Decorrelation of multiple scattering for an arbitrary scattering angle

1990 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 206 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Drewel ◽  
J. Ahrens ◽  
U. Podschus
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (T1) ◽  
pp. 106-113
Author(s):  
Kien Thach Trung Vo ◽  
Tam Duc Hoang ◽  
Nguyen Hoang Vo ◽  
Chuong Dinh Huynh ◽  
Thanh Thien Tran ◽  
...  

In this work, a gamma scattering technique using 137Cs (5mCi) source with the NaI(Tl) detector is arranged to record the scattered photon beam at scattering angle of 1200 for investigating the liquid density. We used standard liquid such as water, H2SO4, HCl, glycerol, HNO3, ethanol and A92 petrol to fit the single scattering peak, multiple scattering, and total counts versus standard liquid densities. The interpolating of the single scattering peak, multiple scattering, and total counts of the testing sample at scattering angle of 1200 is 0.702 g.cm-3, 0.783 g.cm-3, and 0.747 g.cm-3, respectively. The discrepancy of the experiment and true testing density is about 8 %, 3 %, and 2 %, respectively. The result shows that multiple scattering or total counts can be used to propose the density measurement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (21) ◽  
pp. 32107
Author(s):  
Ying Tian ◽  
Xufeng Jing ◽  
Hao Yu ◽  
Haiyong Gan ◽  
Chenxia Li ◽  
...  

1954 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 586 ◽  
Author(s):  
JR Bird ◽  
KC Hines

The multiple scattering theories of Williams. and Moliere have been adapted to give the r.m.s. lateral deflection of protons which lose all their energy in nuclear emul� sions. Measurements of 1-5 MeV proton tracks show significant differences from the former theory at low energies and from the latter at higher energies. The introduction of alternative expressions for the minimum angle due to screening does not give a satisfactory explanation of the observed results. It is found, however, that the experi. mental r.m.s. deflections display the same dependence on maximum single scattering angle as is calculated.


Author(s):  
S. Golladay

The theory of multiple scattering has been worked out by Groves and comparisons have been made between predicted and observed signals for thick specimens observed in a STEM under conditions where phase contrast effects are unimportant. Independent measurements of the collection efficiencies of the two STEM detectors, calculations of the ratio σe/σi = R, where σe, σi are the total cross sections for elastic and inelastic scattering respectively, and a model of the unknown mass distribution are needed for these comparisons. In this paper an extension of this work will be described which allows the determination of the required efficiencies, R, and the unknown mass distribution from the data without additional measurements or models. Essential to the analysis is the fact that in a STEM two or more signal measurements can be made simultaneously at each image point.


Author(s):  
T. Oikawa ◽  
M. Inoue ◽  
T. Honda ◽  
Y. Kokubo

EELS allows us to make analysis of light elements such as hydrogen to heavy elements of microareas on the specimen. In energy loss spectra, however, elemental signals ride on a high background; therefore, the signal/background (S/B) ratio is very low in EELS. A technique which collects the center beam axial-symmetrically in the scattering angle is generally used to obtain high total intensity. However, the technique collects high background intensity together with elemental signals; therefore, the technique does not improve the S/B ratio. This report presents the experimental results of the S/B ratio measured as a function of the scattering angle and shows the possibility of the S/B ratio being improved in the high scattering angle range.Energy loss spectra have been measured using a JEM-200CX TEM with an energy analyzer ASEA3 at 200 kV.Fig.l shows a typical K-shell electron excitation edge riding on background in an energy loss spectrum.


Author(s):  
Peter Rez

In high resolution microscopy the image amplitude is given by the convolution of the specimen exit surface wave function and the microscope objective lens transfer function. This is usually done by multiplying the wave function and the transfer function in reciprocal space and integrating over the effective aperture. For very thin specimens the scattering can be represented by a weak phase object and the amplitude observed in the image plane is1where fe (Θ) is the electron scattering factor, r is a postition variable, Θ a scattering angle and x(Θ) the lens transfer function. x(Θ) is given by2where Cs is the objective lens spherical aberration coefficient, the wavelength, and f the defocus.We shall consider one dimensional scattering that might arise from a cross sectional specimen containing disordered planes of a heavy element stacked in a regular sequence among planes of lighter elements. In a direction parallel to the disordered planes there will be a continuous distribution of scattering angle.


Author(s):  
C P Scott ◽  
A J Craven ◽  
C J Gilmore ◽  
A W Bowen

The normal method of background subtraction in quantitative EELS analysis involves fitting an expression of the form I=AE-r to an energy window preceding the edge of interest; E is energy loss, A and r are fitting parameters. The calculated fit is then extrapolated under the edge, allowing the required signal to be extracted. In the case where the characteristic energy loss is small (E < 100eV), the background does not approximate to this simple form. One cause of this is multiple scattering. Even if the effects of multiple scattering are removed by deconvolution, it is not clear that the background from the recovered single scattering distribution follows this simple form, and, in any case, deconvolution can introduce artefacts.The above difficulties are particularly severe in the case of Al-Li alloys, where the Li K edge at ~52eV overlaps the Al L2,3 edge at ~72eV, and sharp plasmon peaks occur at intervals of ~15eV in the low loss region. An alternative background fitting technique, based on the work of Zanchi et al, has been tested on spectra taken from pure Al films, with a view to extending the analysis to Al-Li alloys.


1986 ◽  
Vol 47 (C8) ◽  
pp. C8-589-C8-592
Author(s):  
N. BINSTED ◽  
S. L. COOK ◽  
J. EVANS ◽  
R. J. PRICE ◽  
G. N. GREAVES

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document