PROBEUSERS Archives

December 2019

PROBEUSERS@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John H Fournelle <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
JEOL-Focused Probe Users List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 18:33:55 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1189 bytes) , text/html (2992 bytes)
Does anyone have any comments (direct or indirect evidence) or know of any references, to something I've wondered about for a long time.

Decades ago, someone brought me some samples from materials science here, where I was told that the carbon coating was deposited by sputtering. I had difficulty acquiring good epma results, so I removed the carbon coat, coated in my evaporator, and had good results. From then on, I assumed that
"sputtering of carbon" might not be as "good" as evaporated carbon, though I never did any true test (yes, the coating thickness might have been greatly different from my standards, I know now).

Was I wrong to cast a negative light upon sputtered carbon coating for epma? Any thoughts?



John Fournelle Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Department of Geoscience, University of Wisconsin

1215 West Dayton Street, Madison, WI 53706

mobile 608-438-7480

****
JEOL Probe Users Listserver

Moderator: Anette von der Handt, [log in to unmask],
Electron Microprobe Lab, University of Minnesota

Post a message: send your message to [log in to unmask]

Unsubscribe: send "SIGNOFF PROBEUSERS" to [log in to unmask]

On-line help and FAQ: http://probelab.geo.umn.edu/jeoluserlist.html

*


ATOM RSS1 RSS2