Copyright © by Nicholas Byrnes 2018

All Rights Reserved

 STUDY OF ALUMINUM USING COINCIDENCE

DOPPLER BROADENING SPECTROSCOPY

by

NICHOLAS BYRNES

Presented to the Faculty of the Honors College of

The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

HONORS BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PHYSICS

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON

May 2018
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I’d like to give special thanks and acknowledgments to the Honors College for

affording and providing me with the opportunity to present this paper, as well as my

research presentation, with specific thanks to Bobby Brown for all of the time and

consideration she has given to helping me graduate in a timely fashion.

I’d also like to give thanks to my research team: To Dr. Ali Koymen and Dr. Alex

Weiss for providing me with the chance to work under them as well as Alex Fairchild,

Randall Gladen and Varghese Chirayath for teaching me how to conduct my research.

May 01, 2018

iii
 ABSTRACT

STUDY OF ALUMINUM USING COINCIDENCE

DOPPLER BROADENING SPECTROSCOPY

Nicholas Byrnes, B.S. Physics

The University of Texas at Arlington, 2018

Faculty Mentor: Ali Koymen

Aluminum is an easily oxidized metal that can provide some valuable insight to the

nature of positron-electron annihilation. In order to circumvent accidental analysis of the

aluminum-oxide surface layer, our aluminum sample was first biased to 20 kilovolts,

allowing the positrons to penetrate the surface layer and annihilate within the bulk of the

aluminum, then later biased to 200 volts to display the broadened spectrum in the presence

of Al2O3. The results we gathered will allow us to compare pre-existing data to that

collected by RS Brusa, who used aluminum as a standard in all of his Doppler-Broadened

measurements. By comparing our results with Brusa’s, we can confirm that our recently

completed positron beam apparatus is functioning properly. This also allows us to better

compare Copper and Graphene data previously collected with measurements available in

the literature. This information will allow for further research into the topic of positron-

iv
 electron annihilation in aluminum, such as possible correlations between plasmons

and positronium formation.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... ix

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Positrons................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Antimatter Fundamentals ................................................................ 1

1.1.1.1 Annihilation ........................................................................ 2

1.1.2 Properties of the Positron ................................................................ 2

1.1.2.1 Positronium ......................................................................... 2

1.2 Positron Beam Apparatus ........................................................................ 3

1.2.1 Beam Components .......................................................................... 4

1.2.1.1 Sodium-22 Source............................................................... 4

1.2.1.2 Rare Gas Moderator ............................................................ 4

1.2.1.3 E×B Plates ........................................................................... 5

1.2.1.4 Micro Channel Plate ........................................................... 6

1.2.1.5 Time of Flight Tube ............................................................ 6

1.2.1.6 Helmholtz and Saddle Coils................................................ 6

1.2.1.7 Sample Chamber ................................................................. 7

1.2.2 Gamma Ray Detection .................................................................... 7

1.2.2.1 Sodium-iodide Detectors .................................................... 7

1.2.2.2 High Purity Germanium Detectors ..................................... 8

vi
 1.2.2 Signal Digitization .......................................................................... 8

2. DOPPLER BROADENING SPECTROSCOPY ........................................... 10

2.1 Gamma Doppler Shift .............................................................................. 10

2.1.1 Doppler Shift Calculations .............................................................. 10

2.2 Doppler Broadening Spectroscopy .......................................................... 11

2.2.1 S and W Parameters ........................................................................ 12

2.2.1.1 S-W Mapping

2.2.2 Ratio Curves.................................................................................... 13

2.3 Coincidence Doppler Broadening Spectroscopy ..................................... 13

3. DOPPLER-BROADENED SPECTRA DATA ............................................. 16

3.1 High Purity Germanium Detector Channel Number

Conversion ............................................................................................... 16

3.2 Sample Preparation and Characteristics.................................................. 16

3.3 Aluminum Doppler-Broadening ............................................................. 17

3.3.1 20 Kilovolt Sample Bias ................................................................. 17

3.3.1 200 volt Sample Bias ...................................................................... 18

3.4 Comparative Spectral Analysis ................................................................ 18

3.4.1 Electron Momentum and Gamma Energy Relation ........................ 18

4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 20

4.1 Systematic Issues ..................................................................................... 20

4.1.1 Signal Drift and Gain Shift ............................................................. 20

4.1.2 Oscilloscope Settings ...................................................................... 21

4.1.3 Background Radiation .................................................................... 21

vii
 4.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 22

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 23

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ......................................................................... 24

viii
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1.1 Positron beam apparatus ................................................................................ 3

1.2 Electronic schematic of positron and electron flight paths ............................ 5

2.1 A Doppler-broadened 511keV peak for perfect silicon. ................................ 10

2.2 Ratio curve of graphene/Copper line shapes at varying

positron energies to Copper line shape. ......................................................... 13

2.3 A side by side comparison of the aluminum gamma energy

spectra collected using a Coincident and a Non-coincident
detection setup vs. the area normalized counts for both spectra. ................... 14

3.1 A two-axis plot showing the ratio between channel number

for the High Purity Ge Detector and the collected photon’s energy.. ............ 17

3.2 The Doppler-Broadened 511keV peak for bulk Al biased

at 20kV sample bias ....................................................................................... 18

3.3 The Doppler-Broadened 511keV peak for Al/Al2O3

at 200V sample bias ....................................................................................... 19

3.4 Comparative graph of both the 200V and 20kV blue-shifted

portion of the 511keV peak for Al ................................................................. 20

ix
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Positrons

The key element and most integral part of this experiment, by far, is the use of

positrons. By using the recently completed positron beam here at the University of Texas

at Arlington, my team is developing novel and powerful spectroscopic techniques with

which we can analyze surfaces, both in more depth and at a better rate than done before.

These techniques rely heavily on a fundamental understanding of what a positron is and

how it works in relation to our experiment.

1.1.1 Antimatter Fundamentals

Positrons are a type of particle that fall under the group known as antiparticles. For

every particle in the known universe, there exists an antiparticle, which has identical

properties concerning its mass, spin, and the magnitude of its charge. An antiparticle differs

from its associated particle in terms of the sign of its charge. For electrons, their antiparticle

is the positron. This means that the positron is fundamentally identical to the electron in

every way but the sign of its charge: Where an electron has an associated negative charge,

a positron has an associated positive charge. Antimatter was first seriously proposed by

Dirac in 1928, who realized that both particles and antiparticles came about as a result of

his relativistic form of the Schrödinger Equation. Only four years later, Dirac’s theory

proved correct when Anderson discovered the positron.

1
 1.1.1.1 Annihilation

Whenever a particle and its associated antiparticle come into a close enough

proximity, each particle’s characteristic wavelength overlaps. When this overlap occurs,

both particles are immediately annihilated. Annihilation between a particle and an

antiparticle is a perfectly efficient conversion of matter to energy, with one-hundred

percent of the annihilated masses converting to energy in the form of a boson, primarily

photons. This mass conversion is one of the primary driving tools in our systems analytic

capabilities. We use positron-electron annihilations to produce gamma photons of specific

wavelength, which are then analyzed.

1.1.2 Properties of the Positron

Both positrons and electrons have a rest mass of 9.11×10-31 kg, or 511keV/c2.

Positrons also have a spin of 1/2 and a positive charge of 1.62×10-19 C. Positrons in our lab

are produced using a sodium-22 source through β+ decay. Upon annihilation with an

electron, where both particles have no momentum, the positron-electron annihilation will

produce two antiparallel and equal energy gamma photons at 511keV. However, when

these annihilations occur when one or both particles have an associated momentum, these

energies can be shifted slightly to either an increase or a decrease in energy due to the

Doppler Effect.

1.1.2.1 Positronium

While a large percentage of non-scattering positron-electron interactions result in

an almost immediate annihilation of both particles, depending on the relative motion of the

particles, they can fall into a bound state known as positronium. Positronium is a very

unstable hydrogenic particle consisting of a single positron and a single electron.

2
 Positronium falls into one of two categories depending on the relative spins of the

positron and the electron; ortho-positronium and para-positronium. Ortho-positronium

occurs when the electron and positron have parallel spin and has a mean life time of 142ns,

eventually decaying into three gamma photons. Para-positronium occurs when the positron

and electron have antiparallel spins and has a mean lifetime of 0.125ns, eventually

decaying into the prototypical antiparallel 511keV gamma photons. [1] For this experiment,

only para-positronium needs any consideration, and will be treated upon decay as a

standard annihilation process. Ortho-positronium is not generally considered, as its decay

time is relatively long and its triple-gamma photon decay process is not able to be well

detected with our apparatus. Instead it is primarily being treated as background radiation.

