Fundamentals of Energy Transfer During Picosecond Irradiation of Silicon

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Bloembergen ◽  
H. Kurz ◽  
J.M. Liu ◽  
R. Yen
Keyword(s):  
Energy Transfer ◽  
Phase Transitions ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Laser Excitation ◽  
Pulsed Laser ◽  
Picosecond Laser ◽  
Probable Explanation ◽  
Laser Experiments ◽  
Most Probable Explanation ◽  
Thermal Melting

ABSTRACTThe fundamentals of energy transfer in semiconductors during and following pulsed laser excitation are reviewed within the frame of results obtained in picosecond laser experiments. This paper discusses the theoretical processes as well as the experimental evidence, which sets limits of electron and lattice temperature of irradiated silicon. Simple thermal melting is the most probable explanation for the laser induced phase transitions observed.

A comparative study of energy transfer in dye mixtures in monomer and polymer matrices under pulsed laser excitation

2008 ◽  
Vol 195 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kailasnath ◽  
P.R. John ◽  
P. Radhakrishnan ◽  
V.P.N. Nampoori ◽  
C.P.G. Vallabhan
Keyword(s):  
Energy Transfer ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Laser Excitation ◽  
Pulsed Laser ◽  
Polymer Matrices

Extraction of energy transfer rate constants from the pulsed laser generated thermal lens spectrometer signal

1982 ◽  
Vol 80 ◽  
pp. 433-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.T. Bailey ◽  
F.R. Cruickshank ◽  
R. Guthrie ◽  
D. Pugh ◽  
I.J.M. Weir
Keyword(s):  
Energy Transfer ◽  
Thermal Lens ◽  
Rate Constants ◽  
Transfer Rate ◽  
Pulsed Laser ◽  
Energy Transfer Rate

On the Field Evaporation Behavior of a Model Ni-Al-Cr Superalloy Studied by Picosecond Pulsed-Laser Atom-Probe Tomography

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 571-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Zhou ◽  
Christopher Booth-Morrison ◽  
David N. Seidman
Keyword(s):  
Atom Probe Tomography ◽  
Mass Spectra ◽  
Pulsed Laser ◽  
Picosecond Laser ◽  
Atom Probe ◽  
Resolving Power ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Thermally Activated ◽  
Mass Resolving Power

AbstractThe effects of varying the pulse energy of a picosecond laser used in the pulsed-laser atom-probe (PLAP) tomography of an as-quenched Ni-6.5 Al-9.5 Cr at.% alloy are assessed based on the quality of the mass spectra and the compositional accuracy of the technique. Compared to pulsed-voltage atom-probe tomography, PLAP tomography improves mass resolving power, decreases noise levels, and improves compositional accuracy. Experimental evidence suggests that Ni2+, Al2+, and Cr2+ ions are formed primarily by a thermally activated evaporation process, and not by post-ionization of the ions in the 1+ charge state. An analysis of the detected noise levels reveals that for properly chosen instrument parameters, there is no significant steady-state heating of the Ni-6.5 Al-9.5 Cr at.% tips during PLAP tomography.

New evidence for the Soret effect in pulsed laser experiments

1982 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. 317-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Miotello ◽  
L.F. Donàdalle Rose
Keyword(s):  
Soret Effect ◽  
Pulsed Laser ◽  
Laser Experiments ◽  
New Evidence

scholarly journals On the distribution of the scattered Röntgen radiation

1912 ◽  
Vol 86 (589) ◽  
pp. 478-494 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Wave Front ◽  
Scattered Radiation ◽  
Single Electron ◽  
Primary Beam ◽  
Secondary Radiation ◽  
Electromagnetic Forces ◽  
Probable Explanation ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Most Probable Explanation

The fact that a substance through which Röntgen rays from a focus tube are passing becomes itself a source of secondary Röntgen rays has long- been known. The most probable explanation was given by Prof. Sir J. J. Thomson. If a Röntgen pulse is due to the acceleration of a charged electron, then if the electrons in the atom are free to move under the action of the electromagnetic forces in the wave front of the primary Röntgen pulse, their motion will be accelerated during the passage of the latter through the atom, and they will themselves become sources of secondary Röntgen radiation. Considering only a single electron, the intensity of the secondary radiation at any angle α with the direction of motion will be proportional to sin 2 α . If the primary beam is unpolarised, the motion of the electron may have any direction in the plane at right angles to the primary beam. The intensity of the scattered radiation in the direction θ with the primary beam is thus the mean of all the values of sin 2 α for that direction. It can easily be shown that this is proportional to 1 + cos 2 θ . If I' θ is the intensity of the scattered radiation in the direction θ , we thus have I' θ = I' π /2 (1 + cos 2 θ ).

scholarly journals Reactive quenching of electronically excited NO<sub>2</sub><sup>∗</sup> and NO<sub>3</sub><sup>∗</sup> by H<sub>2</sub>O as potential sources of atmospheric HO<sub><i>x</i></sub> radicals

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (19) ◽  
pp. 14005-14015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry J. Dillon ◽  
John N. Crowley
Keyword(s):  
Gas Phase ◽  
Laser Excitation ◽  
Pulsed Laser ◽  
Work Rate ◽  
Rate Coefficients ◽  
Phase Reaction ◽  
Gas Phase Reaction ◽  
Upper Limit ◽  
Upper Limits ◽  
Electronically Excited

Abstract. Pulsed laser excitation of NO2 (532–647 nm) or NO3 (623–662 nm) in the presence of H2O was used to initiate the gas-phase reaction NO2∗+H2O → products (Reaction R5) and NO3∗+H2O → products (Reaction R12). No evidence for OH production in Reactions (R5) or (R12) was observed and upper limits for OH production of k5b/k5<1×10-5 and k12b/k12<0.03 were assigned. The upper limit for k5b∕k5 renders this reaction insignificant as a source of OH in the atmosphere and extends the studies (Crowley and Carl, 1997; Carr et al., 2009; Amedro et al., 2011) which demonstrate that the previously reported large OH yield by Li et al. (2008) was erroneous. The upper limit obtained for k12b∕k12 indicates that non-reactive energy transfer is the dominant mechanism for Reaction (R12), though generation of small but significant amounts of atmospheric HOx and HONO cannot be ruled out. In the course of this work, rate coefficients for overall removal of NO3∗ by N2 (Reaction R10) and by H2O (Reaction R12) were determined: k10=(2.1±0.1)×10-11 cm3 molecule−1 s−1 and k12=(1.6±0.3)×10-10 cm3 molecule−1 s−1. Our value of k12 is more than a factor of 4 smaller than the single previously reported value.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document