(a) The 250 nm diamond films with a window size of about 5 × 5 mm. (b) Diamond film and gold mesh mounted on the electrically insulated support. (c) Scheme of the experimental geometry with the BIM placed in between the last optical element of the beam line and the sample.
X-ray transmission of the 100 nm and 250 nm thin diamond films as compared to the transmission of a standard commercial Au mesh. The dashed curves indicate the expected transmission of diamond for a series of thicknesses. 9
Drain current signal of the 250 nm thin diamond films as compared to the transmission of an Au mesh. Despite the 10 to 50 times lower photoionization cross section of carbon in the considered energy range, the signal of both the Au mesh and the diamond film are comparably strong. Note that for the diamond film, the full illuminated area at both front and back of the film contributes to the signal. Since the electron escape depth is only a few nm, the signal strength does not depend much on the film thickness.
Yield and transmission of the 100 nm diamond film mapped as a function of beam position on the film.
(a) The beam shape at the sample position with the BIM removed and when the Au mesh or a 100 nm diamond film are moved into the beam. On the left with no horizontal focusing of the beam, and on the right with both horizontal and vertical beam focusing. The photon energy was 750 eV. (b) Intensities in (a) summed up along x and y. For small beamsizes, the fringes caused by beam diffraction at the Au mesh are clearly visible.
Co L 2, 3 x-ray linear dichroism of CoPC molecules adsorbed on graphite at a coverage of ∼ 5% of a monolayer. This corresponds to a Co atom surface coverage of less than 1% of a monolayer and yields a very small sample signal. Even so, there is an excellent quantitative agreement between the sample signals after normalization to the Au mesh or to the 250 nm diamond film monitor signals, respectively.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...