The Objective Properties of The Projector Magnetic Lenses

International Journal of EmergingTrends & Technology in Computer Science(IJETTCS)
Web Site: www.ijettcs.org Email: editor@ijettcs.org, editorijettcs@gmail.com

Volume 2, Issue 6, November December 2013 ISSN 2278-6856

Volume 2, Issue 6 November December 2013 Page 54

Abstract: Present work is mainly concern with
computing the objective properties of the projector
magnetic lens by using Glaser model as a mathematical
function considered to represent the axial magnetic flux
density distributions of proposed magnetic lens. This
function has, in fact, three optimization parameters.
The only important parameter is the half-width of the
field for the proposed magnetic lens, which can be
affected on the objective properties of the projector
magnetic lens, when the other two optimization
parameters (maximum value of flux density and lens
length) are constants, which is the literature survey
proved that unaffected on the lens properties. Results
have clearly shown that the optimization parameter for
current function have a considerable effect on the lens
aberrations, distortions and resolution limits, the
reconstructed pole-pieces and disc radius of confusion
for spherical and chromatic aberration coefficients.

Keywords: Electron optics, Magnetic Lenses, Optical
properties, Distortion

1. INTRODUCTION
The branch of physics that deals with the problem of
charged particle motion in an electromagnetic field is
called electron optics. This means, however, deflecting,
forming and focusing flows of charge particles and
producing images by means of electron and ions beams.
Furthermore, electron optics comprises the investigation
and exploring the physical and optical properties of
electrons beams under the influence of electric and
magnetic fields [1].
The synthesis technique is considered to be on the best
method for improving the work or performance of the
magnetic lenses and it is a method that saves time in
comparison with the analytical procedure which takes
much more time.
In electron optics, the synthesis procedure of electron
lenses optimization is based on the fact that, the first-
order properties and aberrations of any imaging magnetic
field can be calculated by using mathematical functions to
approximate the magnetic field, several good
mathematical functions exist for assigning the magnetic
field distribution such as Gaussian model, Exponential
model, Cosine model etc. [2]. It is important to note
that, the values of optical properties, aberrations and pole-
piece shape depend on the mathematical distribution of
field function, i.e. the optimum design of magnetic lenses
depend on the optimization parameters of proposed
formula to represent the optimum axial magnetic field
distribution [3].
Many investigations have been carried out in the first of
electron and ion optics to synthesis the parameter lens by
using mathematical expressions to represent the magnetic
scalar potential distribution along the lens axis, see for
example [4]. The trajectory of the electron beam inside
the lens has been represented by a mathematical formula,
when the paraxial ray equation solved for the assigned
beam trajectory to obtain the magnetic field distribution
of the lens, see for example [5].
Objective lenses play an important role in the charged
particles devices since it form the first image for the
sample under the test. Unfortunately, these lenses are
never perfect and exhibit different defects leads to the
deterioration of the image quality. The most effective of
these defects are the spherical and chromatic aberrations
which cause the image to beings blurred. The
impossibility for correcting these two defects is led to
what is called now optimization [6]. Optimization means
the approaches or the procedures by which these defects
may decrease to its minimal for a certain application.
The properties of the final projector lens in an electron
microscope column are very important. Usually, the
accelerated electron beam enters the final projector lens
parallel to the optical axis. Therefore, the projector
properties of the symmetrical lens will be investigated in
previously under infinite magnification condition. In
general, projector magnetic lenses suffer from radial and
spiral distortion. Thus, these two parameters in addition
to the projector focal length have been investigated in
detail.

2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The synthesis optimization procedure, i.e. inverse design,
in the field of electron and ion optics contrary on the
analytical treatments begins with a specific target
function to represent the axial magnetic field, potential or
trajectory distributions along the optical axis of the
electron lens. This technique has been depended in all
previous investigations of symmetrical and asymmetrical
double pole-piece magnetic electron lenses.
The projector properties can be computes of any magnetic
lens whose axial flux density distribution has been
computes previously, theoretically or experimentally, by
analytical or synthesis procedure. In current investigation,
The Objective Properties of the Projector
Magnetic Lenses

Mohammed Jawad Yaseen
Department of Physics, College of Education, the University of Mustansiriyah, Baghdad, Iraq.


Glaser model [7] uses as mathematical model to represent
the axial flux density of magnetic lens, as the formula.
] )
a
z
( [1
B
B
2
max
z
+
= (1)
Where B
max
is the maximum value of axial flux density, z
is the axial distance on the optical axis and a is the half of
half-width at the lens field.
Also, it is important to investigate the scalar magnetic
potential V according to the relation.
gradV B
o z
= (2)
Where
o
is the magnetic space permeability and equal to
4x10
-7
H.m
-1
. By using the analytical solution of
Laplaces equation, the shape of the pole -piece that
would produce the desired field can be determined. For
axially symmetric systems the electrostatic or magnetic
scalar potential V(r,z) can be calculated from the axial
distribution of the same potential V(z) by the following
series expansion [8].
k
z
k
k
p
k
k
p
d
z V d
R
k
z R V
2
2
2
0
2
) (
2
) ! (
) 1 (
) , (
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
(3)
Where R
p
is the radial height of the pole-piece, V
P
is the
potential value at the pole-piece surface, which is
equivalent to half of the lens excitation NI and V
z
"
is the
second derivative of the magnetic scalar potential with
respect to the z-coordinate. By taking the first two terms
of equation (3) under consideration, the equipotential
surfaces are given by the formula [8].
2
1
P
P
(z) V
V V(z)
2 (z) R
(
' '
= (4)
Paraxial electron trajectories r(z) are computed
numerically, using a fourth-order Runge-Kutta formula to
solve the paraxial ray equation [9].
0 (z)r B
8V
r
2
z
r
= + ' ' (5)
Where r is the second derivative of the electron beam
trajectory, r is the electron beam trajectory, q is the
charge -to- mass quotient of the electron, V
r
is the
relativistically-corrected accelerating voltage and the
primes are signs of differentiation with respect to z.
The spherical and chromatic aberration coefficients C
s

and C
c
are computed numerically by using Simpson's rule
to evaluate the aberration integrals [10].

dz
b
a
'
r
2
r
2
z
8B
4
r
2
'
z
8B
4
r
4
z
B
r
mV
3e
r
128mV
e
s
C
}
+ + =
(
(
(
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
(6)

}
=
b
a
dz
2
r
2
z
B
r
8mV
e
c
C
(7)
The primes denoted to the derivative with respect to z,
limits of integration a , and b depends on the properties of
the lens with if they objective or projector. In objective
properties, the integration covers only the interval from
object plane z
o
to image plane z
i
in spite of the magnetic
field limits. While in projector properties, the integration
covers the magnetic field limits from start point z
1
to end
point z
2
of magnetic field. Where z
1
to z
2
represents the
total range of z within which a finite lens field exists.
And r
o
is the solution of the paraxial-ray equation (5),
with initial condition depending on the nature of the
magnetic lens operation mode;
1. For objective properties:
a) r
o
(z
o
)=0 and r
'
o
(z
o
)=1 if the aberration coefficients
are referred to z
o
.
or b) r
o
(z
i
)=0 and r
'
o
(z
i
)=-1 if the aberration coefficients
are referred to z
i
.
For low or high magnification conditions, the
magnification M
o
is calculated from the formula; M
o
=
o
/
i
. Where
o
, and
i
are the convergence angles of the
trajectory at z
o
, and z
i
respectively.
2. For projector properties:
a) r
o
(z
oa
)=0 and r
'
o
(z
oa
)=1 if the aberration coefficients
are referred to z
oa
.
or b) r
o
(z
ia
)=0 and r
'
o
(z
ia
)=-1 if the aberration coefficients
are referred to z
ia
.
For low or high magnification conditions, the
magnification M
p
is calculated from the formula;
M
p
=
o
/
i
. Where
o
and
i
are asymptotic convergence
angles of the trajectory at z
oa
and z
ia
respectively.
In the present work the radial D
r
and spiral D
s
distortion
coefficients can be determined by using the following
integrals [9].
dz
2
z
1
z
)
r
2
r
2
r (
2
z
4B
3
r
2
z
B 8
2
z
B
r
V
3
r
128V
r
D
}
(
(
' ' + '

|
|
.
|
\
|
' +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

(8)

dz
2
z
1
z
z
B
2
r
1/2
r
V
16
1
3
z
B
2
r
3/2
r
V
128
3
s
D
}
(
(
'
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (9)
Where r
and r
are two linearly independent solutions of

the paraxial-ray equation (5). The limits of integration are
the two terminals points' z
1
and z
2
of the magnetic field.

