>From where come the equations used for modeling the instrumental
component and emission profile in the fundamental parameter
approach ? For instance, in BGMN, the instrumental function seems
to be made of sums of squared Lorentzian functions (if I am right ?).
I mean : is there not some remaining empirism in this "fundamental
approach" ? Are the profiles exactly described (as we can describe
a circle or a sphere exactly by a mathematical formula) or modeled ?
If some % of empirism remain in the "Fundamental Parameter
Approach", is there not some intellectual swindle in this affair ?:-)
Moreover, how are described the crystallite size and strain
broadening , "entered as refinable values". Are they still
represented by Lorentzian and Gaussian components ? If yes,
this is nothing more than a semi-empirical approach (i.e. the
crystallite size and strain distributions and the variation law
of strain with distance from an arbitrary origin are postulated :
and this is rather not fundamental...)
So tell me : really 0.00% empirism ? If not, give an estimation
of the remaining percentage, please.
Armel
PS
The http://fluo.univ-lemans.fr:8001/ server is out for some
days (?). A mirror is at : http://pcb4122.univ-lemans.fr/