Advertisement

Obtaining colder ensembles of free clusters by using evaporation and recoil

  • K. Hansen
  • K. Wong
  • V. V. KresinEmail author
Clusters and Nanostructures
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract.

We describe a theoretical model which treats the effects of evaporation-induced recoil on the mass and temperature distributions of a collimated beam of small neutral clusters emitted by a hot-nozzle source. The model incorporates two important consequences of in-flight cluster fragmentation processes. One is the well-known statistical evaporation of atoms and dimers accompanied by cluster size redistribution and cooling, and the other is the accompanying mechanical recoil of the fragments. We predict that the filtering effect introduced by cluster recoil can be used to an advantage by separating out the off-axis cluster population. This fraction will have a significantly narrower and colder distribution of internal temperatures than the on-axis ensemble.

Keywords

Neural Network Evaporation Theoretical Model Temperature Distribution Nonlinear Dynamics 
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. H. Haberland, in Metal Clusters, edited by W. Ekardt (Wiley, New York, 1999) Google Scholar
  2. T. Bergen, X. Biquard, A. Brenac, F. Chandezon, B.A. Huber, D. Jalabert, H. Lebius, M. Maurel, E. Monnand, J. Opitz, A. Pesnelle, B. Pras, C. Ristori, J.C. Rocco, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 70, 3244 (1999) Google Scholar
  3. J. Borggreen, K. Hansen, F. Chandezon, T. Døssing, M. Elhajal, O. Echt, Phys. Rev. A 62, 013202 (2000) Google Scholar
  4. M.L. Homer, J.L. Persson, E.C. Honea, R.L. Whetten, Z. Phys. D 22, 441 (1991) Google Scholar
  5. S. Vongehr, A.A. Scheidemann, C. Wittig, V.V. Kresin, Chem. Phys. Lett. 353, 89 (2002) Google Scholar
  6. C.P. Schulz, P. Claas, D. Schumacher, F. Stienkemeier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 013401 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Vongehr, V.V. Kresin, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 11124 (2003) Google Scholar
  8. W. de Heer, W. Knight, M.Y. Chou, M.L. Cohen, in Solid State Physics, edited by H. Ehrenreich, D. Turnbull (Academic, New York, 1987), Vol. 40 Google Scholar
  9. K. Hansen, J. Falk, Z. Phys. D 34, 251 (1995) Google Scholar
  10. P. Brockhaus, K. Wong, K. Hansen, V. Kasperovich, G. Tikhonov, V.V. Kresin, Phys. Rev. A. 59, 495 (1999) Google Scholar
  11. C. Lifshitz, Int. J. Mass Spec. 198, 1 (2000) Google Scholar
  12. C. Bréchignac, Ph. Cahuzac, B. Concina, J. Leygnier, B. Villard, P. Parneix, Ph. Bréchignac, Chem. Phys. Lett. 335, 34 (2001) Google Scholar
  13. K. Głuch, S. Matt-Leubner, O. Echt, R. Deng, J.U. Andersen, P. Scheier, T.D. Märk, Chem. Phys. Lett. 385, 449 (2004) Google Scholar
  14. This signal includes unevaporated clusters from the original population, as well as all those daughters which recoil in the forward direction. And although the fraction of such daughters quickly falls off with the distance from the detector plane (i.e., for evaporation at early flight times), the evaporation rate at the early time is significantly higher. To a significant extent, the two effects cancel each other and turn the energy contents of the on-axis beam into a rather broad mixture Google Scholar
  15. J.U. Blatt, V.F. Weisskopf, Theoretical Nuclear Physics (Wiley, New York, 1952) Google Scholar
  16. T. Ericson, Adv. Phys. 9, 425 (1960)Google Scholar
  17. G.F. Bertsch, N. Oberhofer, S. Stringari, Z. Phys. D 20, 123 (1991)Google Scholar
  18. S. Frauendorf, Z. Phys. D 35, 191 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. P.A. Hervieux, D.H.E. Gross, Z. Phys. D 33, 295 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. P. Fröbrich, Ann. Physik (Leipzig) 6, 403 (1997) Google Scholar
  21. P. Engelking, J. Chem. Phys. 87, 936 (1987) Google Scholar
  22. P.J. Robinson, K.A. Holbrook, Unimolecular reactions (Wiley, London, 1972) Google Scholar
  23. N.W. Ascroft, N.D. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976) Google Scholar
  24. C. Bréchignac, Ph. Cahuzac, J. Leygnier, J. Weiner, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1492 (1989)Google Scholar
  25. C. Walther, G. Dietrich, W. Dostal, K. Hansen, S. Krückeberg, K. Lützenkirchen, L. Schweikhard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3816 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. M. Schmidt, J. Donges, Th. Hippler, H. Haberland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 103401 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. K. Hansen, Philos. Mag. B 79, 1413 (1999)Google Scholar
  28. M.M. Kappes, M. Schär, E. Schumacher, A. Vayloyan, Z. Phys. D 5, 359 (1987)Google Scholar
  29. Ph. Dugourd, D. Rayane, R. Antoine, M. Broyer, Chem. Phys. 218, 163 (1997)Google Scholar
