2025-02-13 18:40:01
|
Hello, That often happens to me and that is usually linked to a limitation in RAM. Check that by monitoring the memory use when launching NNMA. If it is a memory issue you can either find a computer with more of it or go for some binning. Best regards, Jean -----Message original----- De: PyMca <pym...@li...> à: PyMca-users <PyM...@li...> Envoyé: jeudi 13 février 2025 17:21 CET Sujet : [PyMca] PyMca crashes when running NNMA in the ROI Imaging tool Dear PyMca community, I'm trying to run an NNMA analysis of a µATR-FTIR dataset (.fsm file) using the PyMca ROI Imaging tool. As soon as I click 'Accept' in the NNMA Configuration Dialog window, using all default settings, PyMca crashes. In the Terminal, the error message reads: "Illegal instruction: 4". I am running PyMca5.9.4 on macOS 11.7.9, and had the same issue with PyMca5.9.1. Any suggestions to fix or work around this issue are very welcome! with gratitude, Joen Hermans Dr. Joen Hermans Assistant professor Conservation Science Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (C&R, FGw) Van 't Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences (HIMS, FNWI) Universiteit van Amsterdam Conservation & Science Rijksmuseum |
8 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
