|
“Voidites in polycrystalline natural diamond”. Chen JH, Bernaerts D, Seo JW, Van Tendeloo G, Kagi H, Philosophical magazine letters 77, 135 (1998). http://doi.org/10.1080/095008398178561
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Electron microscopy for materials research (EMAT)
Impact Factor: 0.941
Times cited: 7
DOI: 10.1080/095008398178561
|
|
|
“Modification of the multislice method for calculating coherent STEM images”. Chen JH, van Dyck D, op de Beeck M, Broeckx J, van Landuyt J, Physica status solidi: A: applied research 150, 13 (1995). http://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.2211500103
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Electron microscopy for materials research (EMAT); Vision lab
Times cited: 5
DOI: 10.1002/pssa.2211500103
|
|
|
“Microstructure of tough polycrystalline natural diamond”. Chen JH, Van Tendeloo G, Journal of electron microscopy 48, 121 (1999). http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jmicro.a023658
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Electron microscopy for materials research (EMAT)
Impact Factor: 0.9
Times cited: 9
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jmicro.a023658
|
|
|
“Maximum likelihood estimation of structure parameters from high resolution electron microscopy images : part 2 : a practical example”. Van Aert S, den Dekker AJ, van den Bos A, van Dyck D, Chen JH, Ultramicroscopy 104, 107 (2005). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2005.03.002
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Electron microscopy for materials research (EMAT); Vision lab
Impact Factor: 2.843
Times cited: 37
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2005.03.002
|
|
|
“Linear versus non-linear structural information limit in high-resolution transmission electron microscopy”. Van Aert S, Chen JH, van Dyck D, Ultramicroscopy 110, 1404 (2010). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.07.001
Abstract: A widely used performance criterion in high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) is the information limit. It corresponds to the inverse of the maximum spatial object frequency that is linearly transmitted with sufficient intensity from the exit plane of the object to the image plane and is limited due to partial temporal coherence. In practice, the information limit is often measured from a diffractogram or from Young's fringes assuming a weak phase object scattering beyond the inverse of the information limit. However, for an aberration corrected electron microscope, with an information limit in the sub-angstrom range, weak phase objects are no longer applicable since they do not scatter sufficiently in this range. Therefore, one relies on more strongly scattering objects such as crystals of heavy atoms observed along a low index zone axis. In that case, dynamical scattering becomes important such that the non-linear and linear interaction may be equally important. The non-linear interaction may then set the experimental cut-off frequency observed in a diffractogram. The goal of this paper is to quantify both the linear and the non-linear information transfer in terms of closed form analytical expressions. Whereas the cut-off frequency set by the linear transfer can be directly related with the attainable resolution, information from the non-linear transfer can only be extracted using quantitative, model-based methods. In contrast to the historic definition of the information limit depending on microscope parameters only, the expressions derived in this paper explicitly incorporate their dependence on the structure parameters as well. In order to emphasize this dependence and to distinguish from the usual information limit, the expressions derived for the inverse cut-off frequencies will be referred to as the linear and non-linear structural information limit. The present findings confirm the well-known result that partial temporal coherence has different effects on the transfer of the linear and non-linear terms, such that the non-linear imaging contributions are damped less than the linear imaging contributions at high spatial frequencies. This will be important when coherent aberrations such as spherical aberration and defocus are reduced.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Electron microscopy for materials research (EMAT); Vision lab
Impact Factor: 2.843
Times cited: 6
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.07.001
|
|
|
“Computational comparisons between the conventional multislice method and the third-order multislice method for calculating high-energy electron diffraction and imaging”. Chen JH, van Dyck D, op de Beeck M, van Landuyt J, Ultramicroscopy 69, 219 (1997)
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Electron microscopy for materials research (EMAT); Vision lab
Impact Factor: 2.843
Times cited: 11
|
|