3. RESLUTION LIMITS
Typically the resolution defined as the ability to
distinguish between two adjacent points to being as two
separate points. Thus, the smallest separation distance
between then which can be recognized as distinct is called
resolution limit. However, for any optical instrument
there is a specific property named resolving power, which
defined usually as the instrument ability to form two


separate images for the closely adjacent points at the
object. In fact, resolution distance , or what sometimes
called by critical distance, may be expressed by the
following relation according to Rayleigh criterion [11].
nsin
0.61

= (10)
Where is the wavelength, n is the medium refractive
index and is the semi angle aperture. The denominator
of equation (10) is called numerical aperture.
Equation (10) states that, the resolution enhanced as long
as the wavelength decreases and the numerical aperture
increases. But it is important to know there is a certain
limit to increasing numerical aperture due the effects of
spherical aberration and that concern with image
contrast. Furthermore can not be decreases to be out of
the optical region. Therefore, the optical microscope is
failed to view objects have radius less than 0.1m
approximately. This problem is overcome by invention of
the electron microscope. Accordingly the light source is
replaced by electron source and the glass lens is replaced
by electron lens.
Electron microscope characterized by its ability to
produce images of a high resolution comparing with its
counterpart in light microscope , due to the short
wavelength that associated with the electrons beam that
accelerated by a relativistic potential V
r
where it is well
known that.
r
V
1.5
= (11)
These equations reveal that as long as V
r
increased will
be decreased. For example at an acceleration voltage
60KV, the wavelength the electron beam being 10 times
less than the wavelength of the optical light [12]. Thus
with aid electron microscope, atomic structure could be
sighted and examined at higher voltages.
Considering the presents of spherical aberration in such
electron lens equation (2) may be written in the form
[13].
( )
1/4
3
s
C 0.7 = (12)
Thus, any electron optical instrument can provide a better
resolution whenever it has a lower spherical aberration
and uses higher accelerating voltages.
In the present work to calculate the scalar magnetic
potential, axial magnetic field, reconstructed polepiece,
the optical properties (Projecter and Objective) and other
any rquired result have been writen in Fortran power
station 90 language program. Therefore, figure 1
representing a block diagram to find single or double
imaging field, optical properties and pole shape.

Figure 1 The block diagram of the present work
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Only the influence of varying half of the half-width a on
the optical properties of the projector lens and hence the
reconstructed pole-pieces has been carried out when the
maximum peak value of the magnetic field distribution
B
max
(Tesla) and lens length L(millimeter) are fixed.

4.1 THE AXIAL MAGNETIC FIELD
DESTRIBUTION
For the values a=(1,2,3,4 and 5) (in unit millimeter), the
axial magnetic field distributions have been computed
and the resultant curves are plotted in figure 2. The
values of the B
max
(maximum peak value of magnetic
field) and lens length L are maintained fixed at 0.1(Tesla)
and 25mm respectively. It is clear that B
z
distribution get
wider as long as a value increased. Such behavior
indicates that lens excitation definitely increases as a
increased in consistence with Ampere' law. Consequently,
the magnetic scalar potential at the terminal of the optical
axis should increase too so as to satisfy the variation in NI
and hence V(z) values at the optical axis terminals as
shown in figure 3.

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Z(mm)
B
z (T
e
sla
)
a=1mm
a=2mm
a=3mm
a=4mm
a=5mm

Figure 2 The axial magnetic field distribution for
different values of a when B
max
=0.1(Tesla) and L=25mm



The pole-piece profiles that can produce each B
z

distribution, plot in figure 2, are shown in figure 4. It can
be seen that the consequences for increasing a lead to
decreasing the pole-face curvature and hence increasing
the air-gap width s and pole diameters D, these values of
pole diameter equal (4.9542, 9.4518, 13.7392, 17.896 and
21.6418)mm.
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Z(mm)
V
z(a
m
p
e
re
-tu
rn
)
a=1mm
a=2mm
a=3mm
a=4mm
a=5mm

Figure 3 The axial magnetic scalar potential distribution
for various values of a when B
max
=0.1(Tesla) and
L=25mm

0
5
10
15
20
25
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Z(mm)
R
p(
m
m
)
a=1mm
a=2mm
a=3mm
a=4mm
a=5mm

Figure 4 The upper left quarter of pole-pieces shape for
different values of a when B
max

4.2 OPTICAL PROPERTIES
The projector magnetic electron lenses suffer from radial
and spiral distortion. Thus, these two parameters in
addition to the projector focal length have been
investigated in this work. In practice, the optical
properties of the final projector lens in an electron
microscope column are very important. Usually, the
accelerated charged particles beam (electrons in the case
of magnetic lenses) leaves the final projector lens parallel
to the optical lens axis. Due to the symmetry of the axial
flux density distribution about the point of the maximum
flux density, zero and infinite magnification conditions
are equivalent to each other as well as low and high
magnification conditions. Therefore, in the present work
the projector properties of the symmetrical double pole-
piece magnetic lenses are computed under infinite
magnification condition using a program written in
Fortran software, i.e., these properties are of final
projector lens in TEM [14].
Variation of theradial D
r,
thespiral D
s
distortion coefficients and
theminimumprojector focal length (F
p
)
min
with theoptimization
parameter a is shown in figure5, thesevalues arecalculated at
theexcitation parameter of which theminimumprojector focal
length is occurred. Onecan seethat as a increases theminimum
projector focal length (F
p
)
min
increases as a result to the
broadening of themagnetic field distribution with increasing the
parameter a. However, it should benoted that thedistortion of
themagnetic lens decreases with increasing a, especially in the
values of a that less than 4mm, while for the values of the
parameter a approximately greater than 4mm, themagnetic lens
has very small amount of thesedistributions and approximately
arenot equal to each other [15].

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a(mm)
(F
p)m
in, (D
r, D
s)x
1
0 -1(m
m
-2)
(Fp)min
Dr
Ds

Figure 5 The radial D
r
(mm
-2
), the spiral D
s
(mm
-2
)
distortion coefficients at the minimum projector focal
length and the minimum projector focal
length(F
p)min
(mm) as a function of a(mm) when
B
max

The influence of the half half-width a on the objective
properties of the projector lens has been studied in this
work. It is important to mention that calculations are
executed at constant value of the optical axis length
L=25mm. The optical focal properties of the symmetrical
double pole-piece magnetic lenses have been determined
under infinite magnification condition. The spherical and
chromatic aberration coefficients with respect to the
image side are the two main defects for the objective lens
have been computed in the present investigation [14].
In the present work we are investigated objective
properties of the projector lens in two states. The first one
in the lens excitation parameter that gives minimum
projector focal length, the second one at the excitation
parameter NI/V
r
1/2
=20.
The variation of spherical and chromatic aberration
coefficients together with objective focal length at the
minimum projector focal length are plotted as a function
of a in figure 6. Clearly, it is seen that the objective focal
length F
o
increased with increasing half of the half-width
a, as well as C
s
and C
c
increase, but the values of them
very closely together and becomes more curvature
between the values of a (3.5-4.5)mm. Thus, the values of
the important objective focal properties of the projector
lens F
o
, C
s
and C
c
at values gives minimum projector
focal length for various values of the parameter a are
given in table 1.



0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a(mm)
(F
o , C
s , C
c )(m
m
)
Fo
Cs
Cc

Figure 6 The objective focal length F
o
and the aberration
coefficients C
s
and C
c
as a function of a at minimum
projector focal length (F
p
)
min
when B
max
=0.1(Tesla) and
L=25mm

Table 1: Some of the important parameters at different
values of a

a(mm)
F
p
(mm) C
s
(mm) C
c
(mm)
NI/Vr
1/2
1 1.46335 1.71418 1.62759 17
2 2.91627 3.11820 3.01175 16
3 4.33279 4.63310 4.52959 16
4 5.72186 6.16624 6.07542 16
5 7.05866 6.91024 6.93404 15

Figure 7 shows the disks of confusions for spherical d
Cs
,
chromatic d
Cc
aberrations and resolution limits of the
projector lens as a function of a. It is seen that the
increasing of a values will deteriorate the resolution limits
of the imaging magnetic field as a result of C
s
and C
c

increases and the values of dC
s
and dC
c
are more closed
together. Although, the values of d
Cs
and d
Cc
correspond
to the model under consideration is much more suitable
comparing with other system, see for example [16].
The variation of spherical aberration C
s
and chromatic
aberration C
c
coefficients and objective focal length F
o
of
the projector lens at the excitation parameter NI/V
r
1/2
=20
are plotted as a function of a in figure 8. Obviously, the
quality of the imaging field gets rise deterioration as long
as a has higher values. Thus, the values of F
o
, C
s
and C
c

of the projector lens at the excitation parameter
NI/V
r
1/2
=20 for various values of the parameter a are
given in table 2.

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
R
e
s
o
lu
tio
n
L
im
it x
1
0
3
(N
m
), (d
C
s , d
C
c )(m
m
)
a(mm)
dCs
dCc
Resolution Limit

Figure 7 The disks confusions for spherical d
Cs
,
chromatic d
Cc
aberrations and resolution limit as a
function of a when B
max

0
10
20
30
40
0 1.0668 2.1336 3.2004 4.2672 5.334
a(mm)
(F
o , C
s , C
c )(
m
m
)
Fo
Cs
Cc

Figure 8 The objective focal length F
o
and the aberration
coefficients C
s
and C
c
as a function of a at the excitation
parameter NI/V
r
1/2
=20 when B
max
=0.1(Tesla) and
L=25mm

