The effective surface potential for α particles and its OCM justifications

Author(s):  
K. A. Gridnev ◽  
V. M. Semjonov ◽  
V. B. Subbotin ◽  
E. F. Hefter
1995 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
S.S. Saad ◽  
N.Z. Darwish ◽  
El-Sharkawy

1976 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 323-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
E-Ni Foo ◽  
M.F. Thorpe ◽  
D. Weaire

Author(s):  
E. Ruedl ◽  
P. Schiller

The low Z metal aluminium is a potential matrix material for the first wall in fusion reactors. A drawback in the application of A1 is the rel= atively high amount of He produced in it under fusion reactor conditions. Knowledge about the behaviour of He during irradiation and deformation in Al, especially near the surface, is therefore important.Using the TEM we have studied Al disks of 3 mm diameter and 0.2 mm thickness, which were perforated at the centre by double jet polishing. These disks were bombarded at∽200°C to various doses with α-particles, impinging at any angle and energy up to 1.5 MeV at both surfaces. The details of the irradiations are described in Ref.1. Subsequent observation indicated that in such specimens uniformly distributed He-bubbles are formed near the surface in a layer several μm thick (Fig.1).After bombardment the disks were deformed at 20°C during observation by means of a tensile device in a Philips EM 300 microscope.


Author(s):  
M. Pan ◽  
J.M. Cowley

Electron microdiffraction patterns, obtained when a small electron probe with diameter of 10-15 Å is directed to run parallel to and outside a flat crystal surface, are sensitive to the surface nature of the crystals. Dynamical diffraction calculations have shown that most of the experimental observations for a flat (100) face of a MgO crystal, such as the streaking of the central spot in the surface normal direction and (100)-type forbidden reflections etc., could be explained satisfactorily by assuming a modified image potential field outside the crystal surface. However the origin of this extended surface potential remains uncertain. A theoretical analysis by Howie et al suggests that the surface image potential should have a form different from above-mentioned image potential and also be smaller by several orders of magnitude. Nevertheless the surface potential distribution may in practice be modified in various ways, such as by the adsorption of a monolayer of gas molecules.


1991 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 1167-1177 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. V. Gurovich ◽  
S. V. Maruk
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 136 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daomin Min ◽  
Shengtao Li ◽  
Guochang Li ◽  
George Chen

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
HanByul Chang ◽  
Paul Ohno ◽  
Yangdongling Liu ◽  
Franz Geiger

We report the detection of charge reversal induced by the adsorption of a cationic polyelectrolyte, poly(allylamine) hydrochloride (PAH), to buried supported lipid bilayers (SLBs), used as idealized model biological membranes. We observe changes in the surface potential in isolation from other contributors to the total SHG response by extracting the phase-shifted potential-dependent third-order susceptibility from the overall SHG signal. We demonstrate the utility of this technique in detecting both the sign of the surface potential and the point of charge reversal at buried interfaces without any prior information or complementary techniques<i>.</i>Furthermore, isolation of the second-order susceptibility contribution from the overall SHG response allows us to directly monitor changes in the Stern Layer. Finally, we characterize the Stern and Diffuse Layers over single-component SLBs formed from three different zwitterionic lipids of different gel-to-fluid phase transition temperatures (T<sub>m</sub>s). We determine whether the surface potential changes with the physical phase state (gel, transitioning, or fluid) of the SLB and incorporate 20 percent of negatively charged lipids to the zwitterionic SLB to investigate how the surface potential changes with surface charge.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document