/Normalization - Revision history

Apostolos Vagias at 08:14, 7 April 2026

2026-04-07T08:14:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:14, 7 April 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:
	* Regarding the question "can magnetic references help" - this can not generally be done, as changing the layer system would impact on the sld, the background, the normalization, etc.		* Regarding the question "can magnetic references help" - this can not generally be done, as changing the layer system would impact on the sld, the background, the normalization, etc.
	* Does the "correct normalization" only get critical if the background level is that high that changing the background in the simulation would change the simulated sld? Is that the same in NR and GISANS?		* Does the "correct normalization" only get critical if the background level is that high that changing the background in the simulation would change the simulated sld? Is that the same in NR and GISANS?
	* What can you get from Q=0 in a GISANS measurement? Can one at all extract a ~~quantitave~~ solution from a GISANS measurement? Should rather we aim at always having proper reference systems that the cross section can be compared with for getting the physical parameters needed?		* What can you get from Q=0 in a GISANS measurement? Can one at all extract a quantitative solution from a GISANS measurement? Should rather we aim at always having proper reference systems that the cross section can be compared with for getting the physical parameters needed?

	Notes group (?):		Notes group (?):

Annikastellhorn at 07:45, 7 April 2026

2026-04-07T07:45:24Z

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 * What can you get from Q=0 in a GISANS measurement? Can one at all extract a quantitave solution from a GISANS measurement? Should rather we aim at always having proper reference systems that the cross section can be compared with for getting the physical parameters needed?
 ******
 ******

Apostolos Vagias at 09:43, 19 March 2026

2026-03-19T09:43:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:43, 19 March 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	******		******
	******		******

	~~Henrich~~

	~~Normalization~~
	~~'''For normalization, important to know the footprint through reflectivity measurements'''.~~

	~~Footprint correction (in reflectivity mode) should be best done before we do normalization~~

	~~Si samples with known material, known SLD--> would that help? To have comparable geometry to work at all?~~
	~~100nm etched 100 A wide roofs in Si and backfilled with Fe, to calculate expected intensity and calculate SLD that you have in the sample.~~

	~~We do nano-etching with electron beam welding on the surface. Stripes should be fine, but we need to define orientation measurement, so it would be easier.~~

	~~JF: Truncated rods can be difficult , because by subtle variations of angle, the scattering pattern changes drastically.~~

	SJ: need to find out what can be done with chemical etching and electron beam etching. Have 1cm - 2 cm in all dimensions. If you work with microsample (square mm), footprint is way larger than whatever you have.

	~~Reference sample should have same dimensions as real sample.~~

	~~JK: Even if you have the reference samples, how do they help get the correct intensity?~~

	PG: you double-check your data reduction, you check your calibration (features at same q-values), are absolute intensities at the same value?, to know how reproducible are. It is more for reproducibility.


	~~PG: '''Normalization to direct beam, for GISANS we want to underilluminate (otherwise, we get lots of background)'''~~

	~~JF: You measure difference in the film with contrast. If you do not know your footprint, you will not know your incident angle and the wavelength to the extend you want.~~

	~~PG: All measurements we did with GISANS (large sample and small sample slits) we ensured underillumination.~~

	~~PG: FIGARO --> ToF-GISANS was not easy.~~

	~~SJ: More and more certain that we probably need one additional measurement:~~
	~~- One reference sample~~
	- One additional measurement with low intensity where we confine the beam very small, where footpirnt calculation becomes easier that we can use later to calibrate the measurement where maybe we can overilluminate
	(JF: not sure if this will work. In your measurement where you overilluminate, e.g. resolution not that good, you measure GISANS over different depths.You do very different experiments. Might be useful but not simple scaling.)

