The Nanoscale World

Search

  • Re: PF-QNM for Samples with Varied Modulus

    Thanks for the response Ang. Just to clarify, if both polymers are similar enough (within one order), than holding the setpoint and radius constant should still allow for accurate measurement of the two moduli because their deformation should not be too different? Thanks, Lauren
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Wed, Nov 28 2012
  • PF-QNM for Samples with Varied Modulus

    Hello, I use a Dimension Icon with PF-QNM and I have some samples that have modulus in the range of the PS standard but have domains of softer material also. When using PF-QNM (relative method), keeping a consistent peak force set-point will result in deforming the sample more in the softer areas, and hence the tip radius would be larger than what was
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Mon, Nov 26 2012
  • Re: DMT data processing

    Hi Bede, I have a question related to point 1. in your response. For some samples, wen I use PF-QNM and look at the histogram of modulus values there are only maybe 5 - 8 different values, likewise it shows this way in the graphical map. Could this be because many force curves are being filtered out per your explanation? What would cause this? Is it
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Fri, Apr 20 2012
  • Re: PFQNM Force Curves: Parasitic Cantilever Motions

    Stefan and Steve, What a simple fix! It was the laser interference. I really have to move that beam back off the point of the probe, but it eliminates the effect. You made my day- thanks again! Lauren
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Fri, Jun 24 2011
  • Re: PFQNM Force Curves: Parasitic Cantilever Motions

    Hi Steve, Yes, they are very reflective. I will try these suggestions- thanks!! Lauren
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Thu, Jun 23 2011
  • Re: PFQNM Force Curves: Parasitic Cantilever Motions

    Hi Stefan, Thanks for your reply. I was referring to the slow frequency oscillations you mention. My force curves appear like the "before autoconfig" image in the PF-QNM Users Manual section 2.8. It is a large bowing type motion that is persistent in both the approach and the withdraw (mine is much larger than that seen in the manual). My
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Thu, Jun 23 2011
  • Re: Surface Potential and Probes

    Hi David, I was curious what you are referring to when you say "no thin-film adhesion problems" ? Thanks! Lauren
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Wed, Jun 22 2011
  • PFQNM Force Curves: Parasitic Cantilever Motions

    Hi, I have been having issues with large amounts of parasitic cantilever motions. Even when I use the autoconfig button on the force curve monitor nothing seems to change. Why would the autoconfig not remove the parasitic motions? Could this be indicative of using the wrong probe? I have tried altering the PF set-point over a range of 30mV - .3V with
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Wed, Jun 22 2011
  • Re: PF-QNM Relative Method: Tip Radius Calibration on Known Standard

    Hi Stefan, Thank you for your response. I guess this brings up another question then... The reason I chose the RFESPA probe was because it tracked nicely over my sample and gave me good clear images. When I tried to scan the same sample with an RTESPA probe it would not track well- the trace and re-trace were very mismatched. This being said, I then
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Tue, May 3 2011
  • PF-QNM Relative Method: Tip Radius Calibration on Known Standard

    Hello, I have been scanning the PS-LDPE standard with a RFESPA probe for calibration of the tip radius and I am getting a smaller tip radius for deeper deformation depths. Why would this happen? It seems the further from the apex the larger the radius should be... Here are the parameters I set and the response I received. I set Peak force setpoint to
    Posted to SPM Digest (Forum) by LaurenVilt on Tue, May 3 2011
Page 1 of 1 (10 items) | More Search Options
Copyright (c) 2011 Bruker Instruments