Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:33:01.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems in the Use of Multilayers for Soft X-Ray Spectroscopy and Analysis: A Comparison of Theoretically and Experimentally Determined Refraction Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

E. Martins  and
D.S. Urch
E. Martins
Affiliation:
Chemistry Department Queen Mary and Westfield College University of London Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK
D.S. Urch
Affiliation:
Chemistry Department Queen Mary and Westfield College University of London Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK
Get access

Abstract

Refraction effects cause the effective 2d spacing of multilayers to vary so that the simple Bragg equation is not applicable when such devices are used for soft X-ray spectroscopy. This paper describes how the refraction term can be determined experimentally. These results compare well with dispersion and absorption terms calculated from atomic scattering factors.

Type
XIII. XRS Techniques and Instrumentation
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 35 , Issue B: First Pacific-International Congress on X-ray Analytical Methods (PICXAM). Fortieth Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis, August 7-16, 1991 , 1991 , pp. 1069 - 1078
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Aral, T., Shoji, T. and Ryan, R. W., Advan. X-ray Anal. 28: 137 (1985)Google Scholar
2. Luck, S. and Urch, D. S., Physica Scripta 41: 749 (1990)10.1088/0031-8949/41/6/004Google Scholar
3. Charbonnier, M., Romand, M. and Gaillard, F., Analysis, 16 (supp. to No. 9-10): 17 (1988)Google Scholar
4. Urch, D. S. in X-ray Spectroscopy in Atomic and Solid State Physics, Ed. J.G. Ferreira and M X Ramos. Pub., Plenum Press, New York, USA 155 (1988)Google Scholar
5. Gyani, A. K., McCluSky, P., Urch, D. S., Charbonnier, M., Gaillard, F. and Romand, M., Adv. X-ray Anal. 33: 247 (1990)Google Scholar
6. Luck, S. and Urch, D. S., J. de Phys. 48-C9: 63 (1987)Google Scholar
7. Underwood, J. H. and Barbee, T. W. Jr., Proc. Topical Conf. on Lorn-Energy X-ray Diagnostics, pub., Amer. Inst. Phys. - Conf. Proc. 75: 170 (1981)Google Scholar
8. Luck, S., Urch, D. S. and Zheng, D. H., X-ray Spectrometry in press (1991)Google Scholar
9. Evans, B. L. and Kent, B. J., App. Optics 26: 4491 (1987)10.1364/AO.26.004491Google Scholar
10. Rosenbluth, A. E. and Lee, P., Appl Phys. Lett. 40: 466 (1982)10.1063/1.93150Google Scholar
11. Henke, B. L., Gullikson, E. M., Kerner, J., Oren, A. X. and Blake, R. L., J. X-ray Sci. and Tech. 2: 17 (1990)Google Scholar
12. Arber, J. M., Norman, P., Urch, D. S. and Bloor, D., J. Cryst. Growth 84: 145 (1987)10.1016/0022-0248(87)90121-7Google Scholar
13. Henke, B. L., Lee, P., Tanaka, T. J., Shimabukuro, R. L. and Fujikawa, B. K., At. Data and Nuc. Data Tables 27: 1 (1982)10.1016/0092-640X(82)90002-XGoogle Scholar