You should contact someone of the clay community. The have every second year a contest (Reynolds cup) in order to find the best group around the world..

http://www.clays.org/Reynolds.html

Topaz is commonly not the best software for doing this since the models used are not well adaptable for clays with a lot of order-disorder structures. This is a general problem that only because some software is available does not mean that the implemented code is suitable for a proper interpretation of a signal. Unfortunatley a widely spread misunderstanding of mainly young scientists. They often got the impression that science is like a cookbook. But also a cookbook is only some kind of recommendation. Already from the list of a certain number of eggs, milk and powder it should become clear that deviations may give a much better cake. This is the same with software. If you do not know how does it work you will be always limited. This is one reason why groups around the world realize that they can get a better insight if they generate an own software where they know what is running in which sequence using which models. Topaz is a blackbox which looks nice and for many applications it is absolutely sufficient since the goal is not to get correct data but reproducible results. Who cares about the real phase content if the software always determines a reproducible wrong result? Seriously spoken, who knows what is really true? With science we are trying to improve our understanding continuously in order to come closer and closer to the truth.

Least-square software like Topaz only tries to reduce the deviation between experiment and simulation, but only by enabling additional parameters like a crystallographic texture will always improve the fit but does not tell you anything. You can even add phases with similar lattice parameters and it will improve the fit as well...

I would really recommend you to read more about this topic. I can promise you that it is a very challenging task....and the results of the Reynolds cup prove this. But it is a general problem in science. Don't believe everything, only because it is published somewhere, delivered by a software, or written in the internet ... Try to understand all sources of limitations (experimental, but also theoretical) before using a software.

You should contact someone of the clay community. The have every second year a contest (Reynolds cup) in order to find the best group around the world..

http://www.clays.org/Reynolds.html

Topaz is commonly not the best software for doing this since the models used are not well adaptable for clays with a lot of order-disorder structures. This is a general problem that only because some software is available does not mean that the implemented code is suitable for a proper interpretation of a signal. Unfortunatley a widely spread misunderstanding of mainly young scientists. They often got the impression that science is like a cookbook. But also a cookbook is only some kind of recommendation. Already from the list of a certain number of eggs, milk and powder it should become clear that deviations may give a much better cake. This is the same with software. If you do not know how does it work you will be always limited. This is one reason why groups around the world realize that they can get a better insight if they generate an own software where they know what is running in which sequence using which models. Topaz is a blackbox which looks nice and for many applications it is absolutely sufficient since the goal is not to get correct data but reproducible results. Who cares about the real phase content if the software always determines a reproducible wrong result? Seriously spoken, who knows what is really true? With science we are trying to improve our understanding continuously in order to come closer and closer to the truth.

Least-square software like Topaz only tries to reduce the deviation between experiment and simulation, but only by enabling additional parameters like a crystallographic texture will always improve the fit but does not tell you anything. You can even add phases with similar lattice parameters and it will improve the fit as well...

I would really recommend you to read more about this topic. I can promise you that it is a very challenging task....and the results of the Reynolds cup prove this. But it is a general problem in science. Don't believe everything, only because it is published somewhere, delivered by a software, or written in the internet ... Try to understand all sources of limitations (experimental, but also theoretical) before using a software.

For mixed layer clays I have a suggestion mentioned in Ufer et al. (2008) entitled

'Refining real structure parameters of disordered layer structures within the Rietvield method'

Please refer to

Jackson, M.L., 1979. Soil Chemical Analysis, Advanced Course.

2nd edn. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, 11th

Printing, Published by the author.

Hallo Doriana Vinci

Thank you so much, here I sent you the Raw pattern of XRD. I identify Quartz, Siderite, Pyrite, Albite, Microcline/Orthoclase, Calcite, Anatase, Rutile and some clays Illite, Kaolinite, Chlorite and Montmorillonite?.

I am not sure about the fitting at angle 6-10 deg.

Hai Doriana Vinci

Thank you very much for your explanation. It's great.

Yes I also identify all those minerals 1) Chlorite 3) Illite 4) Kaolinite

I have done clay fraction separation before using decantation and did chemical treatment with EG also Heating 400 deg C & 550 deg C.

My question is how about the quantification of mix layered clay? ex Illite/Smectite

I used Topaz as my software and is there any mix layered clay database?

Identify minerals can be done by Diffrac EVA or by Moore & Reynold book guide or USGS Clay Mineral Identification Diagram but I'm not confident with the quantification as usually the mixed layered peak is broad.

Sorry for so many questions, I just new in Clay mineralogy and need someone to discuss.

By the way, Congratulation for you and your team. That's really great to win ReynoldsCup.

Sorry I mean Topas.

Thank you for your suggestion and I will try to use BGMN/Profex.

Have a great day,

Regards,

Qomah

Dear Q. Sari, I recommend you to develop your diffractometer profile together with D. Vinci. She seems to be cooperative and hopefully knows about the starting problems. However, you can also ask the software developer for help. Maybe, there is already a file which fits to your diffractometer. You need the type (manufacturer, name, maybe a photo for final identification, and then if necessary, all distances and objects (tube type (focus dimension,), soller, apertures, monochromators used) from the tube focus to the detector). Once done you do not need to do this again. Big advantageous since everything (peak broadening and shape change with 2theta) is now determined by the sample.