The Nanoscale World

Search

  • Re: Current signal exists in main path even under interleave mode??

    Solong, Although you set sample bias to 0 mV on the main scan, there may be some offset on the sample bias line which can be up to 20 mV, this is sufficient to get the current flowing. You can measure the voltage on the sample chuck versus a ground, for instance, the dove-tail where the AFM head is mounted, to see exactly how much offset is present
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Wed, Mar 20 2013
  • Re: Bipotetntiostat for an STM

    Isma, Most likely Bruker's Universal Bipotentiostat would work, which has more gain stages. The difficulty is, if there is any problem, it can be hard to work out as it requires Agilent and Bruker to solve the problem, if any, together. Sorry for not being more definitive. Chunzeng
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Mon, Nov 5 2012
  • Re: Bipotetntiostat for an STM

    Isma, It depends on your STM system whether an external bipotentiostat would work to support all the functions, seemlessly. May I have the model of your STM and controller? Thanks Chunzeng Li Applications Scientist Nano Surfaces Division, Bruker
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Wed, Oct 31 2012
  • Re: SSRM mode on the ICON

    Here are my answers to your questions: The same bias voltage is maintained for both trace and retrace, so you can select data on either trace or retrace. When using false engage, you must set both sample bias and test bias to the same value that's better to be bigger than 500 mV, this is essential to get a proper calibration. There is usus. a bigger
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Tue, Sep 18 2012
  • Re: SCM????

    Sandeep, SCM data quantification has been attempted, but not with widespread success. Here is a quote from "Scanning Probe Microscopy" Edited by Sergei Kalinin: http://www.ebooks.com/302033/scanning-probe-microscopy/kalinin-sergei-gruverman-alexei/ I.3. Scanning Capacitance Microscopy for Electrical Characterization of Semiconductors and Dielectrics
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Fri, Jul 27 2012
  • Re: Typical current noise value of Conductive AFM (Dimension 3100)?

    Hi Solong, 1. How do you quantify the CAFM noise? It is peak-to-peak or RMS? 2. A couple of things to be aware of: While the sample chuck is conductive on the macroscopic scale, it may not be so on the microscale/nanoscale, oxide may be present. The oxide can have different I-V characteristics than what you expect of an ideal conductor. Make sure the
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Fri, Jul 27 2012
  • Re: Why the current noise increases dramatically when tip touches the sample?

    Hi Solong, The noise level of the module is best charicterized when the tip is off the surface. But anyway, the noise should not go up to 500 pA; is it really noise or signal. can you send me a screenshot or the original file for me to take a close look? Thanks Chunzeng Li Applicaiton Scientist Nano Surfaces Division, bruker chunzeng.li@bruker-nano
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Fri, Jul 27 2012
  • Re: Kelvin Probe: ´Potential´signal is alternating.

    Hello Solong, The potential value may change somewhat with lift heihgt, but should not jump/alternate at all. It is likely the phase is not set properly in the first place. Please set the phase per the procedure outlined in a previous post, I expect the problem to go away. Best Chunzeng Application Scientist Nan
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Fri, Jul 27 2012
  • Re: ´drive phase´ problem in Surface potential detection

    As you mentioned, using the right phase for surface potential measurement is critical. Here is a procedure you can follow to find the proper phase, I can be more specific if I know which version of software you are using (a screenshot of the UI is ideal, you can send to my email): Turn Surface Potential Feedback off. If this option is not available
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Fri, Jul 27 2012
  • Re: Why ´Bias´ changes the slope of ´Potential´Scope in Surface Potential Detection?

    No problem. It is not entirely your fault, we could have set the default to none. Best Chunzeng
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by Chunzeng Li on Mon, Jul 9 2012
Page 1 of 6 (53 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | More Search Options
Copyright (c) 2011 Bruker Instruments