  30. The energy-temperature relation for a microcanonical ensemble is better represented if (3n-6) is replaced by (3n-7) andersen:01 but this point has only a minor influence on the recoil calculation Google Scholar
  31. J.U. Andersen, E. Bonderup, K. Hansen, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 6518 (2001)Google Scholar
  32. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, edited by M. Abramowitz, I.A. Stegun (Dover, New York, 1965) Google Scholar
  33. M. Kappes, S. Leutwyler, in Atomic and Molecular Beam Methods, edited by G. Scoles (Oxford, New York, 1988) Google Scholar
  34. G.D. Stein, Surf. Sci. 156, 44 (1985)Google Scholar
  35. S.B. Ryali, J.B. Fenn, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 88, 245 (1984)Google Scholar
  36. H. Pauly, Atom, Molecule, and Cluster Beams (Springer, Berlin, 2000) Google Scholar
  37. O.F. Hagena, Surf. Sci. 106, 101 (1981); O.F. Hagena, Z. Phys. D 4, 291 (1987)Google Scholar
  38. C.E. Klots, J. Chem. Phys. 83, 5954 (1985); C.E. Klots, J. Phys. Chem. 92, 5864 (1988); C.E. Klots, Z. Phys. D 21, 335 (1991)Google Scholar
  39. U. Näher, K. Hansen, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 5367 (1994)Google Scholar
  40. K. Hansen, U. Näher, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1240 (1999)Google Scholar
  41. G. Tikhonov, K. Wong, V. Kasperovich, V.V. Kresin, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 73, 1204 (2002)Google Scholar
  42. H. Beijerinck, N. Verster, Physica 111C, 327 (1981) Google Scholar
  43. The free-flight trajectories of cluster parents and daughters may, in principle, be deflected by collisions with background gas in the vacuum chambers and with the carrier gas atoms. As mentioned in the text, the primary contribution to the off-axis signal comes from clusters evaporating after Aperture 2, so the concern is whether scattering in this region may distort the pattern created by evaporative recoil. Such scattering will be dominantly of the elastic van der Waals type, and the relevant cross sections have been studied in reference kresin:93. From the data in this reference, it follows that the “extinction length” for scattering a fraction 1/e of the clusters into an angle of 4 mrad (the angle subtended by the radius r0 in the detector plane as seen from Aperture 2) by a pressure P of Ar or N2 is ≈\(5~{\rm mm} / P(10^{-3}~{\rm mbar})\). This means that with chamber pressures of \(\gtrsim\)10-8 mbar following Aperture 2, only a fraction of one percent of the parent clusters will be scattered beyond r0 by the background gas. Note that the carrier gas which accompanies the beam will not scatter the par- ents, as they travel at close speeds. This carrier gas can, in principle, scatter the deflecting daughters, but an estimate of its pressure remaining in the beam at this point pauly yields ~10-5 mbar. Only a negligible fraction of the daughter clusters will be deflected after traversing the ~1 mm radius of this beam. Thus we see that background and carrier gas scattering will not alter the calculated off-axis populations by more than a few percent Google Scholar
  44. V.V. Kresin, A. Scheidemann, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 6982 (1993)Google Scholar
  45. W.D. Knight, K. Clemenger, W.A. de Heer, W.A. Saunders, M.Y. Chou, M.L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2141 (1984)Google Scholar
  46. The dissociation energies of neutral clusters are obviously somewhat different from the ionic cluster data used in our calculations. This is well illustrated by taking the example of the Na21 cluster. In the experimental mass spectra, this unit has an abundance of about 10% of Na20, but in the simulation it does not appear at all. This is due to the dissociation energies assigned to the Na22 cluster. For the reaction Na22 →Na20+ Na2, the value inferred from Nan+ data in reference brechignac:89 is D=0.65 eV, whereas monomer dissociation is not quoted at all, thus not allowing the reaction Na22 →Na21+Na. Consequently, the simulation leaves no signal in the n=21 channel. It would be interesting to reevaluate the dissociation energies of neutral clusters by combining experimentally measured mass spectra (corrected for ionization efficiency effects) and the evaporation model (cf. adjustments of Lin+ separation energies described in Ref. bjornholm:96) Google Scholar
  47. S. Bjørnholm, J. Borggreen, H. Busch, F. Chandezon, in Large Clusters of Atoms and Molecules, edited by T.P. Martin (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences/Società Italiana di Fisica/Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenburg University, School of Physics and Engineering PhysicsGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  3. 3.Department of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations