05- 1

Simulação de trajetórias de elétrons:

aplicação à tolerância nas voltagens do
analisador La Trobe

Aluna: Carla Azimonte

Orientador.: A Rubens B de Castro
 05- 2

Resumo
Este trabalho teve como objetivo o estudo das variações toleráveis das voltagens dos
eletrodos do analisador toroidal de partículas da Universidade La Trobe, Melbourme,
Austrália, utilizando para isto o programa de simulação SimIon.
Este estudo foi realizado com medidas e análise dos valores obtidos das variações da
posição do feixe de partículas no plano focal, variando-se um eletrodo de cada vez.
Neste relatório será feita uma breve apresentação do programa SimIon, serão
expostos os resultados e a análise dos dados obtidos.

Introdução
O analisador de energia de foto-elétrons projetado em La Trobe, Austráliai em sua
versão II, a ser testada em BESSY II, Alemanha no 1O semestre de 2003, é um
equipamento de grande porte, conforme é mostrado na fig1, para obtenção de espectros
de foto-emissão com alta resolução em energia (E/∆E~5000) e em ângulo (θ/∆θ~7000),
com detecção simultânea de uma faixa de energias e de ângulos.
Essa técnica acelera enormemente o processo de aquisição de dados, isso é útil
tendo em vista que o tempo de coleta dos dados é extremamente importante, por
exemplo, quando estuda se as propriedades de uma superfície a qual pode vir a ser
contaminada, prejudicando a analise dos resultados.
Esse equipamento inclui eletrodos para retardamento/focalização dos foto-elétrons e
eletrodos para dispersão em energia, onde a resolução depende criticamente das tensões
elétricas aplicadas nos 11 eletrodos que constituem o aparelho.
Neste trabalho, procuramos determinar tolerâncias para essas tensões utilizando o
programa SimIonii o qual é hoje distribuído por uma firma comercial,mas originalmente
escrito em La Trobe.
O SimIon utiliza as equações de Laplace para calcular numericamente o campo
elétrico, ao qual a partícula é sujeita, entre eletrodos metálicos do analisador.
O programa encontra as trajetórias das partículas dadas suas energias, e utiliza os
eletrodos como condição de contorno das equações de Laplace, assumindo que não há
cargas espaciais. Com isso é possível verificar a posição exata onde a partícula ou o
feixe se chocou com o plano focal.
A partir de um trabalho já feito para otimização das voltagens onde foram obtidas
imagens mais nítidas, iremos determinar que erros podem ser tolerados nas fontes
práticas que serão usadas para polarizar os eletrodos e as lentes eletrostáticas do
analisador La Trobe. Obteremos essas tolerâncias utilizando as simulações do SimIon,
variando ligeiramente as voltagens, e observando as alterações na posição e tamanho da
mancha formada pelas partículas ao se chocarem com o plano focal.
 05- 3

fig1:Analyser La Trobe

Dados e análise
Utilizamos uma tabela com os valores ideais das posições do feixe de fotoelétrons
para um certo conjunto de valores dos eletrodos.
Segue abaixo o conjunto de valores dos eletrodos para um conjunto de fotoelétrons
com energia cinética igual a 5,1eV e energia de passagem 5eV e os gráficos referentes
aos dados obtidos.
V1= 0eV
V2= -25.9eV
V3=V4=V7=0eV (constantes)
V5= -2eV
V6= 2eV
V8=18eV
V9= -9.03eV
V10=V11=200eV
 05- 4

variando V1 ( K=5.1eV; Ep=5eV) variando V2 ( K=5.1eV; Ep=5eV)

37.7 37.45
37.6
37.5 37.4 Y inferior

Y (mm)
Y (mm) Y inferior
37.4 37.35 Y superior
Y superior
37.3
37.2
Y medio 37.3 Y medio
37.1 37.25
37
-27 -26.5 -26 -25.5 -25
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
V1 (V) V2 (V)

variando V5 ( K=5.1eV; Ep=5eV) variando V6 ( K=5.1eV; Ep=5eV)

38 37.6
Y inferior 37.5 Y inferior
37.5
Y (mm)

Y (mm)
37.4
Y superior Y superior
37 37.3
Y medio 37.2 Y medio
36.5 37.1
-2.01 -2.005 -2 -1.995 -1.99 1.99 1.995 2 2.005 2.01
V5 (V) V6 (V)

variando V8 ( K=5.1eV; Ep=5eV) variando V9 ( K=5.1eV; Ep=5eV)

37.6 37.45
37.5 Y inferior 37.4 Y inferior
Y (mm)

Y (mm)

37.4 37.35
Y superior Y superior
37.3 37.3
37.2 Y medio 37.25 Y medio
37.1 37.2
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 -9.4 -9.2 -9 -8.8 -8.6
V8 (V) V9 (V)

Analisando o conjunto de gráficos acima, pudemos verificar a existência de uma

semelhança entre os gráficos de V1, V5 e V6 e também entre os gráficos de V2, V8 e
V9. Esta semelhança pode ser explicada tendo em vista o fato dos eletrodos 1, 5 e 6
serem utilizados para acelerar ou retardar e os eletrodos 2, 8 e 9 para focar o feixe de
partículas.
Fazendo a analise de cada gráfico separadamente e impondo a condição de que a
variação da posição do feixe no plano focal não exceda 20% de sua largura inicial,
pudemos calcular a tolerância máxima permitida para cada eletrodo.
A partir dos gráficos de V1, V5 e V6, obtivemos os valores –42.107mm/V,
74.016mm/V e -33.319mm/V respectivamente para as taxas de variação da posição do
feixe no plano focal. Os sinais negativos são utilizados apenas para saber se o feixe sobe
ou desce no plano focal.
Sabendo que a largura inicial do feixe é de 0.024mm, pode ser tolerada uma
variação de 4.8*10-3mm, o que equivalente a uma variação de 1.14*10-4eV, 6.48*10-5eV
e 1.44*10-4eV para V1, V5 e V6 respectivamente.
Utilizando a média entre as taxas das variações da posição do feixe e fazendo os
mesmos cálculos feitos anteriormente, obtivemos variações de 6.96*10-2eV, 3*10-2eV e
2.4*10-2eV para V2, V8 e V9 respectivamente.
 05- 5

Conclusão
Através dos estudos realizados sobre as variações das voltagens utilizadas no
analisador La Trobe pudemos verificar a tolerância máxima permitida para cada
eletrodo, dado um valor máximo permitido para a largura e/ou posição do feixe.
Ao analisarmos os gráficos obtidos pudemos verificar que o conjunto de lentes
utilizadas para foco admite um maior erro nas voltagens em relação aos conjuntos de
lentes aceleradoras ou retardadoras.
Pudemos também observar que as taxas de variações das posições dos feixes para
as lentes as quais antecedem as lentes aceleradoras ou retardadoras são negativos, quer
dizer o feixe move-se para baixo conforme aumentamos a voltagem.
O resultado obtido para a tolerância nas tensões do eletrodo retardador V1 e dos
toróides seletores de energia V5 e V6 deve ser comparado com a estimativa “ingênua”
∆E E 1
∆V ≅ ≅ , supondo um poder resolutivo máximo de 5000; para E=
e 5000 e
5eV, temos (∆V)ingênuo~1mV.
As simulações SimIon resultam em (∆V)SimIon~0.07mV para V5 e
aproximadamente 0.1mV para V1 e V6. As estimativas SimIon são, portanto, cerca de
uma ordem de grandeza mais restritivas que a estimativa “ingênua”.
Do ponto de vista prático, isso quer dizer que as fontes de alimentação de V1, V5
e V6 têm que ter uma estabilidade a “longo termo” melhor que 0.07mV durante a
duração máxima prevista para um experimento.
O ruído de “alta freqüência” também deve estar restrito a algo menor que 0.07mV
pico-a-pico, caso contrário, a “mancha” no plano focal será alargada e perderemos
resolução em energia.

Referencias

i
R Leckey, J D Riley and A Tadich, ‘The La Trobe 2000 energy analyzer: a brief overview of operation
considerations’, La Trobe Internal Report (2000)
ii
David A Dahl, “Simion 3D version 6.0 for windows: User’s Manual”.
Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 33, no. 3, September, 2003 1

Estimate of Control Voltage Tolerances

for a Photo-Electron Analyzer of Toroidal Design
C. Azimonte(1,2) , A. R. B. de Castro(1,2) , A. Tadich(3) , J. D. Riley(3) and R. C. G. Leckey(3)
(1)
Instituto de Fı́sica, UNICAMP, Caixa Postal 6165, Campinas, SP, 13083-970, Brasil
(2)
Laboratório Nacional de Luz Sı́ncrotron, Caixa Postal 6192, Campinas, SP, 13084-971, Brasil
(3)
Phys Dept, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Received on 5 March, 2003

We have run electron optics simulations and determined the tolerance in the control voltages of all elements (re-
tarding input lens, analyzer, accelerating exit lens) of the La Trobe University photoelectron analyzer, recently
redesigned to reach a spectral resolution of 5000, and which will be installed at LNLS (Campinas Brasil) and
BESSY II (Berlin, Germany).

1 Introduction which depend the chemical, pharmaceutical and petroleum

Photoelectron spectroscopy is an important analytical tech-
nique based on the photo-electric effect. When an atom is
illuminated with photons of sufficiently high frequency ω, a
bound electron of energy Ebinding can be promoted to a free-
state k above the ionization threshold, with kinetic energy
Efree = ~2 k 2 /2me = ~ω - Ebinding . Since, for a given
ω, there are in general many different core and valence le-
vels with Ebinding < ~ω, one gets, from an energy analysis
of the emitted photo-electrons, important information about
the core and valence level positions and the density of states.
There is ample literature covering the principles, instrumen-
tation and “classical” analytical applications of photoelec-
tron spectroscopy [1].
Further applications ensue in solid state physics and ma-
terials science. If, instead of a single atom, one considers a
solid sample, then the exciting light might penetrate a few
hundred atomic layers beneath the surface. The photoelec-
trons from deep layers, however, may interact strongly with
the host crystal, suffer inelastic scattering and lose most of
their kinetic energy before reaching the solid/vacuum inter-
face. Only electrons emitted close to the surface make it to
the vacuum outside and to the electron analyzer without un-
dergoing inelastic scattering. The probability of escape is a
sensitive function of the photoelectron initial kinetic energy.
In this way, it is possible to contrive experimental condi-
tions such that only photoelectrons from the surface layer
itself escape, which lends to the photoemission experiment
a unique surface-sensitive character.
The surface is of great fundamental interest because a
real crystal grows from a seed by accretion of atoms at the
surface; crystallization is a surface phenomenon.
In addition, it is of enormous technological interest, be-
cause the surface is the seat of all catalytic phenomena, on
industries.
Surface analysis is a very delicate business, because
clean, well characterized surfaces are difficult to prepare
and to keep for extended periods of time. Even in the
highest quality vacuum possible with current technology
(say, 10−11 mbar pressure with mainly H as residual gas)
a clean surface becomes contaminated with adventicious re-
sidual atoms and molecules in a few hours. It is, therefore,
mandatory to complete the photoelectron data gathering in a
shorter time.
The photoelectron detection rate depends on many pa-
rameters, including energy and angle resolution of the elec-
tron energy analyzer, cross-section for photoemission of the
particular chemical species under study, frequency intensity
and polarization of the photon-source, etc, but it is usually
much lower than desirable.
There is a constant striving to get more and more intense
photon sources - the state of the art today is to use undulator
radiation from a low emittance synchrotron source [2,3].
On the opposite end of the chain, parallel detection of
photoelectrons in an extended angular and energy range is
obviously a desirable and efficient way of gathering data.
Many different schemes of parallel detection have been
proposed and demonstrated [4]. Here, we are interested in
the toroidal analyzer designed at La Trobe University, Mel-
bourne, Australia. This device was described several years
ago [5], and a new version with much improved spectral and
angular resolution has been designed recently and is schedu-
led for tests at the 3rd generation synchrotron light facility
BESSY II (Berlin, Germany) in the first semester of 2003,
and also for installation at LNLS and elsewhere in the near
future. The optimum control electronics for this detector is
still under discussion in what concerns cost/performance ra-
tio, and this is the subject of this paper.
2 C. Azimonte et al.
Figure 1 shows a photograph, and Fig. 2 a cross-section
of the analyzer, which has cylindrical symmetry about the
vertical axis. Electrodes 1 2 3 belong to an entrance retar-
ding lens. They focus a beam of photo-emitted electrons
covering a zenithal angle interval ∆Θ, coming from a sam-
ple placed on axis. This focusing is done independently
and simultaneously for all azimuthal angles 0 < Φ < π
of emission from the sample. The analyzer proper is a pair
of concentric toroids kept at different electric potentials. An
almost radial electric field exists in the region between the
toroids, which deflects the electrons. The total deflection
at the exit of the toroidal section is roughly proportional to
−1/2
the time-of-flight, i.e, to Ekinetic . An approximate analytical
model of the fields in the toroidal section has been given by
the La Trobe team [6]. An accelerating exit lens boosts the
kinetic energy of the analyzer output (for more efficient ge-
neration of secondary electrons) and refocus it on a Micro-
channel electron multiplier plate. The intensified electron
cloud then falls on a fluorescent screen. The visible light
emitted by each pixel is read out by a CCD camera and gi-
ves the number of detected photoelectrons in a range ∆E of
energy and ∆Θ ∆Φ of zenithal and azimuthal angles. This
image, with about 4 106 pixels 20x20 µm2 each, is stored
on disk for further off-line analysis.
Figure 1. Photograph of the La Trobe photoelectron toroidal
analyser.
Fig2
Figure 2. Cross-section of the La Trobe photelectron toroidal
analyser.
2 Methods
The effects of fluctuations (noise) on the electrical voltages
of the eleven control electrodes are vastly different, depen-
ding on function and position of the electrode.
The cost of a power supply increases steeply as one tries
to reduce the noise. It is, therefore, of critical interest to de-
termine the largest tolerance the power supplies might admit
for a (small) given loss in the optimum ideal performance.
We took as ideal starting point the spectral resolving power
of 5000, limited by aberrations in the electron optics, and
the voltages prescribed by Tadich, Riley and Leckey [7],
making an allowance of 20 % increase or displacement in
the focal spot. We then found the permissible tolerance for
the voltage of each electrode under a variety of conditions.
The electron spot size and position in the detector plane
were studied with the commercial program SimIon [8]. This
program, initialy developed at La Trobe University, then
sold to a private US company, calculates the potential V(r)
in the vacuum region between the electrodes using the po-
tentials given at the electrodes as boundary conditions. The
solution to the Laplace equation is found using a relaxation
technique, with various enhancements to speed up the con-
vergence of the method. Once the electric field -∇V(r) is
obtained, the equation of motion for each photoelectron with
given initial conditions is numerically solved and the trajec-
tory tracked till the electron strikes the MCP detector. In
order to reach acceptable accuracy, very small time incre-
ments have to be specified in the numerical solution of the
equation of motion, which leads to many weeks spent on
these simulations.
3 Results
It is possible to determine the effect of the variation of the
voltage on an electrode by holding all the other electrode
Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 33, no. 3, September, 2003 3