	~~SJ: for the moment, only simplistic approach. Without additional reflectometry, very hard to go to quantitative measurements.~~


	~~AK: '''The approach of using the monitor will work, with sample big enough not to have overillumination problems'''.~~
	~~PG: if it works, having GISANS with absolute intensity will be very valuable. The size of nanoparticle will define GISANS intensity.~~


	~~PG: '''discussion about off-specular and cases where it influences direct beam and specular beam.'''~~
	~~AK: you have troubles understanding where you define specular beam on the detector.~~


	~~SJ: Reflectometry, we normalize to intensity of incident beam. We do specular reflectivity curve. Everything in plane is correlated, and everything not landing on specular beam is not collected.~~

	~~PG: in case that you have such strong off-specular scattering, that you influence specular intensity. Boris has published couple of papers that he proposes to deal with this problem.~~

	~~JK: To get all this info, you need to simultaneously fit spec reflectivity with off-spec and GISANS and~~

	~~Simultaneously: exact same beam and sample,~~

	~~'''Footprint correction (geometric considerations for absolute intensity)'''~~

Annikastellhorn at 07:24, 19 March 2026

2026-03-19T07:24:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:24, 19 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Short summary from discussions/breakouts:
			* Full quantitative normalization procedure:
			** measuring GISANS together with NR & Off-specular scattering, to view the whole Q-space.
			* If this is not feasible:
			** Same as topic "Background": each system has to be classified for its way "how to be treated" - Survey needed!
			* General aspects (sample independent):
			** Precise I(lambda) normalization of the beamlines has to be performed

	Notes:		Notes:
	* for normalization it should be taken into account hand-in-hand: Specular reflectivity measured and simulated via Parrat and Off-specular/GISANS measured and simulated via DWBA!		* for normalization it should be taken into account hand-in-hand: Specular reflectivity measured and simulated via Parrat and Off-specular/GISANS measured and simulated via DWBA!

Apostolos Vagias at 16:22, 18 March 2026

2026-03-18T16:22:02Z

Apostolos Vagias at 15:47, 18 March 2026

2026-03-18T15:47:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 18 March 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	* Does the "correct normalization" only get critical if the background level is that high that changing the background in the simulation would change the simulated sld? Is that the same in NR and GISANS?		* Does the "correct normalization" only get critical if the background level is that high that changing the background in the simulation would change the simulated sld? Is that the same in NR and GISANS?
	* What can you get from Q=0 in a GISANS measurement? Can one at all extract a quantitave solution from a GISANS measurement? Should rather we aim at always having proper reference systems that the cross section can be compared with for getting the physical parameters needed?		* What can you get from Q=0 in a GISANS measurement? Can one at all extract a quantitave solution from a GISANS measurement? Should rather we aim at always having proper reference systems that the cross section can be compared with for getting the physical parameters needed?


			******
			******

			Henrich

			Normalization
			For normalization, important to know the footprint through reflectivity measurements.

			Footprint correction (in reflectivity mode) should be best done before we do normalization

			Si samples with known material, known SLD--> would that help? To have comparable geometry to work at all?
			100nm etched 100 A wide roofs in Si and backfilled with Fe, to calculate expected intensity and calculate SLD that you have in the sample.

			We do nano-etching with electron beam welding on the surface. Stripes should be fine, but we ned to define orientation measurement, doits would b easier.

			JF: Truncated rods can be difficult , because by subtle variations of angle, the scattering pattern changes drastically.

			SJ: need to find out what can be done with chemical etching and electron beam etching. Have 1cm - 2 cm in all dimensions. If you work with microsample (square mm), footprint is way largr than whatever you have.

			Reference sample should have same dimensions as real sample.

			JK: Even if you have the reference samples, how do they help get the correct intensity?

			PG: you double-check your data reduction, you check your calibration (features at same q-values), are absolute intensities at the same value?, to know how reproducible are
			It is more reproducibility.


			PG: Normalization to direct beam, for GISANS we want to underilluminate (otherwise, we get lots of background)

			JK: the magnetism colleagues can

			JF: You measure difference in the film with contrast. If you do not know your footprint, you will not know your incident angle and the wavelength to the extend you want.

			PG: All measurements we did with GISANS (large sample and small sample slits)

			PG: FIGARO --> ToF-GISANS was not easy.

			SJ: More and ore certain that we probably need one additional measruement:
			- One reference sample
			- One additional measurement with low intensity where we confine the bam very small, where footpirnt calculation becomes easier that we can use later to claibrate the measurement where maybe we can overilluminate
			(JF: not sure if this will work. In your measurement where you overiolluminate, e.g. rsaolution not that good, you measure GISANS over different depths.
			You do very different experiments. Might be useful but not simple scaling.)

