MSE 2241 Homework #9

1. (a) [1.5pts] You are working on an optical microscope that only has one objective. The
objective’s working distance (the distance between the sample and the objective aperture) is 2
mm, and the aperture itself has a diameter of 2 mm. Assume you are currently working with
pure red light (λ = 650 nm) and an air gap between your sample and the microscope objective
(refractive index μ = 1.0). Calculate the theoretical resolution (R) and depth of field (h) for
this setup.
Answer
The theoretical resolution (R) of an optical microscope is given by:
R = (0.61 x λ) / (N.A.)
where λ is the wavelength of the light used, and N.A. is the numerical aperture of the objective.
The numerical aperture is related to the diameter of the objective aperture (D) and the working
distance (WD) by:
N.A. = D / (2 x WD)
In this case, λ = 650 nm and the diameter of the aperture is 2 mm. We can convert this to meters
by dividing by 1000:
D = 2 mm / 1000 = 0.002 m
The working distance is given as 2 mm, which is also 0.002 m. Therefore, the numerical aperture
is:
N.A. = 0.002 m / (2 x 0.002 m) = 0.5
Substituting these values into the equation for R, we get:
R = (0.61 x 650 nm) / 0.5 = 793 nm
So, the theoretical resolution of this microscope setup is 793 nm.
The depth of field (h) is given by:
h = ± (λ / (2 x N.A.²))
Substituting the values we found, we get:
h = ± (650 nm / (2 x 0.5²)) = ±650 nm
Therefore, the depth of field of this microscope setup is ±650 nm.
(b) [1.0pt] Assuming that we don’t have any other objectives that we can use, what changes
might we make to improve the resolution? If we assume we can only use visible light, what is
the maximum (i.e., smallest) resolution possible with this setup? What is the resultant depth of
field at the maximal resolution setup?
Answer
To improve the resolution of the microscope with the single objective, we could try the
following:
1. Increase the numerical aperture (N.A.) of the objective by using a larger aperture or a
higher refractive index medium between the objective and the sample. This would
increase the resolving power of the objective and reduce the diffraction limit, improving
the resolution.
2. Decrease the wavelength of the light used. Since the resolution is inversely proportional
to the wavelength, using light with a shorter wavelength would improve the resolution.
However, in this case, assuming we can only use visible light with a maximum wavelength of
400-700 nm, and we cannot change the objective, the maximum resolution possible would be:
R = (0.61 x 400 nm) / 0.5 = 488 nm
This assumes that we are using the blue end of the visible spectrum (400 nm) and the highest
numerical aperture possible with the current objective (N.A. = 0.5).
The depth of field at the maximal resolution setup would be:
h = ± (400 nm / (2 x 0.5²)) = ±400 nm
Therefore, the depth of field would remain the same as before, but the resolution would improve
to 488 nm.
2. Consider the optical system below, which is set up to be exactly in focus (i.e., ignore depth of
field ranges) and is operating in air. Assume that the focal lengths (f) of lenses 1 and 2 are 10
mm and 1 mm, respectively. Further, assume that the distance between lens 1 and the
intermediate image is 20 mm and the distance between lens 2 and the final image is 250 mm.
(a) [1.0pts] Calculate the total magnification of the system.
Answer
To calculate the total magnification of the system, we can use the following formula:
Magnification = (-di / do)
where "di" is the distance between the intermediate image and the second lens, and "do" is the
distance between the first lens and the object.
From the given information, we can determine the distances "do" and "di" as follows:
Distance between object and first lens (do) = f1 = 10 mm
Distance between first lens and intermediate image = 20 mm
Distance between second lens and final image (di) = f2 = 1 mm
Distance between intermediate image and second lens = 250 mm - 20 mm = 230 mm
Now we can calculate the magnification of the first lens:
Magnification1 = (-20 mm / 10 mm) = -2x
And the magnification of the second lens:
Magnification2 = (-1 mm / 230 mm) = -0.0043x
The total magnification of the system is the product of the magnifications of each lens:
Total Magnification = Magnification1 x Magnification2
Total Magnification = (-2x) x (-0.0043x)
Total Magnification = 0.0086x
Therefore, the total magnification of the system is 0.0086x.
