1 / 21

Laser Heating at 12.2.2

Laser Heating at 12.2.2. Description of simultaneous Laser Heating and XRD. Pt and NaCl. Sander Caldwell, Dylan Spaulding, Simon Clark. Description of Activity. Loaded DAC with small Pt foil, NaCl, and Ruby Increased P to 9 GPa at which point the gasket started to blowout

wynter-barton
Download Presentation

Laser Heating at 12.2.2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Laser Heating at 12.2.2 Description of simultaneous Laser Heating and XRD. Pt and NaCl. Sander Caldwell, Dylan Spaulding, Simon Clark

  2. Description of Activity • Loaded DAC with small Pt foil, NaCl, and Ruby • Increased P to 9 GPa at which point the gasket started to blowout • Put on ES2 and centered wrt beam and rotation center of goniometer. Did 2D diode scan (transmission of x-rays) to determine where the sample was • Took Preheat XRD (Pattern #5), confirmed that main XRD peak is from Pt • Did test heating and confirmed that alignment of heating optics was on Pt foil (both sides). • Next confirmed that the alignment of temperature optics (to spectrometer) was proper (meaning hotspot light centered on entrance slit) • Previous day had done Ne Calibration, aligned temperature optics on x-ray beam (hotspot on entrance slit), and took W-lamp calibration spectrum • Started heating from lowest laser power (10 amps) incrementally up to 25 amps. At each laser power took XRD of 100 secs and temperature spectra of 10 secs (at low power) to 0.1 secs at highest power.

  3. Aligning the temperature Optics Use the existing diffraction grating as mirrors (set them to 0 wavelength) and open slits fully 124 pixels 1024 pixels TransLight Image Taken with Leica 300 microns 122 pixels ~2.5micron/pixel ReflLight Put sample on x-ray beam and goniometer rotation center Adjust mirrors so that hotspot is centered on CCD. Close down slits and make sure that hotspot (slice thru hotspot) stays visible Refl&Trans

  4. Sample = Pt + NaCl + small Ruby Do a 2D diode scan to find Pt Damn! Gasket blowing out. Fortunate to catch it before hit edge of culet 9GPa

  5. Temp Analysis PtHeat7_Downstream Acquire spectra during heating and XRD

  6. Temp Analysis(MJW Matlab code) Is the peak temp really 5100? Hand analyze the center of the peak to check

  7. First look at Wlamp and System Response

  8. Wien Plot w/ W Lamp as Unknown

  9. Reciprocal of Derviative (=Temp) of Wien Plot yields discrimant for Temp measurement

  10. 1/(Deriv. of Wien) plotted vs wavelengthW Lamp

  11. Now look at the heating data (PtHeat7).Planck fit to PtHeat7DS

  12. Wien Fits to PtHeat7DS

  13. PtHeat7DS Wien plot, and smooth Wien plot, and (dJ/dw)-1.As you can see the deriv data is too noisy to be of use, even though the Wien data was smoothed before differentiating

  14. Summary of analysis • previous graph shows derivative of Wien plot. Because slope of Wien plot is proportional to 1/T, then plotting (WienDeriv)-1 should show the Temp as a function of wavelength (or normalized wavelength) and can be used as a test of the wavelength range used in fitting the Wien data. That is, a perfect Wien plot would yield a derivative plot that shows a constant value. In the above plot, there is obviously a problem for w > -19 • The Wien plots for real data are not linear over the full wavelength range. How to know which wavelength range to use? • Also, the Planck fits yield different temps depending upon the wavelength range. • At least the Wien and Planck fits yield similar values. And the values that I get by processing thru Igor are similar to MJW’s Matlab code. • In general, the temps need to be verified by some ambient pressure method.

  15. Now look at the results of testing Heating Temp vs Laser Power note: practically all avg hotspot temps above Pt Melt Temp (Tm)

  16. Heating Temp vs Laser Power

  17. Analyzing diffraction patterns of Pt linesJan25 Preheat5 Here we see the Pt lines 2.24, 1.94 Pt a 3.891+/- 0.002 Pt P 7.1 +/- 0.6 NaCl a 5.2942+/-0.0020 NaCl P 6.1 +/- 0.1 Ambient Temp

  18. Laser Power = 12 Amps • heating 7, lines still visible, but 1.94 appears to be getting smaller (is Pt starting to melt?) • Pt a = 3.889 +/-0.002 • NaCl a = 5.296 +/- 0.0013

  19. Laser Power = 25 Amps • heating 15, Pt lines at 1.94, 2.24 are gone. Are we still sampling an area where there is no Pt, or did it really melt??

  20. Pt Heat Summary • Main result is that there is huge scatter in temperatures, almost all temps are above Pt Tmelt, yet no melting was seen except for maybe #14 and 15 (Laser Power = 25 Amps) • Thus should pursue ambient pressure temperature validation before attempting high-pressure temperature validation (thermal expansion and melting)

  21. XRD Data Summary

More Related