Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T19:18:09.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Present Concepts and Designs for Gun Monochromators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

F. Kahl
Affiliation:
1 Bethel Valley Rd, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831
E. Voelkl
Affiliation:
1 Bethel Valley Rd, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831
Get access

Abstract

The attainable information in transmission electron microscopes is limited today primarily by chromatic aberrations, because the new generation of spherical aberration correctors has practically eliminated resolution limits caused by spherical aberration. If it would be possible to develop an electron source with 0.2 eV energy width, the limitations of chromatic aberrations could be minimized, and techniques like Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy (EELS) could provide much more detail on the type of bonding between atoms. At present, the main approach to reduce the energy width of present day field emission electron sources is to incorporate a beam monochromator in the electron gun. The challenge for such a monochromator is not only to provide a small energy width of 0.2 eV or less, but also to preserve the brightness of the gun as much as possible at a level of current sufficient for high resolution imaging on a routine basis.

Over the last few years, several different designs for monochromators have been proposed. All designs are based on energy dispersive components which separate electrons of different energies spatially and eliminate the ones with high energy deviation by means of a selection slit.

Type
TEM Instrument Development (Organized by D. Smith and L. Allard)
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

1.Haider, H., Ultramicroscopy 75 (1998) 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Tanaka, M., Terauchi, M., Tsuda, K.et al., Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No 165: Symposium 6 (2000) 217.Google Scholar
3.Mook, H. W., Kruit, P., Ultramicroscopy 81 (2000) 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Batson, P. E., Mook, H. W., Kruit, P., Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No 165: Symposium 6 (2000) 213.Google Scholar
5.Tiemeijer, P. C., Overwijk, M. H. F., de Jong, A. F., Microsc. Microanal. 6, Suppl. 2: Proc. (2000) 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Tiemeijer, P. C., Ultramicroscopy 78 (1999) 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Kahl, F., Rose, H., Proc. 12th EUREM 2000, Vol. 3, 459.Google Scholar
8.Rose, H., Optik 86 (1990) 95.Google Scholar
9.Huber, A., Plies, E., Proc. 12th EUREM 2000, Vol. 3, 473.Google Scholar
10.Plies, E., Proc. 9th ICEM Toronto 1978, Vol. 1, 50.Google Scholar
11.Uhlemann, S., Rose, H., Optik 96 (1994) 163.Google Scholar
12. Acknowledgements: The submitted manuscript has been authored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royaltyfree license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Postdoctoral Research Associates Program administered jointly by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar