Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:12:40.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy at Zero Cs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

Michael A. O'Keefe
Michael A. O'Keefe*
Affiliation:
National Center for Electron Microscopy, University of California, LBL B72, Berkeley, CA, 94720
Get access

Extract

Now that correctors for objective lens spherical aberration are becoming feasible, questions have been raised about the usefulness of high-resolution transmission electron microscopy at zero Cs and the possible difficulties of interpretation of such images. In general, high resolution TEM images are interpreted either by comparison with simulations from model structures or by contrast transfer functions (CTFs) to determine the weight (and sense) of spatial contributions to images from corresponding diffracted beams. At zero Cs, HREM image simulations will work, but a projected charge density theory should be used (instead of CTF theory) to interpret images. Both theories use approximations; CTF theory relies on kinematic scattering and PCD theory on zero Cs and limited defocus.

Type
Advances in Instrumentation and Performance
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 4 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis '98, Microscopy Society of America 56th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 32nd Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia July 12-16, 1998 , July 1998 , pp. 382 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

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. Haider, M. and Uhlemann, S., Proc. 55th Ann. Meeting EMSA, Cleveland, Ohio (1997) 1179–1180.Google Scholar

2. O'Keefe, M.A., Buseck, P.R. and Iijima, S., Nature 274 (1978) 322–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Scherzer, O., J. Appl. Phys. 20 (1949) 20–29. O'Keefe, M.A., Ultramicroscopy 47 (1992) 282-297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. O'Keefe, M.A., Dahmen, U. and Hetherington, C.J.D., Mat.Res.Soc.Symp.Proc. 159 (1989) 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Cowley, J.M. and Iijima, S., Z. Naturforsch. 27a (1972) 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Cowley, J.M. and Moodie, A. F., Proc. Phys. Soc. 76 (1960) 378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Lynch, D. F., Moodie, A. F. and O'Keefe, M.A., Acta Cryst. A31 (1975) 300–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. O'Keefe, M.A. and Sanders, J.V., Optik 46 (1976) 421–430.Google Scholar

9. Work supported by Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Material Sciences Division of the U.S. Department of Energy, under contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.Google Scholar