PROBEUSERS Archives

August 2006

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:
"Jens C. Andersen" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
JEOL-Focused Probe Users List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:10:48 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (192 lines)
JEOL Probe Users Listserver

Moderator: Ellery Frahm, [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/listserver.html



*

Hi Eric.

I agree, and with wavelength dispersive spectrometers there is rarely any 
need for more than 15kV. On the energy dispersive systems, in contrast, 
there are always the elusive questions that are most easily answered by 
excitation of the K-spectrum by higher acceleration voltages. Is it P or is 
it Zr? Is it Mo, Pb or S?

Jens.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric J Essene 1" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [PROBE-USERS] EBSD question: what kev is good?


> JEOL Probe Users Listserver
>
> Moderator: Ellery Frahm, [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/listserver.html
>
>
>
> *
>
> Jens,
>     15 kV suffices to excite characteristic X-rays for all 92  elements 
> (and beyond) by using L and M lines, of course.  The only  problem is that 
> the intensity of these lines is not as good as they  should be without 
> using higher current and/or voltage.
> eric
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Jens C. Andersen wrote:
>
>> JEOL Probe Users Listserver
>>
>> Moderator: Ellery Frahm, [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/listserver.html
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> Hi John.
>>
>> Here we have a setup with a JEOL 8200 electron microprobe and a  JEOL 
>> 5400 low-vacuum SEM. We generally try to balance our preferred 
>> acceleration voltage to where we get maximum benefit of the  increased 
>> x-ray intensity and the high energy end of the x-ray  spectrum without 
>> having to correct for too much "overvoltage" in  the matrix correction 
>> procedures.
>>
>> On the microprobe we work with 15kV on most materials. On rare 
>> occations, we use 20 or 25 kV for special applications, where the 
>> excitation of a specific high energy line is essential. On the low- 
>> vacuum SEM we have too many variables to do fully quantitative work 
>> (notably working distance, beam current, air pressure, coating 
>> thickness, specimen surface roughness and orientation). We don't  have a 
>> beam current detector and our software does not allow us to  specify any 
>> other parameters than the kV for the matrix correction.  To do fully 
>> quantitative work, you will need to work on a polished  surface, and need 
>> some way of measuring the beam current, and need  to fix the working 
>> distance, coating thickness, and air pressure.
>>
>> Despite the shortcomings of our SEM, our system works pretty well  in a 
>> semiquantitative mode at a fixed kV for a measured set of  standards, 
>> provided that the results are normalised to 100%. We  have observed no 
>> systematic variations with changing pressure, beam  current, coating 
>> thickness, or working distance for elements from  sodium and heavier 
>> using this method, and our precision on a 100s  live count time is good 
>> enough for student work and exploratory  analysis of materials that 
>> cannot be prepared for the electron  microprobe (mineral coatings, soil 
>> grains, archaeological  specimens, paint fragments etc.). I would be 
>> cautious with fluorine  on the low-vacuum setting. For analysis on the 
>> SEM we work at 20kV,  which excites the K-spectrum up until around Zr. 
>> There appears to  be little benefit in a further increase to 25kV.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>> Jens
>>
>> Jens C. Andersen
>> Camborne School of Mines
>> School of Geography, Archaeology, and Earth Resources
>> University of Exeter
>> Cornwall Campus
>> Penryn, Cornwall
>> TR10 9EZ
>> United Kingdom
>> Tel. +44 (0)1326 371 836
>> Fax. +44 (0)1326 371 859
>>
>> http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/csm
>>
>> Visit the virtual Skaergaard intrusion at http://www.skaergaard.org
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Fournelle" 
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:53 PM
>> Subject: [PROBE-USERS] EBSD question: what kev is good?
>>
>>
>>> JEOL Probe Users Listserver
>>>
>>> Moderator: Ellery Frahm, [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/listserver.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> We have acquired a nice new SEM (W filament, variable pressure  Hitachi 
>>> S3400) whose function principally is quality CL imaging  (Gatan 
>>> PanaCL/F), and EBSD (HKL) work.
>>>
>>> We have a question for labs out there with more EBSD experience  under 
>>> their belts than we do: have you determined an optimal keV  setting, for 
>>> any/all of your work? (we are doing geological work)
>>>
>>> It seems to me that you don't want to go to higher keV than  necessary 
>>> as the scattering will increase (though the effective  backscattered, 
>>> oops forescattered electron signals that are  relevant may only be those 
>>> from the first events near the surface,  suggested by Prior [1999]) and 
>>> the spatial resolution will  decrease (though I am not convinced about 
>>> this) --  or does going  to high keV improve the signal generated on the 
>>> phosphor screen  and thus improve the Kukchi line discrimination? 
>>> Clearly having  significant counts (=high enough current) is probably 
>>> the most  important factor, but given that is not a problem, would say 
>>> 30  keV yield better results vs 15 keV?
>>>
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> John
>>> -- 
>>> ========================================================
>>> John Fournelle, Ph.D.        office: (608) 262-7964   cell: (608) 
>>> 438-7480
>>> Cameron Electron Microprobe Lab   lab: (608) 265-4798
>>> Dept of Geology & Geophysics      fax: (608) 262-0693
>>> University of Wisconsin          home: (608) 274-2245
>>> 1215 West Dayton St.            email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Madison, WI 53706 amateur radio: WA3BTA
>>>      Personal    http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~johnf/
>>>      Probe lab   http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~johnf/sx51.html
>>> Probe Sign Up Calender: http://www.microscopy.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/ 
>>> calendar/microprobe/calendar.cgi
>>>
>>> "The first rule of all intelligent tinkering is to save every cog  and 
>>> wheel." --  Aldo Leopold
>>>
>>> "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over  public 
>>> relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."    --   Richard P.  Feynman
>>
>> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2