voltages constant and observing the changes in resolution It is interesting to observe that the tolerance is substantially
for changes in that electrode’s voltage. Fig. 5 than the naı̈ve estimate of ∆V1 /V1
smaller ≈ ∆E/E ≈
Figure 3 shows the effect of voltage changes in V1 . This 1/5000.
is the first element of the retarding entrance lens and has Maximum tolerance allowed to V1

the function of retarding the incoming electron to the kine-

tic energy of the central orbit in the toroidal analyzer, which

tolerance on voltage V1 (V)

is the pass energy of the analyzer. If the pass energy is kept 0.01

fixed and the electron kinetic energy is varied, we expect the

radius of curvature of the trajectory to change (increasing
for larger energies, being reduced for lower energies) and the 1E-3 Ep=5eV
Ep=10eV
edges of the focal spot to move radially on the MCP detector, Ep=20eV
Ep=50eV
in a fashion approximatelly linear with changes in the kine- Ep=100eV

tic energy. This is clearly seen in the figure, from which one 1E-4

can also extract a linear deviation coefficient dr/dV1 ≈ 10 100 1000

Fig3. Photoelectron energy (eV)

-42 mm/V. Then one finds the voltage tolerance ∆V1 by re-
Figure 5. Tolerance on the voltage applied to electrode V1 in order
quiring that ∆r be at most 20% of the optimum spot size.
to have a loss in spectral resolution not exceeding 20%, as a func-
changing the voltage V1 ( K=5.1eV; Ep=5eV) tion of incoming electron kinetic energy, for various pass energies.
37.6 This is a retarding electrode.

37.5 The value of the focusing element V2 voltage is not criti-

cal, requiring a power supply with a precision of only a few
37.4
percent.
R (mm)

Y upper
37.3
Y lower
V5 and V6 are the analyzer toroids. For low kinetic
Y average energy, the required precision is high, being about 8 10−5
37.2
V6 , again much tighter than the naı̈ve 1/5000. This is shown
37.1 on Figure 7.
The focusing electrode V8 in the exit lens is also very
37.0
-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 undemanding, a precision of a few percent is satisfactory, as
V1 (V) shown in Figure 6 (open symbols).
Figure 3. Dependence of the position of the focal spot on the vol- The electrode V9 needs a precision of roughly 1 part in
Fig6.
tage applied to electrode V1 . “Upper” and “Lower” refer to the 1000 in the worst case, see Figure 6 (full symbols).
radial edges of the electron focal spot, while “Average” refers to
the estimated radial position of the centroid. Maximum tolerance allowed:
10 V9 (full symbols)
V8 (open symbols)
Figure 4 shows the effect of voltage changes in V2 . This
tolerance on voltages (V)

