ausblenden:
Schlagwörter:
-
Zusammenfassung:
In 1982 Papagno et al. [1] found experimentally that the standard procedure applied both to their EXELFS data of M2,3 edges in Cu and Co did not yield the correct known crystallographic next-neighbour distance. Therefore we [2] proposed in 1986 that the reason for this could be an energy-dependent d- and s-final state transition ratio. By showing explicitly that on the basis of an empirically assumed μdμ5 ratio the correct next-neighbour distance does result from the experimental data by Santoni and Urban. Afterwards Combet Farnoux and Hitchcock [3] have shown that the assumed μdμ5 ratio is wrong. Hence the experimental finding by Papagno et al. [1] is still unresolved. In the present communication we show explicitly that the evaluation of the data by the curved-wave formalism due to Müller and Schaich [4] gives the correct next-neighbour distance. Hence we see that for the M2,3 edge in the transition metals is not the central-absorber phase shift (as argued by Chainet et al. [6]), which is wrong, but the use of the plane-wave backscattering phase is wrong and has to be replaced by the distance-dependent phase of the curved-wave formalism by Müller and Schaich [4].
