Proposed Flash X-Ray System for X-Ray Diffraction with Submicrosecond Exposure Time

  • Francis M. Charbonnier

Abstract

X-ray diffraction studies have generally used low current, low voltage X-ray tubes (e.g., 50 mA, 50 kV). Consequently, exposure times ranging from seconds to hours have been required, limiting X-ray diffraction techniques to the study of essentially static situations. Using such an X-ray source with a very highspeed detector, R. E. Green was able to reduce the exposure time for laue patterns of aluminum crystals to a minimum of 0. 003 sec. Nanosecond exposure and pulse timing are required for certain events, e.g., X-ray diffraction study of material under shock compression. Q. Johnson achieved this by using a low voltage, very high current flash X-ray source (approximately 50kV, 50kA, 30 nsec). However, such a system is difficult to build and to synchronize, and is not commercially available.

Published X-ray yield data, particularly the recent work of J. W. Motz, indicate that both continuum and characteristic X-ray yields increase rapidly with electron energy, reaching a maximum for an electron energy ranging from 150keVfor titanium to 300keV for copper to nearly 1 MeV for molybdenum.

To take advantage of this property, a 300 kVp, 30 nsec pulse, 5 nsec jitter flash X-ray system has been built which appears to meet the intensity and timing requirements for single pulse laue or Bragg diffraction studies. System design, calculated output and initial tests are presented.

Keywords

Titanium Lithium Attenuation Fluoride Tungsten 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. E. Green, Jr., “Electro-Optical Systems for Dynamic Display of X-Ray Diffraction Images,” Advances in X-Ray Analysis, Vol. 14, Plenum Press (1971).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Reifsnider and R. E. Green, Jr., “Image Intensifier System for Dynamic X-Ray Diffraction Studies,” Rev. Sci. Instr. 39, 1651–1655(1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. A. Tsukerman and A. I. Avdeenko, Zh. Tekhn. Fiz. 12, 185 (1942).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Schall, Z. angew, Phys. 2, 83–88(1950).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Schaaffs, Z. Naturforsch. 5a, 631–632(1950).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Schaaffs, Erg. exakt. Naturwiss. 28, 1–46 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Schaaffs, Z. angew. Phys. 8, 299–302(1956).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. I. Zavada, M. A. Manakova, and V. A. Tsukerman, Prib. i Tekhn. Eksperim. No. 2, 434–438 (1966).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Q. Johnson, R. N. Keeler, and J. W. Lyle, Nature 213, 1114–1115 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Q. Johnson, A. Mitchell, R. N. Keeler, and L. Evans, Trans. Amer. Cryst. Assoc. 4, 133–140 (1969).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Q. Johnson, A. Mitchell, R. Keeler, and L. Evans, Phys. Rev. Lets. 25, 1099–1101 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Q. Johnson, A. Mitchell, L. Evans, “X-Ray Diffraction Evidence for Crystalline Order and Isotropic Compression During the Shock-Wave Process,” UCRL Report 73140, April 13, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. W. Motz, C. E. Dick, A. C. Lucas, R. C. Placious, and J. H. Sparrow, “Production of High Intensity K X-Ray Beams”, J. Appl. Phys. 42, No. 5, 2132–2133 (Apr 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis M. Charbonnier
    • 1
  1. 1.Field Emission CorporationMcMinnvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations