TY - JOUR
T1 - COMPARISON OF CONVERGENT-BEAM ELECTRON DIFFRACTION METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF FOIL THICKNESS.
JF - Philosophical Magazine A: Physics of Condensed Matter, Structure, Defects and Mechanical Properties
Y1 - 1985/
SP - l59
EP - l63
A1 - J. Glazer
A1 - Ramamoorthy Ramesh
A1 - M.R. Hilton
A1 - M. Sarikaya
KW - CONVERGENT-BEAM ELECTRON DIFFRACTION METHOD
KW - Electrons - Diffraction
KW - FOIL THICKNESS
KW - MECHANICAL VARIABLES MEASUREMENT
KW - METAL FOIL
AB - The methods of determining foil thickness from convergent-beam diffraction patterns, the Kelly method and the Ackermann method, have been compared in experiments using silicon and iron foils. It was necessary to use the Kelly method to determine the effective extinction distances experimentally. However, tests showed that the thickness determined by the Ackermann method is less sensitive to both systematic and random variations in the data, particularly to variations in the value of the first intensity maxima, for which the percentage errors are largest. The precision in thickness measurement achieved in the study was of the order of 5%. The deviation in thickness determinations by both methods was less than 2%. The two methods are roughly equivalent unless errors can be reduced below this level.
VL - 52
N1 - cited By 2
ER -
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of convergent-beam electron diffraction methods for determination of foil thickness
JF - Philosophical Magazine A: Physics of Condensed Matter, Structure, Defects and Mechanical Properties
Y1 - 1985/
SP - 19
EP - L63
A1 - J. Glazer
A1 - Ramamoorthy Ramesh
A1 - M.R. Hilton
A1 - M. Sarikaya
A1 - M. Sarikaya
AB - The methods of determining foil thickness from convergent-beam diffraction patterns, the Kelly method and the Ackermann method, have been compared in experiments using silicon and iron foils. It was necessary to use the Kelly method to determine the effective extinction distances experimentally. However, tests showed that the thickness determined by the Ackermann method is less sensitive to both systematic and random variations in the data, particularly to variations in the value of the first intensity maxima, for which the percentage errors are largest. The precision in thickness measurement achieved in the study was of the order of 5%. The deviation in thickness determinations by both methods was less than 2%. The two methods are roughly equivalent unless errors can be reduced below this level. © 1985 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
VL - 52
N1 - cited By 0
ER -