1.2 Positron Beam Apparatus

Figure 1.1: Positron beam apparatus

The Positron Beam Apparatus is the mechanism by which we produce and control

the flight paths, and subsequently annihilate our positrons. Positrons are produced via β+

3
decay in our Sodium-22 source and via electric and magnetic fields along the length of the

apparatus, where they will eventually be annihilated in a sample located within the sample

chamber. The entire apparatus is maintained at around 10-10 torr, during experimental

proceedings, and is constructed almost entirely from austenitic steel, which has the highest

corrosion resistance possible for steel. This beam was constructed with the intent of

conducting Positron Annihilation induced Auger Electron Spectroscopy (PAES) and

Doppler Broadening Spectroscopy, with works currently underway to develop a novel

spectroscopic technique known as Gamma-Auger Coincidence.

1.2.1 Beam Components

In order to understand how the beam works, we must consider the individual

components of the beam.

1.2.1.1 Sodium-22 Source

As mentioned previously, we use Sodium-22 (22Na) for our source. 22

Na is an

excellent choice for a β+ emitter, as it has a relatively low cost and an acceptable half-life

of approximately 2.6 years. Our 22Na source operates at approximately 100µCi. Our source

is sealed within a radiation blocking, lead shot container. The energy spectra of positrons

produced via β+ decay in 22

Na peaks at 178keV and has a maximum energy of 545keV.

These energies; however, are much too high for the types of analysis we perform, and the

range of energies produced via spontaneous decay vary far too greatly for consistent

results. [2]

1.2.1.2 Rare Gas Moderator

The rare gas moderator (RGM) is in place to slow down the positrons after they are

ejected from the source. Positron moderation is a process, which takes advantage of the

4
inelastic scattering of positrons as they travel through the moderator material and have their

kinetic energies reduced significantly. The positrons then go through one of three paths;

they go through a thermalisation process back to the opposite surface of the initial incident

positron and are ejected at an energy determine by an applied voltage to the moderator,

they fall into a potential well and are annihilated with electrons in the material, or they

form positronium within the moderator, ultimately annihilating. For our case, the only

result we concern ourselves with is the positrons reemitting as free particles back into the

beam system.[2] Our moderator specifically is a cylindrical neon moderator, where high

purity neon gas is cooled using a cold head to 6.8K, forming solid neon. Cylindrical solid

neon is one of the most efficient moderators available on the market, with a slow positron

reemission efficiency of approximately 0.70±.02% of positrons reemitted that were

initially produced.[3]

Figure 1.2: Electronic schematic of positron and electron flight paths

1.2.1.3 E×B Plates

The E×B plates, as shown in Fig. 1.2, are present to alter the positron and electron

flight paths. Because of the presence of electrical components, such as the micro channel

plate (MCP), a method of controlling the flight paths of the electrons and positrons was

developed by using a series of plates that manipulate the magnetic and electric fields within

the beam. The fields allow us to carefully control the directions of travel of both our

5
electrons and positrons. For our positrons, the first set of E×B plates direct the positrons

underneath the MCP, and then the second set direct the positrons back into alignment with

the primary axis of the beam. The initial E×B plates also serve as a rudimentary filter for

electrons produced at the source or within the RGM, preventing these Electrons from

interfering with data collection. The second pair of E×B plates also serve to bend the path

of the electrons produced at the source of the beam up towards the MCP for collection and

analysis.

1.2.1.4 Micro Channel Plate

The micro channel plate serves as our method for detecting electrons during PAES

and Gamma-Auger Coincidence Spectroscopy. However, for Coincidence Doppler

broadening spectroscopy, electron analysis is not needed.

1.2.1.5 Time of Flight Tube

The time of flight tube (TOF tube) is the primary length over which the positrons

are directed. It serves as the primary axis for the experiment and lines up such that the

center of the tube is directed towards our sample-holding plate. For electron experiments,

the TOF tube also serves as a timing mechanism for determining the energies of electrons

produced at the sample. The TOF tube is biased to apply a retarding field to the positrons

and electrons in the tube.

1.2.1.6 Helmholtz and Saddle Coils

Around the exterior of the entire beam is a system of Helmholtz and saddle coils.

These coils produce a magnetic field, which is used to help align and steer the positron

beam down the axis of the TOF tube, and guide secondary electrons back through the TOF

tube towards the MCP.

6
 1.2.1.7 Sample Chamber

The sample chamber is, as the name suggests, where we hold the sample. The

sample is held on a sample plate held aloft by a five-axis control arm, allowing for us to

control the relative position of the sample. Attached on the rear side of the sample plate is

a strong permanent magnet, in our current case, samarium-cobalt. The magnet is there to

both slightly correct for any angle in the positron flight path as well as to parallelize any

outgoing electrons produced at the sample. The sample plate, during data collection, is in

contact with a rod hooked up to a high-voltage power supply through which a voltage is

applied to the sample. This sample voltage is the primary factor of the energetics of the

incoming positrons for this experiment, with voltages of 20,000V and 200V applied to the

sample. For comparison, the TOF tube and the moderator contribute less than 50eV to the

total energy of the incident positron. On the exterior of the sample chamber is where our

gamma radiation detectors are located, one on each side of the sample plate antiparallel to

one another.

1.2.2. Gamma Ray Detection

On either side of the sample chamber of our Positron beam apparatus is a gamma

ray detector. On one side is a sodium-iodide (NaI) detector, while on the other side is a

High Purity Germanium (HPGe) Detector. For Coincidence Doppler Broadening

Spectroscopy, both detectors are necessary for the analysis of gamma radiation produced

as a result of positron-electron annihilation.

1.2.2.1 Sodium-iodide Detectors

Sodium-iodide (NaI) detectors are a type of scintillating detector that use crystals

to emit light when they interact with gamma radiation. The intensity of this light is

7
proportional to the energy of the incident gamma ray. NaI detectors are superior to other

scintillating detectors in that they produce a very intense light as a response to the incident

gamma radiation, while also being easy synthesize into large crystals for maximum

efficiency. Scintillating detectors have excellent timing efficiency, allowing for very

accurate timing accounts for incoming gamma radiation. The drawback to scintillating

detectors is that their energy resolution is relatively inefficient, leading to inaccurate

measurements of the actual energies recorded. [6]

1.2.2.2 High Purity Germanium Detectors

High purity germanium (HPGe) detectors are a semiconductor based detector that

detect charge carriers produced in the detector when the gamma radiation deposits energy

into the material. HPGe detectors have the best energy resolution of any gamma detector,

allowing for very accurate readings for the energy of incident gamma rays. However, they

lack the accurate timing resolution of scintillating detectors, leading to an overall decrease

in the total of gamma rays counted. The HPGe detector requires that the apparatus be

extremely cold, so to handle this the system is constantly exposed to liquid nitrogen,

keeping the system at or below 77K. However, as the liquid nitrogen evaporates out of the

system, the temperature of the device increases and can cause signal drifts, skewing the

data. [6]

1.2.3 Signal Digitization

One of the most novel aspects of this beam is the digitization of all collected data.

Both of our gamma detectors, as well as the MCP, feed their signal through to a LeCroy

digital oscilloscope, which analyzes the pulses produced by our various detectors. This is

advantageous for several reason; it allows for input parameters to control what pulses are

8
accepted and what pulses are rejected, it instantly converts the pulses into digital channels

based on the input settings, and it allows for the simultaneous analysis of PAES and DBS

data, expediting the data collection process and allowing for greater control over what data

is collected.

9
 CHAPTER 2

DOPPLER BROADENING SPECTROSCOPY

2.1 Gamma Doppler Shift

As mentioned in Chapter 1, when an electron and a positron annihilate, it produces

two antiparallel 511keV gamma photons. However, this is only true if both particles are at

rest. If there is a momentum associated with either particle upon annihilation, there will be

a Doppler shift that applies to the photons, resulting in a red-shift or a blue shift depending

on the relative momentum of the particle or particles. For our experiment, the positrons are

almost exclusively at rest upon annihilation, having transferred their kinetic energy to

electrons in the material via inelastic scattering. However, the annihilating electron within

the material will still have momentum upon collision, resulting in a shift

2.1.1 Doppler Shift Calculations

For non-relativistic velocities of the annihilating particles, the equation to

determine Doppler Shift will be

𝑣
𝑓 = 𝑓0 [1 + ] (1)
𝑐

Where v is the velocity of the particle relative to the observer and can be positive or

negative, c is the speed of light and is always positive, f0 is the rest frequency, and f is the

observed frequency. For a gamma photon produced by an annihilation at rest, the energy

E0 of the photon is 511keV. For a given energy, the frequency is equal to the energy divided

by Planck’s constant, h; therefore, the Doppler shift formula can be written as

10
 𝑣 𝑣
𝐸 = 𝐸0 [1 + ] = 511𝑘𝑒𝑉 [1 + ] (2)
𝑐 𝑐

The total velocity of a given particle is only large enough to change the energy by up to a

few keV, and because the total distribution of directions the electrons are traveling is

random, the net result is a Gaussian distribution of charges with a peak at 511keV. This

distribution is responsible for the shape of the 511keV energy spectrum.

Figure 2.1: A Doppler broadened 511keV peak for perfect silicon [2]

2.2 Doppler Broadening Spectroscopy

Doppler Broadening Spectroscopy (DBS) is a spectroscopic technique that makes

use of the Doppler Shift of photons produced via moving particles. Though there are

several applications and methods of DBS, ours makes use of the motion of electrons during

positron-electron annihilation. DBS of these annihilations will generally result in a

spectrum very similar to Figure 2.1, but depending on the material being observed, this

shape can vary widely. This is due to the fact that positron annihilations typically occur at

different electron orbitals in different materials. The kinetic energy of the electrons in these

orbitals result in different levels of Doppler shift, either resulting in a narrowing of the peak

or a broadening of the peak. For my experiment, I initially applied 20,000eV to my

11
aluminum sample, allowing me to bypass the oxide layer on the surface and allowing

almost all annihilations to occur within the bulk of the material. This ensured that the only

material I was studying was aluminum, preventing any oxygen or carbon electrons from

annihilating within my sample. By analyzing specific portions of the 511keV peak, it

becomes easy to extrapolate information about the material being analyzed. Typically we

analyze two regions of the curve, which after normalizing with respect to the total area

underneath the peak, we denote as the S and W parameters.

2.2.1 S and W Parameters

In the analysis of materials using Doppler broadening, two primary parameters are

analyzed; the S-parameter and the W-parameter (figure 2.1). The S-parameter is

characterized by the area of the central, high intensity part of the peak profile divided by

the total area under the peak. The W-parameter is determined by analyzing a low intensity

region, again dividing by the total area under the peak. The S and W parameters are

indicative of the energies of the annihilating electrons and can be used to denote what

orbital the annihilating electron comes from. This technique can provide a powerful tool in

determining the relative locations of annihilation in the material based on the ratio of the

two materials. This techniques is known as S-W Mapping.[2]

2.2.1.1 S-W Mapping

S-W Mapping relies on the linearity of the S and W parameters. Because of the

linearity of these parameters, both parameters can be expressed respectively as:

𝑆 = ∑ 𝑆𝑖 𝑓𝑖 (3)
𝑖

𝑊 = ∑ 𝑊𝑖 𝑓𝑖 (4)
𝑖

12
The linearity of these functions is especially useful, as when the S parameter is plotted

against the W parameter for different Doppler profiles, it creates a series of points in the

resultant graphs. In regions where the profile-representative points form clusters or groups,

it becomes apparent that these are locations where the positrons are annihilating at different

implantation depths.[2]

2.2.2 Ratio Curves

When performing Doppler Broadening Spectroscopy, a crucial element to the

analysis of materials are ratio curves. Ratio curves are a ratio taken between the spectra of

a series of materials, possibly at varying energies, and a specific baseline material that acts

as a standard candle for these types of analyses. Previously at the University of Texas

Positron-Surface Laboratory group, we used copper as the material by which we analyzed

took ratio curves for other materials. However, the progenitor group of these types of

spectral curves, Brusa et al., used aluminum as a basis for their ratio curves. By analyzing

aluminum directly here, using our variable energy positron beam, we have a much more

direct method to compare our Doppler Broadened Spectra to those collected by Brusa, who

used a much more direct method of positron implantation. In our groups previous analysis

of copper, we studied how the ratio curve of a copper sample covered in a layer of graphene

compared to clean copper changes with increasing positron energy. As the energy of the

positron is increased, the ratio curve of the Gr/Cu sample shifts from resembling the

graphene ratio curve to the copper ratio curve, as shown in figure 2.2.

