Advertisement

Comparison of Fission Fragment, Pulsed Laser, and Electric Pulse Induced Molecular Desorption

  • Franz R. Krueger
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Surface Sciences book series (SSSUR, volume 4)

Abstract

Several methods of molecular desorption using a rapid dissipation of energy near the surface are discussed. Among them fission fragments, pulsed laser beams, and short electric pulses primarily cause electronic transitions at the solid surface, and are thus discussed in more detail. However, the properties of this molecular desorption are very much independent of the detailed kind of excitation. Always, even large and fragile molecules are desorbed. The ions found in TOF mass spectrometry are even-electronic,quasimolecular and fragment species mainly, they are only a little vibrationally excited, possess a few eV kinetic energy, and are emitted mainly in the forward direction. Their chemical and physical properties do not depend on the density of dissipation, except for the number of ions produced, or on other excitation parameters,but they are very much related to the physical and chemical status of the adsorption layer before dissipation. — Microscopically a sudden perturbation excitation model, and macroscopically a far-from-equilibrium phase transition model, are given, which fit the observed data properly.

Keywords

Electric Pulse Fission Fragment Pulse Laser Beam Lattice Excitation Rapid Dissipation 
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.
    R.D. Macfarlane, D.F.Torgerson: Science 191, 920 (1976)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Fürstenau, W. Knippelberg, F.R. Krueger, G. Weiß, K. Wien: Z. f. Naturforschung 32a, 711 (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Registered Trade Mark for Leybold-Heraeus, D-5000 Köln, West GermanyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F.R. Krueger, W. Knabe: Organic Mass Spectrometry 18, 83 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.K.D. Feigl, F.R. Krueger, B. Schueler: Org. Mass Spectrometry 18, 442 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Schueler, P.K.D. Feigl, F.R. Krueger: Z. f. Naturforschung 38a, 1078 (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F.R. Krue er: Z. f. Naturforschung 38a, 385 (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Dück, Treu, W. Galster, H. Fröhlich, H. Voit: Nuclear Instruments Methods 168, 601 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.B. Migdal: Qualitative Methods in Quantum Theory ( W.A.Benjamin, Reading/Mass. 1977 )Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F.R. Krueger: Surface Science 86, 246 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franz R. Krueger
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institut für KernphysikAbt. KosmophysikHeidelbergFed. Rep. of Germany

Personalised recommendations