A One-Sided View of Mössbauer Spectroscopy

  • R. L. Collins

Abstract

Most Fe57 Mössbauer spectra are obtained with transmission geometry. The thickness of the sample is chosen to limit photoelectric absorption at 14 keV to 10 to 90%. There are, however, many objects whose Mössbauer spectra could be usefully analyzed but which do not satisfy the transmission requirements. These include massive items such as lathe beds and irregular items such as ball bearings. The physics of a one-sided spectrometer are simple; the resonant capture of. a 14-keV gamma ray within the sample results in either a reemitted 14-keV gamma ray (9% probable) or internal conversion leading to iron X rays and a conversion electron (91% probable). A counter, shielded from the direct rays of thesource, intercepts the 6-keV X rays from the sample. The Mössbauer spectra are inverted, i.e., they result in enhanced count rates. Instrumental problems are severe since the effect is only 10% as large as one obtains in transmission. Two types of spectrometers will likely emerge, scanning and nonscanning. The nonscanning type is similar to nondispersive analyzers in that the sources are chemically or thermally tuned in lieu of Doppler shifting. Areas of application include the determination of phases in steels, the nature and kinetics of corrosion, and possibly surface stresses in ferritic steels.

Keywords

Ferritic Steel Internal Conversion Armco Iron Transmission Geometry Internal Magnetic Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. H. Muir, Jr., K. J. Ando, and H. M. Coogan, Mössbauer Effect Data Index 1958–1965 ([nterscience Publishers, New York, 1966 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Hershkowitz and J. C. Walker, Noel, Instr. Methods 53: 273 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. S. Preston, S. S. Hanna, and J. Heberle, Phys. Rev. 123: 2207 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C W. Kocher, Phys. Letters 14: 287 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Ron, H. Shechter, A. A. Hirsch, and S. Niedzwiedz, Phys. Letters 20: 481 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Shinjo, F. Itch, H. Takaki, Y. Nakamura, and N. Shikazono, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 19: 1252 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grinding Stresses—Cause, Effect, and Control,“ collec;37 Grinding Wheel Institute, 2130 Keith Building, Cleveland, OhioGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. V. Pound, G. B. Benedek, and R. Dreyer, Phys. Rev, Letters 7: 405 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1968

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. L. Collins
    • 1
  1. 1.Austin Science AssociatesAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations