Three N 1s spectra for three samples (unmodified and heated at two different temperatures) are analyzed. Let’s look at one example from the literature. And why spectra on the right represent the “correct” way of curve fitting? What’s wrong with set of spectra shown on the left. So every time I give presentation, which show curve fitting results to people who are not doing it for living, I am talking about physical reasons behind Gaussian-Lorentzian shape of peaks, fundamental limits contributing to FWHM and generals rules of accurate reproducible curve fitting.Īnd the second reason is that even though we all know the rules behind good practices of curve fitting scientific literature is filled with poorly fitted spectra and, therefore, incorrectly interpreted XPS data. Their reaction is that curve fitting is meaningless as we can curve fit any particular spectrum with infinite number of combinations of peaks of different widths and shapes with the same goodness of fit. Why talk about something so well known to the surface analysis community as curve fitting high resolution XPS spectra? Two reasons.įirst is the skepticism I am running into every time I am showing curve fits of spectra to non-surface analysis communities of scientists.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |