Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-26T18:58:19.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surface Steps on (100) MgO Foils Imaged by TEM, SEM and AFM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Simon King ,
Jason Heffelfinger ,
Michael Mallamaci ,
Stuart McKernan  and
C. Barry Carter
Simon King
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421, Washington Av S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Jason Heffelfinger
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421, Washington Av S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Michael Mallamaci
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421, Washington Av S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Stuart McKernan
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421, Washington Av S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455.
C. Barry Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421, Washington Av S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Get access

Abstract

The morphology characteristic of acid-washed and annealed MgO (100) surfaces used as substrates for pulsed-laser deposition (PLD) is studied employing TEM, SEM and AFM. Each of these three microscopal techniques provides information not so readily accessible by and complementary to the other two techniques, leading to a more rounded view of the characteristic morphology of these surfaces.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1 Norton, M.G. and Carter, C.B.; Scanning Microsc., 6, 385–398 (1992)Google Scholar
2 Tietz, L.A. and Carter, C.B.; Phil. Mag. A, 67, 699–727 (1993); ibid, pp. 729–744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 King, S.L. and Carter, C.B.; Proc. COLA, Tennessee, Apr. 1993 - in pressGoogle Scholar
4 King, S.L. and Carter, C.B.; Paper # B2.11, this conference.Google Scholar
5 King, S.L. and Carter, C.B.; Proc 51st Ann. Mtg. MSA, 1142–1143 (1993)Google Scholar
6 King, S.L. and Carter, C.B.; in preparation.Google Scholar
7 Norton, M.G., Summerfelt, S.R., Carter, C.B.; Appl. Phys. Lett., 56, 2246–2248 (1990)Google Scholar
8 King, S.L. and Carter, C.B.; to be submittedGoogle Scholar
9 Tasker, P.W. and Duffy, D.M.; Surf. Sci., 137, 91–102 (1984)Google Scholar
10 King, S.L. and Carter, C.B.; in preparationGoogle Scholar
11 King, S.L. and Carter, C.B.; Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 280, 157–160 (1993)Google Scholar
12 King, S.L., McKernan, S. and Carter, C.B.; Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 280, 661–664.(1993)Google Scholar
13 e.g., papers in Ultramicrosc. 42–44, 1514–1532 (1992) and Proc. 51st Ann. Mtg. MSA, 508-536 (1993)Google Scholar