Table 2: Values of F
o
, C
s
and C
c
at different values of a
a(mm)
NI/Vr
1/2
=20
F
p
(mm) C
s
(mm) C
c
(mm)
1 1.61660 3.255790 2.509680
2 3.33383 7.502980 5.432200
3 5.17280 13.30015 8.920370
4 7.16060 21.55729 13.18472
5 9.33236 33.79254 18.51891

Figure 9 shows the disks of confusions for spherical d
Cs
,
chromatic d
Cc
aberrations and resolution limits of the
projector lens at the excitation parameter NI/V
r
1/2
=20 . It
is seen that the increasing of a values will deteriorate the
resolution limits of the imaging magnetic field as a result
of C
s
and C
c
increases a and the values of dC
s
and dC
c
are
diverged together. Although, the values of d
Cs
and d
Cc

correspond to the model under consideration is much


more suitable comparing with other system, see for
example [16].

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
R
e
s
o
lu
tio
n
L
im
it x
1
0
2
(N
m
), (d
C
s , d
C
c )(m
m
)
a(mm)
dCs
dCc
Resolution Limit

Figure 9 The disks confusions for spherical d
Cs
,
chromatic d
Cc
aberrations and resolution limit as a
function of a at excitation parameter NI/V
r
1/2
=20 when
B
max

5. CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present work proved that he could note
some important results, most of these are concentrated is
it possible to calculate the objective properties of the
projector lens, the present investigation proved the
existence of substantial convergence and divergence in
the objective properties of the projector lens, within the
themes that have been studied.
References
[1] E.Plies "Electron Optics of Low-voltage electron
Beam Testing and Inspection, " Part I:
Simulation Tools,(Academic Press),1994.
[2] H. S. Hasan, ''A Computer Aided Designing Tools
for Electron Lenses,'' Ph.D. Thesis, the
University of Mustansiriyah, 2012, Baghdad, Iraq.
[3] H.N. Al-Obaidi, A. H. Al-Batat, H.H.
Warid,"Analytical synthesis of the symmetrical
Magnetic lenses," Journal of Basrah Researches
(Sciences),V(32), Part 3, pp.1-13,2006.
[4] A. H. Al-Batat, "A theoretical and
computational Investigation on magnetic lenses
synthesis, " Ph. D. Thesis, the University of
Mustansiriyah, 2001, Baghdad, Iraq.
[5] H. N. Al-Obaidi, "Determination of the design
of magnetic electron lenses operated under pre-
assigned magnification conditions," Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Baghdad, Iraq, 1995, Baghdad, Iraq.
[6] M. Szilagyi, "Electron and ion optics," Plenum
Press New York and London, 1988.
[7] R. F. Egerton, "Physical Principles of
Electron Microscopy," Springer, 2005,USA.
[8] M. Szilagyi, " Reconstruction of Electrodes and
Pole-pieces from Optimized Axial Field
Distributions of Electron and Ion Optical Systems, "
Appl. Phys. Lett., 45, pp.499-501,1984.
[9] A. B. El-Kareh, J .C . J. El-Kareh, "Electron
beams, lenses, and optics," (Academic Press), 1970.
[10] M. Kato, K. Tsuno, "Optimization of Electron
Lens Shape Giving Minimum Spherical
Aberration Coefficient, " IEEE Transaction on
Magnetic, V(26), pp.1023-1025, 1990.
[11] P.W. Hawkes, ''Magnetic Electron Lenses, ''
(Springer-Verlag, Brlin), 1982.
[12] A.W. Agar, R. H. Alderson, D. Chescoe,'' Principles
and Practice of Electron Microscope Operation, ''
North Holland, 1974.
[13] M. Benjamin, Siegel, "Modern Developments
in Electron Microscopy ," (Academic Press: New
York and London), 1964.
[14] A. KH. Al-Kadumi, '' Computer- Aided- Design
of Optimized Magnetic Electron Lenses,'' M.Sc.
Thesis. the University of Mustansiriyah, 200,
Baghdad, Iraq.
[15] M.J.Yaseen, ''Projector Properties of the Magnetic
Lens Depending on Some Physical and
Geometrical Parameters,'' Journal of (IJAIEM),V(2),
Issue 9,pp.195- 202, September 2013.
[16] M. Calvo, " Optical Resolution of a Time-
Dependent Aberration-less Magnetic Lenses,"
Ultra-microscopy, V(99) , pp.179-187,2004.

The Objective Properties of The Projector Magnetic Lenses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Objective Properties of The Projector Magnetic Lenses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of EmergingTrends & Technology in Computer Science(IJETTCS)

Web Site: www.ijettcs.org Email: editor@ijettcs.org, editorijettcs@gmail.com

' ' + '

are two linearly independent solutions of

You might also like