what we have now:

66
What we have now: XR GID Kscan water Au monolaye r Au multilay er Data: Theory: Born Approximation model , Parratt’s theory , Sinha’s DWBA (including calculation for Yon

Upload: erasto

Post on 05-Feb-2016

24 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

What we have now:. Data:. Theory: Born Approximation model , Parratt’s theory , Sinha’s DWBA (including calculation for Yoneda wings). The rule we and our codes followed:. Experimental measured intensity:. Depends on surface tension γ !. Resolution function is very important!. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: What we have now:

What we have now:

XR GID Kscanwater

Au monolay

erAu

multilayer

Data:

Theory:Born Approximation model , Parratt’s theory , Sinha’s DWBA (including calculation for Yoneda wings)

Page 2: What we have now:

The rule we and our codes followed:

2

2max

1( ) ( )F z z x y

re xs y

I R q q dq dqq q

Experimental measured intensity:

Constant for K-scan!(constant qz)

Depends on surface tensionγ!

Resolution function is very important!

Page 3: What we have now:

Au monolayer reflectivity fitting

With our fitting code,we’re ableto fit the reflectivity very well evenfor Au multilayer,but always get negative density part due to the broadening of error functions.

Page 4: What we have now:

Fitting resolution function(fixed γ=72 mN/m):Blue – fixed Vert. Slit(0.52mm),Hori. Slit(1.89mm) (sli=[11,3])Red – fitted Vert. Slit(0.53mm),Hori. Slit(3.59mm)

Water kscan '63-69‘ Qz=0.22

Even water can not be reproduced well.(due to temperature change or pollution?)

Resolution function calculated from slits size needs to be corrected?

Page 5: What we have now:

Fitting resolution function:Blue – fixed Vert. Slit(0.52mm),Hori. Slit(1.89mm)Red – fitted Vert. Slit(0.52mm),Hori. Slit(3.61mm)

Water '71-77', sli=[11,3],bac=0.5 ,Qz=0.33

Unknown peak presents at Q~0.073,The position doesn’tchange with γ.

Page 6: What we have now:

Water '79-106', sli=[11,3],bac=0.5 ,Qz=0.44

The slit size Vert.=0.52 Hori.=1.89 could fit the data perfectly.No cerrection to resolution function.And slit(0.52,3.60) seems also work not bad.

Need to figure out!

Page 7: What we have now:

Do we need to correct our resolution function from slit (0.52,1.89) to slit (0.52,3.6)?

Reason?

Page 8: What we have now:

Big problem: Ununiformity of sample (beam damage?)

& Lack of reproducibility

Three data sets for Qz=0.22 are different from each other –monolayer is not reproducible…

black—148(w/thoils ), red—217 blue– 273

Page 9: What we have now:

Surface tension rules!monoAu ‘217-', sli=[11,3],bac=0.5 ,Qz=0.22

Highly depends on surface tension blue-- γ =18 (~heptane) m

agenta–-γ =30 red–- γ =72(water)

Page 10: What we have now:

Surface tension fitting(with fixed slit0.52,1,89)

fitted γ =45 mN/m (between water 72 & Heptane ~20)

monoAu ‘217-', sli=[11,3],bac=0.5 ,Qz=0.22

Page 11: What we have now:

monoAu ‘313-', sli=[11,3],bac=0.5 ,Qz=0.33

fitted γ =45 mN/m

Page 12: What we have now:

monoAu ‘299-', sli=[11,3],bac=0.5 ,Qz=0.44

fitted γ =48 mN/m

Page 13: What we have now:

Due to the surface tension difference between water and solvent for nanoparticle?

Contains informationabout the propertyand structure of the Au nanoparticle films?Are we able to fit this part by modifying our codes?

Should we compare it to thin solvent material film on water surface?

Can we make samplesmore uniform and reproducible?

Page 14: What we have now:

After compression(compared to uncompressed results)

Au 331,Qz=0.22 ,red-- fitted γ =31 mN/mblue-- uncompressed γ =45 mN/m

Au 345 Qz=0.44 , red--fitted γ =38 mN/m blue—uncompressed γ =48 mN/m

Page 15: What we have now:

How does the compression lower surface tention of this system?Through increasing thickness of the solvent or increasing density of nanoparticles?

