How Can We Accurately Characterize Rough Surfaces in Epitaxial Systems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter baffledMatt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Surfaces
baffledMatt
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Does anybody know any neat measurements one can do to characterise a surface? I'm thinking generally of rough surfaces such as the ones you come across in epitaxial systems.

In other words:
If I have two ensembles of surfaces, what is the best method to use to determine whether the same growth process was used for each ensemble?

The ideas I have so far are:
Power spectrum
Wavelet analysis

but these can be unreliable as it is quite easy to make two different processes create very similar looking power spectra, etc. This makes life especially difficult with experimental data because you generally don't have the statistics you would like.

Also, does anybody know anything about what resampling methods exist for this type of scenario? I have seen people who scan lines across the surface and take separate measurements for each one, then do exactly the same thing again but with the lines going at right angles to the first ones. Due to the huge amount of correlation, this method seems dodgy as hell to me.

Matt
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve here but you could look at the following :

auger spectroscopy(AES), STM, XPS, SIMS - these are commonly used for surface characterization
 
Thanks, but I'm more looking for theoretical techniques to analyse my data.

I have measurements of some rough surfaces in the form h(x,y), which is the height at a given (x,y) coordinate (x,y is in the plane of the surface) and I want to compare them to similar surfaces generated on a computer.

Matt
 
Mandelbrot used fractals to characterize roughness. Don't ask me how that one works.
 
Simon666 said:
Mandelbrot used fractals to characterize roughness. Don't ask me how that one works.

Yeah, I discussed this problem with him last week and he thinks that the best thing is to use Hurst analysis. I'm just not so sure because this sort of thing amounts to trying to decide if one straight line on a log-log plot is the same as another straight line on a log-log plot (which is how we determine the Hurst exponent) It's all just a little unsatisfying really.

Matt
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top