1 / 19

Why is AFM challenging?

Why is AFM challenging?. Jump to contact: k>max(- ¶ 2 V TS / ¶ z 2) (static) kA>max(-F TS ) ( oscillating mode) [ ideal amplitude is A~ l ] 2. Non-monotonic imaging signal 3. Long-range vs. short range forces [F(z)] 4. Noise in the deflection sensor ( particularly 1/f noise )

verity
Télécharger la présentation

Why is AFM challenging?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Why is AFM challenging? • Jump to contact: k>max(-¶2VTS/¶z2) (static) kA>max(-FTS) (oscillating mode) [ideal amplitude is A~l] 2. Non-monotonic imaging signal 3. Long-range vs. short range forces [F(z)] 4. Noise in the deflection sensor (particularly 1/f noise) 5. FM AFM helps in all cases except 2!

  2. Thermal limits Energy in damped driven harmonic oscillator= kBT This allows one to determine the thermal limit of force gradient sensing in AFM: {zosc= F’ zo Q/k Is the signal near resonance}

  3. How does one measure a high Q system?

  4. Challenge of measuring high Q system Albrecht, Grutter, Horne Rugar J. Appl. Phys. 69, 668 (1994)

  5. Better sensitivity with high Q cantilevers Q=115 slope detection Q=65,000 FM detection Q=65,000 slope detection Albrecht, Grutter, Horne Rugar J. Appl. Phys. 69, 668 (1994)

  6. AC techniques Change in resonance curve can be detected by: • Lock-in (A or ) * • FM detection (f and Adrive) Albrecht, Grutter, Horne and Rugar J. Appl. Phys. 69, 668 (1991) (*) used in Tapping™ mode f A f1 f2 f3

  7. Anczykowski et al., Appl. Phys. A 66, S885 (1998) Some words on Tapping™ Amount of energy dissipated into sample and tip stronglydepends on operation conditions. Challenging to determine magnitude or sign of force. NOT necessarily less power dissipation than repulsive contact AFM.

  8. Ultimate limits of force sensitivity 1. Brownian motion of cantilever! thermal limits Martin, Williams, Wickramasinghe JAP 61, 4723 (1987) Albrecht, Grutter, Horne, and Rugar JAP 69, 668 (1991) D. Sarid ‘Scanning Force Microscopy’ T=4.5K A…rms amplitude A2 = kBT/k Roseman & Grutter, RSI 71, 3782 (2000) 2. Other limits: - sensor shot noise - sensor back action - Heisenberg D.P.E. Smith RSI 66, 3191 (1995) Bottom line: Under ambient conditions energy resolution ~ 10-24J << 10-21J/molecule

  9. Other limitations? - sensor shot noise - sensor back action - Heisenberg D.P.E. Smith, Rev. Sci. Instr. 66, 3191 (1995)

  10. Sensor Shot Noise Effectively, the fluctuations in laser pressure (due to photon statistics) give rise in a fluctuation in the mean position of the cantilever. P…laser power, Df…bandwidth l…wavelength h…Planck’s constant c…speed of light j…interferometer phase NB: can be used to ‘cool’ high finesse cavities!

  11. Sensor Back Action Optical pressure Off resonance On resonance P…laser power, Df…bandwidth l…wavelength h…Planck’s constant c…speed of light

  12. Optimization Minimize: and obtain optimized laser power (for off resonance set Q=1):

  13. Heisenberg Minimal detectable energy with Minimal bandwidth Quantum limit

  14. So what?

  15. How about detecting a single spin? Idea: combine MFM and resonant excitation of the cantilever by combining ultimate AFM techniques and NMR.

  16. MRFM D. Rugar, R. Budakian, H. J. Mamin & B. W. Chui, Nature 430, 329 (2004)

  17. Magnetic Resonance Force Microscopy (MRFM)

  18. Another cool thing: thermodynamic squeezed state D. Rugar and P. Grutter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 699 (1993)

  19. Course Evaluations!

More Related