Page 16: What we have now:

Surface tension of Heptaneγ(mN/m-1 ±0.02 mN/m-1)

Page 17: What we have now:

Qz=0.22, k-scan217

Page 18: What we have now:

Qz=0.33,k-scan313

Page 19: What we have now:

Qz-0.44,k-scan229

Page 20: What we have now:

Beam vert. size D=0.04

Page 21: What we have now:

Beam vert. size D=0.04mm, slit=[11,3]kscan217,Qz=0.22

Page 22: What we have now:

D=0.12mm, slit=[11,3], Kscan313,Qz=0.33

Page 23: What we have now:

D=0.12mm, slit=[11,3] ,Kscan299,Qz=0.44

Page 24: What we have now:

Water sample 3 :k scan 133-139,Qz=0.22s1=[1,0.04]mm,slit=[11,3]pixels, γ=72,65,60mN/m

Page 25: What we have now:

Water sample 2: k scan 71-77,Qz=0.33s1=[1,0.06]mm, slit=[11,3]pixels, γ=72,65,60mN/m

Page 26: What we have now:

Water sample2 :k scan 79-106,Qz=0.44s1=[1,0.06]mm, slit=[11,3]pixels, γ=72mN/m

Page 27: What we have now:

Water sample 3 : k scan 133-139,Qz=0.22s1=[1,0.04]mm,slit=[22,3]pixels, γ=72,65,60mN/m

Page 28: What we have now:

Water sample 2 : k scan 71-77,Qz=0.33s1=[1,0.06]mm,slit=[22,3]pixels, γ=72,65,60mN/m

Page 29: What we have now:

Water sample 2 : k scan 79-106,Qz=0.44s1=[1,0.06]mm,slit=[22,3]pixels, γ=72,65,60mN/m

Page 30: What we have now:

Au sample 2 : k scan 217-241,Qz=0.22s1=[1,0.04]mm,slit=[11,3]pixels, γ=45mN/m

Page 31: What we have now:

Change in horizontal electronic slitWater sample 3 :k scan 133-139,Qz=0.22

Page 32: What we have now:

Change in vertical electronic slitWater sample 3 :k scan 133-139,Qz=0.22

Page 33: What we have now:

Water sample 3 : k scan 133-139,Qz=0.22s1=[1,0.04]mm,slit=[22,3]pixels, γ=72mN/m

Page 34: What we have now:

Water sample 2 : k scan 71-77,Qz=0.33s1=[1,0.06]mm,slit=[22,3]pixels, γ=72N/m

Page 35: What we have now:

Water sample 2 : k scan 79-106,Qz=0.44s1=[1,0.1]mm,slit=[22,3]pixels, γ=72mN/m

Page 36: What we have now:
Page 37: What we have now:
Page 38: What we have now:

Au sample 2 : k scan 217-241,Qz=0.22s1=[1,0.04]mm,slit=[11,3]pixels, γ=45mN/m

Page 39: What we have now:
Page 40: What we have now:

Oct2008 sample 2,Au monolayer Kscan Qz=0.22(#217),0.33(#313),0.44(#299)sli=[11,3]pix,s1=[1,0.04/0.12]mm, γ=45mN/m

Page 41: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 1, Au monolayer reflectivity fitting right figure shows the corresponding electron density profile

(smoothing parameter σ=6)

Page 42: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 1, Au monolayer beta-scan(#91-95)changing smoothing parameter σ=6(top)3(bottom)

right panel shows the corresponding electron density profile

Page 43: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 1, Au monolayer beta-scan(#91-95)α=1.866,smoothing parameter σ=3

right panel shows the difference between data and fitting (data/fitting)

Page 44: What we have now:

Beta-scan peak vicinity surface tension fitting

Page 45: What we have now:
Page 46: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 1, Au monolayer beta-scan(#97-101) α =2.488,smoothing parameter σ=3

right panel shows the difference between data and fitting (data/fitting)

Page 47: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 1, Au monolayer beta-scan(#102-111) α =3.111,smoothing parameter σ=3

right panel shows the difference between data and fitting (data/fitting)

Page 48: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 1, Au monolayer beta-scan(#91-95)changing smoothing parameter σ=3 2.8

The decay curves show the beta-scan fitting without structure factor

Page 49: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 3, Au multilayer beta-scan(#251-254)α=1.696,γ=72(cyan),60(red) mN/m

peak in a bumpcan’t fit…

Page 50: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 3, Au multilayer beta-scan(#255-260)α=2.262,γ=45(blue),60(red) mN/m

When the specular peak is merged in a bump of structurefactor, it’s difficult to fit the vicinity of the peak.

Page 51: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 3, Au multilayer beta-scan(#261-270)α=2.8282,γ=40(magenta),45(blue),60(red) mN/m

Page 52: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 3, Au multilayer beta-scan(#286-305)α=3.394,γ=45(blue),60(red) mN/m

Page 53: What we have now:

Aug2008 sample 1, Au monolayer beta-scan(#91-95)α=1.866,smoothing parameter σ=3

Page 54: What we have now:
Page 55: What we have now:
Page 56: What we have now:
Page 57: What we have now:
Page 58: What we have now:
Page 59: What we have now:
Page 60: What we have now:
Page 61: What we have now:

Oct2008 purple---sample2(mono) scan#217, blue ---sample4(multi) scan#469

red ---sample5(multi) scan#525

Page 62: What we have now:
Page 63: What we have now:
Page 64: What we have now:
Page 65: What we have now:
Page 66: What we have now: