Check Hölzer data

[joefowler]

Original report by Joseph Fowler (Bitbucket: joe_fowler, ).

---

When we (ahem) typed up the Hölzer data into fluorescence_lines.py in January 2013, we typed one of the Cr K-alpha component’s widths incorrectly. 4.4740 should read 4.740. Fix this and check everything carefully!

See https://bitbucket.org/joe_fowler/mass/commits/a7c51f931d329566e3feaacff628b9562039ff7f

[joefowler]

Original comment by Joseph Fowler (Bitbucket: joe_fowler, ).

---

One of the peak heights is 882 but should be 822. @{557058:9524f6a0-ef9f-4466-b913-d04e51ff9093} is a typo dog.

[joefowler]

Original comment by Joseph Fowler (Bitbucket: joe_fowler, ).

---

Check this problem with the following pass through some of the lines.

‌

for element in ("Sc", "Ti", "V", "Cr", "Mn", "Fe", "Co", "Ni", "Cu"):
    for siegbahn in ("KAlpha", "KBeta"):
        if element == "Sc" and siegbahn == "KBeta":
            continue
        line = mass.spectra[f"{element}{siegbahn}"]
        print("\nLine: ", f"{element}{siegbahn}")
        print(" Energy    FWHM  Amplit  Iint")
        print(" ------    ----  ------  ----")
        for c, w, i1, i2 in zip(line.energies, line.lorentzian_fwhm,
                                line.reference_amplitude/1e3,
                                line.normalized_lorentzian_integral_intensity):
            print(f"{c:.3f}  {w:.3f}  {i1:.3f}  {i2:.3f}")

‌

[joefowler]

Original comment by Joseph Fowler (Bitbucket: joe_fowler, ).

---

Fix typos in Hölzer line profile data

Fixes #191.

[joefowler]

Original comment by Galen O'Neil (Bitbucket: oneilg, GitHub: oneilg).

---

should we have an automated test for the integrated intensity equals 1 within some factor for all lines defined without further normalization?

[joefowler]

Original comment by Joseph Fowler (Bitbucket: joe_fowler, ).

---

Sounded reasonable at first, but I don’t think so. Don’t we just assume that integral intensity is a derived quantity in all cases? I mean, even in those cases where the reference gives integral intensity (reference_amplitude_type=LORENTZIAN_INTEGRAL_INTENSITY), it’s still totally reasonable to expect that the reference is giving relative intensity. In other words, there’s no reference where it would be an error for the sum of these terms to be not-one.

I guess we could check after Mass performs rescaling, but it seems like it would catch only the most trivial of errors. It would not have caught the ones we’re talking about now.

[joefowler]

Original comment by Joseph Fowler (Bitbucket: joe_fowler, ).

---

Removing milestone: v0.7 (automated comment)