Surface domain structure of reconstructed Au{100} observed by dark field low energy electron microscopy

1990 ◽  
Vol 225 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 87-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Telieps ◽  
M. Mundschau ◽  
E. Bauer
MRS Bulletin ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 44-46
Author(s):  
Ruud M. Tromp

For surface science, the 1980s were the decade in which the microscopes arrived. The scanning tunneling microscope (STM) was invented in 1982. Ultrahigh vacuum transmission electron microscopy (UHVTEM) played a key role in resolving the structure of the elusive Si(111)-7 × 7 surface. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as well as reflection electron microscopy (REM) were applied to the study of growth and islanding. And low-energy electron microscopy (LEEM), invented some 20 years earlier, made its appearance with the work of Telieps and Bauer.LEEM and TEM have many things in common. Unlike STM and SEM, they are direct imaging techniques, using magnifying lenses. Both use an aperture to select a particular diffracted beam, which determines the nature of the contrast. If the direct beam is selected (no parallel momentum transfer), a bright field image is formed, and contrast arises primarily from differences in the scattering factor. A dark field image is formed with any other beam in the diffraction pattern, allowing contrast due to differences in symmetry. In LEEM, phase contrast is the third important mechanism by which surface and interface features such as atomic steps and dislocations may be imaged. One major difference between TEM and LEEM is the electron energy: 100 keV and above in TEM, 100 eV and below in LEEM. In LEEM, the imaging electrons are reflected from the sample surface, unlike TEM where the electrons zip right through the sample, encountering top surface, bulk, and bottom surface. STM and TEM are capable of ~2 Å resolution, while LEEM and SEM can observe surface features (including atomic steps) with -100 Å resolution.


2000 ◽  
Vol 464 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 217-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.B. Maxson ◽  
N. Perkins ◽  
D.E. Savage ◽  
A.R. Woll ◽  
L. Zhang ◽  
...  

Microscopy ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenji Matsuda ◽  
Susumu Ikeno ◽  
Ilona Müllerová ◽  
Luděk Frank

1993 ◽  
Vol 313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Poppa ◽  
Heiko Pinkvos ◽  
Karsten Wurm ◽  
Ernst Bauer

ABSTRACTIn-situ recording of ultra-thin film growth by Low Energy Electron Microscopy (LEEM) results in accurate determinations of monolayer metal deposition rates for difficult to calibrate deposition geometries. Deposition rates and growth features were determined for Cu and Co on W (110) allowing for thickness control at the submonolayer level. Also, the transparencies of non-Magnetic overlayers of Pd (111) and Cu (111) to very low energy spin polarized electrons were compared and qualitatively explained by band structure considerations. Cu (111) is much more transparent than Pd (111) so that magnetic domain structures can be observed through at least 4 nmof Cu (111). This suggests the use of Cu (111) and other metals of suitable band structure as protective layers for surface magnetic studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document