is the “focusing” element of the retarding entrance lens. As

the voltage departs from the optimum value, the spot increa-
1
ses in size, without significant radial motion of its centroid,
as expected.
Fig4
Here, again, the voltage tolerance is chosen to
be that ∆V2 which increases the spot size by 20%. Ep=5eV
Ep=10eV
0.1
Ep=20eV
changing the voltage V2 ( K=5.1eV; Ep=5eV)
Y upper
Ep=50eV
37.40
Y lower Ep=100eV
37.39
Y average
37.38
10 100 1000
37.37
37.36 Photeletron energy (eV)
37.35
Figure 6. Open symbols: tolerance on the voltage applied to elec-
R (mm)

37.34
37.33
37.32
trode V8 in order to have a loss in spectral resolution not exceeding
37.31 20%, as a function of incoming electron kinetic energy, for various
37.30
pass energies. Full symbols: tolerance on the voltage applied to
37.29
37.28 electrode V9. These are focussing electrodes in the exit lens.
37.27
-26.6 -26.4 -26.2 -26.0 -25.8 -25.6 -25.4 -25.2
Finally, voltage fluctuations on the equipotential electro-
V2 (V)
des V10 and V11 (the last one is the MCD detector surface)
Figure 4. Dependence of the focal spot size on the voltage applied have very small effects.
to electrode V2 . “Upper” and “Lower” refer to the radial edges
In this analysis we ignored the azimuthal focusing be-
of the electron focal spot, while “Average” refers to the estimated
radial position of the centroid.
cause this has no effect on radial focusing and only a small
effect on the azimuthal angular resolution that is usually not
Figure 5 shows the tolerance on voltage V1 as a function critical. In fact, binning of azimuthal pixels is routinely used
of incoming photoelectron energy, for various pass energies. to speed up the data transfer between CCD camera and the
4 C. Azimonte et al.

control
Fig7. computer, and to reduce the volume of data stored that, contrary to naı̈ve expectation, the precision required on
and treated. the energy selecting electrodes is much finer than ∆E/E ≈
1/5000, the maximum spectral resolution allowed by aberra-
Maximum tolerance allowed: tions of the electron optics, which is roughly consistent with
V5 ( full symbols)
V6 (open symbols) the spatial resolution dictated by MCD size, and the CCD
0.01 camera number (4 106 ) and size of pixels.
tolerance on voltage (V)

1E-3
References
Ep=5eV
Ep=10eV
Ep=20eV
[1] Electron spectroscopy: Theory, Techniques and Applications,
Ep=50eV ed. C R Brundle and A D Baker, Academic Press, New York
Ep=100eV
1E-4 (1977).
[2] See the web pages of institutions such as BESSY II in Ber-
10 100 1000
Photeletron energy (eV)
lin, Germany (www.bessy.de) and Sincrotrone Trieste, Tri-
este, Italia (www.elettra.trieste.it), for instance.
Figure 7. Tolerance on the voltage applied to electrode V5 (full
[3] A. R. B. de Castro, Physicae 2, 31 (2001).
symbols) and electrode V6 (open symbols) in order to have a loss
in spectral resolution not exceeding 20%, as a function of inco- [4] D. Roy and D. Tremblay, Rep. Prog. Phys. 53, 1621 (1990).
ming electron kinetic energy, for various pass energies. These are [5] R. C. G. Leckey, J. D. Riley, and A. Stampfl, Journal of Electr
the toroidal energy-dispersive electrodes. Spectr and Rel Phenom, 52, 855 (1990).
[6] F. Toffoletto, R. C. G. Leckey, and J. D. Riley, Nucl Instrum
and Meth in Phys Res, B12, 282 (1985).
4 Conclusions [7] “The La Trobe 2000 Energy analyser: a brief overview of
operational considerations”, A. Tadich, J. D. Riley, and R. C.
We have run computer simulations of the electron trajecto- G. Leckey, La Trobe Univ Internal Report (2000).
ries in a complex photoelectron analyzer of toroidal geome-
[8] SimIon 3D version 6.0 for Windows – Manual, David A Dahl,
try with input and output lenses, in order to establish tole- Princeton Electronic Systems, Inc (1999).
rances for the control voltages of the electrodes. We find