(b) [1.5pts] In most microscopes the physical opening in the metal tube at the end of the
objective lens serves as the limiting aperture. However, if no specific aperture exists, like in the
diagram above, one can consider the lens itself as an effective aperture — any light outside
the radius of the lens simply will not be captured, so it’s basically the same thing as blocking
it. Assuming that the diameter of lenses 1 and 2 are 5 mm and 10 mm, respectively, calculate
the numerical aperture (NA) of each of the lenses.
Answer
The numerical aperture (NA) of a lens is defined as:
NA = n x sin(α)
where n is the refractive index of the medium surrounding the lens (in this case, air with a
refractive index of 1.0), and α is half the angle of the cone of light that is accepted by the
lens.
To calculate α, we need to determine the maximum angle of light that can enter the lens. This
can be found by dividing the diameter of the lens by its focal length (f) to obtain the half-
angle:
α = arctan(d/2f)
where d is the diameter of the lens.
For lens 1:
d = 5 mm
f = 10 mm (given)
α = arctan (5/2*10) = 14.04 degrees
Using this value of α and n = 1.0, we can calculate the NA of lens 1:
NA1 = 1.0 x sin (14.04 degrees) = 0.245
For lens 2:
d = 10 mm
f = 1 mm (given)
α = arctan (10/2*1) = 78.69 degrees
Using this value of α and n = 1.0, we can calculate the NA of lens 2:
NA2 = 1.0 x sin (78.69 degrees) = 0.999
Therefore, the numerical aperture of lens 1 is 0.245 and the numerical aperture of lens 2 is
0.999.
(c) [1.0pts] Given your answer for part (b), and assuming no aberrations, which lens will most
restrict the ultimate diffraction limited resolution of the system? Give a quantitative
justification for your answer.
Answer
The ultimate diffraction-limited resolution of an optical system is limited by the numerical
aperture of the system. The smaller the numerical aperture, the worse the resolution will be. This
is because the numerical aperture determines the maximum angle at which light can enter the
lens, and thus the smallest feature that can be resolved.
From part (b), we know that the numerical aperture of lens 1 is 0.245 and the numerical aperture
of lens 2 is 0.999. Therefore, lens 1 will most restrict the ultimate diffraction limited resolution
of the system since it has a smaller numerical aperture.
We can also calculate the diffraction-limited resolution of each lens using the Rayleigh criterion,
which states that the minimum resolvable distance (d) between two-point sources is given by:
d = 1.22 x λ / NA
where λ is the wavelength of light and NA is the numerical aprture.
Assuming visible light with a wavelength of 550 nm, we can calculate the diffraction-limited
resolution for each lens:
 For lens 1: d1 = 1.22 x 550 nm / 0.245 = 27.5 μm
 For lens 2: d2 = 1.22 x 550 nm / 0.999 = 0.67 μm
Therefore, lens 1 has a larger minimum resolvable distance and thus worse resolution compared
to lens 2, which confirms our conclusion that lens 1 will most restrict the ultimate diffraction
limited resolution of the system.
3. Imagine you are performing some SEM measurements. Assume the display dimensions of
the computer monitor at your work state is 23 in × 13 in. You are scanning over a sample
region that is 24.0 μm × 13.5 μm, and the SEM accelerating voltage is set to 25 kV.
(a) [1.0pt] What is the wavelength of the electrons in the incident beam? Calculate this value
using both classical and relativistic velocities.
Answer
The classical formula for the wavelength of electrons is:
λ = h / (mv)
where λ is the wavelength, h is Planck's constant, m is the mass of the electron, and v is the
velocity of the electron.
Using the classical velocity formula:
v = sqrt (2qV / m)
where q is the elementary charge, V is the accelerating voltage, and m is the mass of the electron.
Plugging in the values for q, V, and m, we get:
v = sqrt (2 * 1.602 * 10^-19 C * 25,000 V / 9.109 * 10^-31 kg) = 1.639 * 10^8 m/s
Plugging in the values for h, m, and v, we get:
λ = h / (mv) = 6.626 * 10^-34 J s / (9.109 * 10^-31 kg * 1.639 * 10^8 m/s) = 3.964 * 10^-12 m =
3.964 nm
Using the relativistic velocity formula:
v = c * sqrt [1 - (mc^2 / (qV + m*c^2)) ^2]
where c is the speed of light.
Plugging in the values for q, V, m, and c, we get:
v = c * sqrt [1 - (9.109 * 10^-31 kg * (3 * 10^8 m/s) ^2 / (1.602 * 10^-19 C * 25,000 V + 9.109 *
10^-31 kg * (3 * 10^8 m/s) ^2)) ^2] = 1.641 * 10^8 m/s
Plugging in the values for h, m, and v, we get:
λ = h / (mv) = 6.626 * 10^-34 J s / (9.109 * 10^-31 kg * 1.641 * 10^8 m/s) = 3.944 * 10^-12 m =
3.944 nm
Therefore, the wavelength of the electrons in the incident beam is approximately 3.964 nm using
the classical velocity formula and 3.944 nm using the relativistic velocity formula.
(b) [1.0pt] Assume your SEM is using a W filament thermionic emission electron gun with a
brightness of 105 A/cm2. If you are imaging with a beam current of 0.1 nA and a convergence
half-angle of 0.1 rad, what is your diffraction-limited spot size (diameter)? With this in mind,
does the difference between classical and relativistic wavelengths matter?
Answer
The diffraction-limited spot size can be calculated using the formula:
δ = λ / sin(θ)
where δ is the spot size, λ is the wavelength of the electrons, and θ is the convergence half-angle.
Using the classical wavelength calculated earlier (λ = 3.964 nm), and the given convergence
half-angle (θ = 0.1 rad), we get:
δ = λ / sin(θ) = 3.964 nm / sin (0.1 rad) = 23.5 nm
Therefore, the diffraction-limited spot size is approximately 23.5 nm.
The difference between the classical and relativistic wavelengths does matter in some cases,
especially at higher accelerating voltages where the electrons have higher energies and
velocities. However, in this case, the difference between the two wavelengths is very small
(3.964 nm vs 3.944 nm), and therefore the difference in spot size would also be very small.
(c) [0.5pt] What is the effective magnification of your image given the noted monitor and
sample region sizes?
Answer
The effective magnification can be calculated using the formula:
m = (size of the sample region) / (size of the displayed image)
In this case, the size of the sample region is given as 24.0 μm × 13.5 μm, and the size of the
displayed image is given as 23 in × 13 in.
Converting the displayed image size to micrometers, we get:
23 in × 25.4 mm/in × 1000 μm/mm = 584,200 μm
13 in × 25.4 mm/in × 1000 μm/mm = 330,200 μm
Therefore, the size of the displayed image is 584,200 μm × 330,200 μm.
Plugging in the values, we get:
m = (24.0 μm × 13.5 μm) / (584,200 μm × 330,200 μm) = 9.49 × 10^-7
Therefore, the effective magnification of the image is approximately 9.49 × 10^-7.
(d) [0.5pt] What would you need to do to increase the magnification by 10x (i.e., multiplied by
10) using the same SEM and displays?
Answer
To increase the magnification by a factor of 10, you would need to reduce the size of the
displayed image by a factor of 10. This can be done by either reducing the size of the computer
monitor or by adjusting the SEM imaging system to produce a smaller scanned area.
Assuming that the size of the computer monitor cannot be changed, you would need to adjust the
SEM imaging system to scan a smaller area. One way to do this is to adjust the scan parameters,
such as the scan speed and the number of pixels in the scan area, to scan a smaller region.
Another way is to use a higher magnification objective lens, which would increase the
magnification of the image without changing the size of the scanned area.
In either case, it is important to ensure that the imaging system is properly calibrated and that the
image quality is maintained at the higher magnification. This may involve adjusting other
imaging parameters, such as the electron beam current and the contrast and brightness settings of
the display.
4. The electron backscatter yield coefficient (η), which is proportional to the image intensity, is almost
independent of accelerating voltage, and can be given by:

𝜂𝜂 = −0.0254 + 0.016𝑍𝑍 − 1.86 × 10−4𝑍𝑍2 + 8.3 × 10−7𝑍𝑍3

(a) [1.0pt] Assume you are imaging a sample that contains phase regions that consist of either mostly
Co or mostly Ni. Calculate the Z-contrast (i.e., the difference in signal intensities as related to atomic
number, Z) in a backscattered SEM image between such regions. Assuming you need a relative
contrast of at least 5%, will these different phases be resolvable (by Z-contrast) in the backscattered
image?