			SJ: for the moment, only simplistic approach. Without additional reflectometry, very hard to go to quantitative measurements.


			AK: The approach of using the monitor will work, with sample big enough not to have overillumination problems.
			PG: if it works, having GISANS with absolute intensity will be very valuable. The size of nanoparticle will define GISANS intensity.

			JK: when you have strong non-specularly pattern,

			PG: discussion about off-specular and cases where it influences direct beam and specular beam.
			AK: you have troubles understanding where you define specular beam on the detector.


			SJ: Reflectometry, we normalize to intensity of incident beam. We do specular reflectivity curve. Everything in plane is correlated, and everything not landing
			on specular beam is not collected.

			PG: in case that you have such strong off-specular scattering, that you influence specular intensity. Boris has published couple of papers that he proposes to deal with this problem.

			JK: To get all this info, you need to simultaneously fit spec reflectivity with off-spec and GISANS and

			Simultaneously: exact same beam and sample,

			Footprint correction (geometric considerations for absolute intensity)

Annikastellhorn at 15:41, 18 March 2026

2026-03-18T15:41:11Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:41, 18 March 2026
Line 1:	Line 1:
		Notes:
		* for normalization it should be taken into account hand-in-hand: Specular reflectivity measured and simulated via Parrat and Off-specular/GISANS measured and simulated via DWBA!
		** Can NR help as a "reference" to normalize the GISANS measurement correctly - should it always go together?
		** This is not possible for some of the existing beamlines where GISANS can be performed but NR not, especially for Monochromatic sources!
		** At Tof-GISANS beamlines one could aim at getting the "NR" by measuring GISANS at different incident angles
		* Another problem: we loose information on the background and on the correct normalization factor by the fact that we do not measure the whole real space anyhow, as the detector has finite size
		* there are two different problems:
		** a fully quantitative measurement and
		** a reference to "1", where it would depend on the sample and the physics to be measured how to normalize (e.g., superconducting systems: with ref. via the T>Tc state, magnetic systems: with reference via the saturated state) BUT: this reference to "another sample state" is not for all systems possible. What then?
		* Regarding the question "can magnetic references help" - this can not generally be done, as changing the layer system would impact on the sld, the background, the normalization, etc.
		* Does the "correct normalization" only get critical if the background level is that high that changing the background in the simulation would change the simulated sld? Is that the same in NR and GISANS?
		* What can you get from Q=0 in a GISANS measurement? Can one at all extract a quantitave solution from a GISANS measurement? Should rather we aim at always having proper reference systems that the cross section can be compared with for getting the physical parameters needed?

Annikastellhorn: Created blank page

2026-03-18T07:26:26Z

Created blank page

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 18 March 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:

	Normalization		Normalization
	For normalization, important to know the footprint through reflectivity measurements.		'''For normalization, important to know the footprint through reflectivity measurements'''.

	Footprint correction (in reflectivity mode) should be best done before we do normalization		Footprint correction (in reflectivity mode) should be best done before we do normalization
Line 26:		Line 26:
	100nm etched 100 A wide roofs in Si and backfilled with Fe, to calculate expected intensity and calculate SLD that you have in the sample.		100nm etched 100 A wide roofs in Si and backfilled with Fe, to calculate expected intensity and calculate SLD that you have in the sample.

	We do nano-etching with electron beam welding on the surface. Stripes should be fine, but we ~~ned~~ to define orientation measurement, ~~doits~~ would b easier.		We do nano-etching with electron beam welding on the surface. Stripes should be fine, but we need to define orientation measurement, so it would be easier.

	JF: Truncated rods can be difficult , because by subtle variations of angle, the scattering pattern changes drastically.		JF: Truncated rods can be difficult , because by subtle variations of angle, the scattering pattern changes drastically.

	SJ: need to find out what can be done with chemical etching and electron beam etching. Have 1cm - 2 cm in all dimensions. If you work with microsample (square mm), footprint is way ~~largr~~ than whatever you have.		SJ: need to find out what can be done with chemical etching and electron beam etching. Have 1cm - 2 cm in all dimensions. If you work with microsample (square mm), footprint is way larger than whatever you have.

