Calculating LEED Spot Angles on Si(001) Surface with 100eV Electron Beam

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonesj314
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the LEED spot angles for a 100eV electron beam incident on an unreconstructed Si(001) surface. The wavelength of the electron beam is determined using the formula λ = 12.3/√E, leading to a wave vector k. Through the Ewald sphere construction, the angle θ to the (1, 0) LEED spot is calculated as 12.76°, while the angle to the (1, 1) spot is found to be 17.76° using √2b. The poster expresses uncertainty about the correctness of their calculations and considers whether the topic should be moved to a different forum. The inquiry highlights the need for validation of the method and results.
jonesj314
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A 100eV electron beam is normally incident on an unreconstructed Si(001) surface. Calculate the angle from the surface normal to the (1, 0) and (1, 1) LEED spots (the spots are indexed using the surface unit cell)

Si cubic latice parameter is 5.43072 angstroms



Homework Equations



Can calculate the wavelength in angstroms of the electron beam using λ = \frac{12.3}{√E} where E is in eV. And hence wave vector k = \frac{2π}{λ}



The Attempt at a Solution



I have used the Ewald sphere construction to calculate the angle, θ, to the (1, 0) LEED spot in terms of the wave vector, k , and the reciprocal lattice constant, b. b = \frac{2π}{5.43072} = 1.157 k = \frac{2π}{1.23} = 5.108

Hence θ = arctan \frac{b}{k} = arctan \frac{1.157}{5.108} = 12.76°

And then to the (1, 1) spot I used √2b instead of just b in the first part to find the angle = 17.76 degrees.

I'm very uncertain of my method and the answers. Are they correct? Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bump. Would this be better moved to a different board?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top