Answer
To calculate the Z-contrast between Co and Ni regions in a backscattered SEM image, we first
need to calculate the electron backscatter yield coefficient (η) for each element using the given
formula:
𝜂𝜂 = −0.0254 + 0.016𝑍𝑍 − 1.86 × 10−4𝑍𝑍2 + 8.3 × 10−7𝑍𝑍3
For Co (Z=27), 𝜂𝜂 = -0.0254 + 0.016(27) - 1.86 × 10^-4(27) ^2 + 8.3 × 10^-7(27) ^3 = 0.25
For Ni (Z=28), 𝜂𝜂 = -0.0254 + 0.016(28) - 1.86 × 10^-4(28) ^2 + 8.3 × 10^-7(28) ^3 = 0.26
Next, we need to calculate the relative difference in signal intensities between Co and Ni regions,
which is given by the contrast formula: (I2 – I1)/I1, where I1 and I2 are the intensities of the two
regions.
Let's assume that the intensities of the Co and Ni regions are I1 and I2, respectively. Then, the
contrast between the two regions is: contrast = (I2 – I1)/I1
For a practical contrast limit of 5%,
we need the contrast to be at least 0.05: 0.05 = (I2 – I1)/I1 I2 = 1.05I1
Now, we can use the electron backscatter yield coefficient (η) to calculate the expected signal
intensities for the Co and Ni regions: I_Co = I1 * 𝜂_Co I_Ni = I2 * 𝜂_Ni = (1.05I1) * 𝜂_Ni
The Z-contrast between the Co and Ni regions is then given by:
Z-contrast = (I_Ni - I_Co) / (I_Co + I_Ni) = [(1.05𝜂_Ni - 𝜂_Co) / (𝜂_Ni + 1.05𝜂_Co)]
Plugging in the values we calculated earlier,
we get:
Z-contrast = [(1.050.26 - 0.25) / (0.26 + 1.050.25)] = 0.035
Since the Z-contrast between the Co and Ni regions is less than the practical contrast limit of 5%,
these two phases will not be resolvable (by Z-contrast) in the backscattered image.

(b) [1.0pt] Now assume that the same sample also contains some precipitates that are mostly
Pt. Calculate the Z-contrast between these regions and those from part (a)? Will these be
resolvable in the backscatter image?
Answer
To calculate the Z-contrast between the Pt precipitates and the Co and Ni regions in the
backscattered SEM image, we first need to calculate the electron backscatter yield coefficient (η)
for Pt using the given formula:
𝜂𝜂 = −0.0254 + 0.016𝑍𝑍 − 1.86 × 10−4𝑍𝑍2 + 8.3 × 10−7𝑍𝑍3
For Pt (Z=78), 𝜂𝜂 = -0.0254 + 0.016(78) - 1.86 × 10^-4(78) ^2 + 8.3 × 10^-7(78) ^3 = 0.16
Next, we need to calculate the Z-contrast between the Pt precipitates and the Co and Ni regions.
Let's assume that the intensity of the Pt precipitates is I3.
The contrast between the Co/Ni and Pt regions is given by:
contrast = (I3 - I1)/I1
For a practical contrast limit of 5%,
we need the contrast to be at least 0.05: 0.05 = (I3 - I1)/I1 I3 = 1.05I1
Now, we can use the electron backscatter yield coefficient (η) to calculate the expected signal
intensities for the Co/Ni and Pt regions: I_Co/Ni = I1 * 𝜂_Co/Ni I_Pt = I3 * 𝜂_Pt = (1.05I1) *
𝜂_Pt
The Z-contrast between the Pt and Co/Ni regions is then given by:
Z-contrast = (I_Pt - I_Co/Ni) / (I_Co/Ni + I_Pt) = [(1.05𝜂_Pt - 𝜂_Co/Ni) / (𝜂_Pt + 1.05𝜂_Co/Ni)]
Plugging in the values we calculated earlier,
we get:
Z-contrast = [(1.050.16 - 0.25) / (0.16 + 1.050.25)] = -0.092
The negative Z-contrast indicates that the Pt precipitates will appear darker than the Co/Ni
regions in the backscattered SEM image. However, the absolute value of the Z-contrast is still
less than the practical contrast limit of 5%, which means that these regions will not be resolvable
in the backscattered image.