Comparison of the Mermin and Penn models for inelastic mean‐free path calculations for electrons based on a model using optical energy‐loss functions

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 627-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Da ◽  
Hiroshi Shinotsuka ◽  
Hideki Yoshikawa ◽  
Shigeo Tanuma
Keyword(s):  
Energy Loss ◽  
Free Path ◽  
Mean Free Path ◽  
Loss Functions ◽  
Optical Energy ◽  
Inelastic Mean Free Path ◽  
Energy Loss Functions

scholarly journals Determining Inelastic Mean Free Path by Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (S02) ◽  
pp. 1186-1187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Q Jin ◽  
D Li
Keyword(s):  
Energy Loss ◽  
Free Path ◽  
Electron Energy ◽  
Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy ◽  
Mean Free Path ◽  
Inelastic Mean Free Path ◽  
Electron Energy Loss

Extended abstract of a paper presented at Microscopy and Microanalysis 2006 in Chicago, Illinois, USA, July 30 – August 3, 2006

scholarly journals Inelastic mean free path of swift electrons and stopping power in Ta2O5

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (37) ◽  
pp. 149-155
Author(s):  
Ishraq Ahmed Shakir
Keyword(s):  
Energy Loss ◽  
Free Path ◽  
Cross Section ◽  
Loss Function ◽  
Average Distance ◽  
Mean Free Path ◽  
Stopping Power ◽  
Energy Loss Function ◽  
Inelastic Mean Free Path ◽  
Good Agreement

Energy Loss Function (ELF) of 2 5 Ta O derived from optical limitand extended to the total part of momentum and their energyexcitation region ELF plays an important function in calculatingenergy loss of electron in materials. The parameter Inelastic MeanFree Path (IMFP) is most important in quantitative surface sensitiveelectron spectroscopies, defined as the average distance that anelectron with a given energy travels between successive inelasticcollisions. The stopping cross section and single differential crosssectionSDCS are also calculated and gives good agreement withprevious work.

Parameterization of the mean free path for inelastic scattering of fast electrons

1987 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 122-123
Author(s):  
R. F. Egerton ◽  
S. C. Cheng ◽  
T. Malis
Keyword(s):  
Energy Loss ◽  
Free Path ◽  
Mean Free Path ◽  
Fast Electrons ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Convergent Beam ◽  
Inelastic Mean Free Path ◽  
Electron Energy Loss ◽  
Beam Diffraction

The areas, Iz and It, under the zero-loss peak and under the entire energy-loss spectrum (of a sample of thickness t) are related by the formula:t/ƛ(β) = ln (It/Iz) (1)where ƛ(β) is the inelastic mean free path for all energy losses and for scattering into the collection aperture, of semiangle β. We have used Eq.(l) to experimentally determine ƛ(β) by electron energy-loss spectroscopy of specimens of known composition and thickness. In the case of crystalline samples, the local thickness t was measured by convergent-beam diffraction. In the case of evaporated thin-film specimens, the average thickness was obtained by accurately weighing the substrate before and after deposition. The energy-loss spectroscopy was carried out in CTEM mode with incident energies Eo between 20keV and 120keV, and with collection semiangles in the range 0.2 mrad to 100 mrad.

Measurement of the Inelastic Mean Free Path by EELS Analyses of Submicron Spheres

1990 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-75
Author(s):  
Laura A. Bonney
Keyword(s):  
Energy Loss ◽  
Free Path ◽  
Analytical Electron Microscopy ◽  
Mean Free Path ◽  
Thickness Measurement ◽  
Crystal Defects ◽  
Sample Thickness ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Inelastic Mean Free Path

Accurate measurement of sample thickness is important for analytical electron microscopy (AEM) but is often difficult and tedious. Unlike other thickness measurement methods, with electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) thickness may be measured in both amorphous and crystalline specimens and at the same location and orientation at which other data is collected in the electron microscope. Thickness values may be obtained from convergent-beam electron diffraction (CBED) data only if the sample is crystalline with large grains of uniform thickness. Sample thickness may be measured from crystal defects projected through the entire foil, but such defects are not always conveniently located in the area of interest. The distance between contamination spots on the upper and lower surfaces of the specimen may be measured, but this is not considered accurate and contamination is not desirable in microanalysis.Sample thickness t may be determined with EELS by the relation:(1)where It is the total intensity in the EEL spectrum, Iz is the intensity in the zero loss peak, and λ is the inelastic mean free path for energy loss of an incident electron in the sample.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document