Daniel R. Lenz

First Data from a Commercial Local Electrode Atom Probe (LEAP)

The first dedicated local electrode atom probes (LEAP [a trademark of Imago Scientific Instruments Corporation]) have been built and tested as commercial prototypes. Several key performance parameters have been markedly improved relative to conventional three-dimensional atom probe (3DAP) designs. The Imago LEAP can operate at a sustained data collection rate of 1 million atoms/minute. This is some 600 times faster than the next fastest atom probe and large images can be collected in less than 1 h that otherwise would take many days. The field of view of the Imago LEAP is about 40 times larger than conventional 3DAPs. This makes it possible to analyze regions that are about 100 nm diameter by 100 nm deep containing on the order of 50 to 100 million atoms with this instrument. Several example applications that illustrate the advantages of the LEAP for materials analysis are presented.

Advances in Pulsed-Laser Atom Probe: Instrument and Specimen Design for Optimum Performance

The performance of the pulsed-laser atom probe can be limited by both instrument and specimen factors. The experiments described in this article were designed to identify these factors so as to provide direction for further instrument and specimen development. Good agreement between voltage-pulsed and laser-pulsed data is found when the effective pulse fraction is less than 0.2 for pulsed-laser mode. Under the conditions reported in this article, the thermal tails of the peaks in the mass spectra did not show any significant change when produced with either a 10-ps or a 120-fs pulsed-laser source. Mass resolving power generally improves as the laser spot size and laser wavelength are decreased and as the specimen tip radius, specimen taper angle, and thermal diffusivity of the specimen material are increased. However, it is shown that two of the materials used in this study, aluminum and stainless steel, depend on these factors differently. A one-dimensional heat flow model is explored to explain these differences. The model correctly predicts the behavior of the aluminum samples, but breaks down for the stainless steel samples when the tip radius is large. A more accurate three-dimensional model is needed to overcome these discrepancies.