	Reference sample should have same dimensions as real sample.		Reference sample should have same dimensions as real sample.
Line 36:		Line 36:
	JK: Even if you have the reference samples, how do they help get the correct intensity?		JK: Even if you have the reference samples, how do they help get the correct intensity?

	PG: you double-check your data reduction, you check your calibration (features at same q-values), are absolute intensities at the same value?, to know how reproducible are		PG: you double-check your data reduction, you check your calibration (features at same q-values), are absolute intensities at the same value?, to know how reproducible are. It is more for reproducibility.
	It is more reproducibility.


	PG: Normalization to direct beam, for GISANS we want to underilluminate (otherwise, we get lots of background)		PG: '''Normalization to direct beam, for GISANS we want to underilluminate (otherwise, we get lots of background)'''

	~~JK: the magnetism colleagues can~~

	JF: You measure difference in the film with contrast. If you do not know your footprint, you will not know your incident angle and the wavelength to the extend you want.		JF: You measure difference in the film with contrast. If you do not know your footprint, you will not know your incident angle and the wavelength to the extend you want.

	PG: All measurements we did with GISANS (large sample and small sample slits)		PG: All measurements we did with GISANS (large sample and small sample slits) we ensured underillumination.

	PG: FIGARO --> ToF-GISANS was not easy.		PG: FIGARO --> ToF-GISANS was not easy.

	SJ: More and ~~ore~~ certain that we probably need one additional ~~measruement~~:		SJ: More and more certain that we probably need one additional measurement:
	- One reference sample		- One reference sample
	- One additional measurement with low intensity where we confine the ~~bam~~ very small, where footpirnt calculation becomes easier that we can use later to ~~claibrate~~ the measurement where maybe we can overilluminate		- One additional measurement with low intensity where we confine the beam very small, where footpirnt calculation becomes easier that we can use later to calibrate the measurement where maybe we can overilluminate
	(JF: not sure if this will work. In your measurement where you ~~overiolluminate~~, e.g. ~~rsaolution~~ not that good, you measure GISANS over different depths.		(JF: not sure if this will work. In your measurement where you overilluminate, e.g. resolution not that good, you measure GISANS over different depths.You do very different experiments. Might be useful but not simple scaling.)
	You do very different experiments. Might be useful but not simple scaling.)

	SJ: for the moment, only simplistic approach. Without additional reflectometry, very hard to go to quantitative measurements.		SJ: for the moment, only simplistic approach. Without additional reflectometry, very hard to go to quantitative measurements.


	AK: The approach of using the monitor will work, with sample big enough not to have overillumination problems.		AK: '''The approach of using the monitor will work, with sample big enough not to have overillumination problems'''.
	PG: if it works, having GISANS with absolute intensity will be very valuable. The size of nanoparticle will define GISANS intensity.		PG: if it works, having GISANS with absolute intensity will be very valuable. The size of nanoparticle will define GISANS intensity.

	~~JK: when you have strong non-specularly pattern,~~

	PG: discussion about off-specular and cases where it influences direct beam and specular beam.		PG: '''discussion about off-specular and cases where it influences direct beam and specular beam.'''
	AK: you have troubles understanding where you define specular beam on the detector.		AK: you have troubles understanding where you define specular beam on the detector.


	SJ: Reflectometry, we normalize to intensity of incident beam. We do specular reflectivity curve. Everything in plane is correlated, and everything not landing		SJ: Reflectometry, we normalize to intensity of incident beam. We do specular reflectivity curve. Everything in plane is correlated, and everything not landing on specular beam is not collected.
	on specular beam is not collected.

	PG: in case that you have such strong off-specular scattering, that you influence specular intensity. Boris has published couple of papers that he proposes to deal with this problem.		PG: in case that you have such strong off-specular scattering, that you influence specular intensity. Boris has published couple of papers that he proposes to deal with this problem.
Line 77:		Line 71:
	Simultaneously: exact same beam and sample,		Simultaneously: exact same beam and sample,

	Footprint correction (geometric considerations for absolute intensity)		'''Footprint correction (geometric considerations for absolute intensity)'''