Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T20:02:25.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kinetic Roughening of Quenched Xenon Films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Ralf K. Heilmann  and
Robert M. Suter
Ralf K. Heilmann
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Robert M. Suter
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Get access

Abstract

We investigate the growth of quenched Xe films formed by deposition onto a cold (15-35K) substrate via in situ measurements of x-ray reflectivity and diffraction. Surface roughness, film density, and crystallinity are determined as a function of Xe film thickness, substrate temperature and Xe flux in order to test for dynamic scaling behavior. Deposition of polycrystalline films with random crystallite orientations is achieved through heating of a grafoil sheet that is enclosed in the sample cell and has previously been covered with bulk Xe. At 16K the films are sufficiently quenched to be stable over several days, while at 25K annealing takes place. Differing atomic mobilities at different temperatures lead to contrasting scaling behavior. The substrate remains unchanged under repeated film deposition and desorption and therefore allows a systematic comparison of different films.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 407: Symposium M – Disordered Materials and Interfaces-Fractals, structure and Dynamics , 1995 , 239
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

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

REFERENCES

1. Family, F. and Vicsek, T., J. Phys. A 18, L75 (1985).Google Scholar
2. Barabdsi, A.-L. and Stanley, H.E., Fractal Concepts in Surface Growth (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1995).Google Scholar
3. Thompson, C., Palasantzas, G., Feng, Y.P., Sinha, S.K., and Krim, J., Phys. Rev. B 49,4902 (1994).Google Scholar
4. You, H., Chiarello, R.P., Kim, H.K., and Vandervoort, K.G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2900 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Birch, W.R., Knewtson, M.A., Garoff, S., Suter, R.M., and Satija, S., Coll. and Surf. 89, 145 (1994); Langmuir 11, 48 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Venables, J.A. and Schabes-Retchikman, P.S., J. Physique 38, C4 105 (1977).Google Scholar
7. Shindler, J.D. and Suter, R.M., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 63, 5343 (1992).Google Scholar
8. Heilmann, R.K. and Suter, R.M., work in progress.Google Scholar
9. Bouzida, D., Kumar, S., and Swendsen, R.H., Phys. Rev. A 45, 8894 (1992)Google Scholar
10. Nevot, L. and Croce, P., Rev. Phys. Appl. 15, 761 (1980).Google Scholar
11. Cheesman, G.H. and Soane, C.M., Proc. Phys. Soc. 70 B, 700 (1957).Google Scholar