The Emission Angle and Incident Energy Dependence of the Boundary between Secondary and Backscattered Electrons

ORAL

Abstract

A more realistic boundary to separate the electrons originating from the sample (secondary electrons) and those originating from the primary beam (backscattered electrons) in electron-induced electron emission spectra is the observed minimum in the emission spectrum. We present measurements of the emission spectra of polycrystalline Au over a range of incident energies from 100 eV $<$ E$_b$ $<$ 2500 eV, as a function of emission angle and energy, E$_b$. The dependence of the position of Emin and its associated yield intensity are investigated in terms of E$_b$ and emission angle. Emin is roughly constant at $\sim$45\% of E$_b$, but does show some more complex dependence on E$_b$. No significant emission angle dependence of E$_{min}$ is evident. The emission spectral intensity at E$_{min}$, N(E$_{min}$), decreases with increasing emission angle, and scales approximately as a Lambert law proportional to the cosine of the emission angle. Finally, we discuss the effect of choosing this more realistic value to separate secondary and backscattered electrons on the secondary and backscattered yield values.

–

Authors

  • Stanley C. Solomon

    University of California and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Rutgers University, Utah State University, Brigham Young University, University of Utah, NASA, Duke University, FMA Research, Colorado State University, Dartmouth University, Idaho State University, Physics Department, Idaho State University, Physics Department, Utah State University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Department of Physics, Nanjing University, China, University of California at Riverside, Physics Department, Colorado School of Mines, Physics Department, University of Utah, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, USU, Society of Physics Students, Arizona State University, Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), Namiki 1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0044, Japan, LANSCE-LC, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Van der Waals-Zeeman Institute, University of Amsterdam, Chemistry and Physics Dept., Virginia State University, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, Chalk River Laboratories, Physics Dept, Oxford University, Physics Dept, Utah State University, Sandia National Laboratories, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, DOE Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, Sandia National Laboratories, National Center for Atmospheric Research

  • Stanley C. Solomon

    University of California and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Rutgers University, Utah State University, Brigham Young University, University of Utah, NASA, Duke University, FMA Research, Colorado State University, Dartmouth University, Idaho State University, Physics Department, Idaho State University, Physics Department, Utah State University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Department of Physics, Nanjing University, China, University of California at Riverside, Physics Department, Colorado School of Mines, Physics Department, University of Utah, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, USU, Society of Physics Students, Arizona State University, Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), Namiki 1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0044, Japan, LANSCE-LC, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Van der Waals-Zeeman Institute, University of Amsterdam, Chemistry and Physics Dept., Virginia State University, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, Chalk River Laboratories, Physics Dept, Oxford University, Physics Dept, Utah State University, Sandia National Laboratories, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, DOE Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, Sandia National Laboratories, National Center for Atmospheric Research