2.3 Coincidence Doppler Broadening Spectroscopy

Traditional Doppler Broadening Techniques, while a unique tool in the collection

of energy spectra, does suffer from complications; the primary being the collection of

13
 Copper ratio curve

Graphene Ratio Curve

Figure 2.2: Ratio curve of graphene/Copper line shapes at varying positron

energies to clean copper line shape collected at the University
of Texas at Arlington Positron-Surface Lab

accidental background radiation. Despite these experiments taking place in primarily

ultra-high vacuum environments (10-10 torr), there are still many sources of radiation that

can contribute to the background when analyzing the 511keV Doppler peak, such as

Compton radiation and photons produced during ortho-positronium decay. To circumvent

this issue, a mechanism known as Coincidence Doppler Broadening Spectroscopy was

developed. This technique relies on the coincident collection of the anti-parallel

production of gamma photons during a positron-electron annihilation. By positioning two

gamma detectors opposite either side of the sample, and gating the machines such that

they only collect a signal when both detectors detect a photon simultaneously, the peak to

background ratio can be improved dramatically, as well as a significant improvement to

the energy resolution. [2], [4]

As stated before, for our analysis of aluminum, the detectors used were a sodium-iodide

(NaI) scintillating detector and a high purity germanium (HPGe) detector. For my

14
coincident analysis of Aluminum, the NaI detector controls the timing of the collection

while the HPGe detectors collects the energy spectrum. As can be seen in Figure 2.2, the

Coincident energy spectrum has both a tighter grouping and lower overall background

level compared to that of the non-coincident spectrum for aluminum, a result indicative

of the efficacy of this method.

Non-Coincident Coincident

0.025
Area Normalized Counts

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
511 513 515 517 519 521 523
Gamma Energy (keV)

Figure 2.3: A side by side comparison of the aluminum gamma energy spectra
collected using a coincident and a non-coincident detection setup vs.
the area normalized counts, collected at 20kV

15
 CHAPTER 3

DOPPLER-BROADENED SPECTRA DATA

3.1 High Purity Germanium Detector Channel Number Conversion

Upon a gamma photon being collected by our Germanium detector, it is not initially

measured in units of the energy of the incident photon. Due to the detection methods of

most gamma detectors, the energy of the photons are initially read as channels instead of

electron-volts. The first step in analyzing this data is performing an energy calibration of

the detector using a well-documented gamma radiation source. For our detectors’ energy

calibration, we use a barium-133 (133Ba) gamma source, which we then use to determine

which channels correspond to which energies. By taking the ratio of the known gamma
133
energies produced by the Ba to the energy levels where these peaks occur, we can

determine the energy spectrum for our collection run. The relationship between gamma

energy and channel number, as shown in Figure 3.1, is for every channel number there is

approximate gamma energy of 0.17294keV

3.2 Sample Preparation and Characteristics

For this experiment, I used a cylindrical sample of single-crystal aluminum(110)

that was allowed to form an oxide layer after an initial ion-sputter cleaning. I tested the

sample at 20,000V, allowing positrons to penetrate deep within the bulk of the sample, as

well as at 200V to analyze the material closer to the surface and observe the broadening

that occurs with aluminum and aluminum oxide. Aluminum, as we all know, is one of the

16
 GAMMA ENERGY (KEV)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
2500
2000
COUNTS

1500
1000
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
CHANNEL NUMBER

Figure 3.1: A three-axis plot showing the ratio between channel number for the High
Purity Ge Detector and the collected photon’s energy

most ubiquitous metals used in today’s society, ranging from industrial applications to

consumer goods. The thorough analysis of aluminum and how its internal and surface

characteristics work is extremely important industries that base themselves on aluminum,

and a more thorough analysis of positron-annihilation and positronium formation in

aluminum will allow for a much greater understanding of how these mechanisms operate.

3.3 Aluminum Doppler-Broadening

3.3.1 20 kilovolt Sample Bias

The first bias ran on the aluminum sample was 20kV, allowing for a vast majority

of positrons to annihilate within the bulk of the aluminum. Over the course of the sample

run, a total of 299,997 photons were collected, with a total of 53,822 falling underneath the

511keV energy peak. This produced a relatively broad, short peak (Figure 3.2) with an S-

parameter of 0.3321 and a W-parameter of 0.348106, with the S-W ratio falling at 0.95424.

This ratio represents that a majority of the annihilations occurring are resulting in gamma

photons Doppler-shifted away from the 511keV peak.

17
 0.032
0.028
AREA NORMALIZED
COUNTS 0.024
0.02
0.016
0.012
0.008
0.004
0
503 505 507 509 511 513 515 517 519
GAMMA ENERGY (KEV)

Figure 3.2: The Doppler-Broadened 511keV peak for bulk Al biased at 20kV sample bias

3.3.2 200 Volt Sample Bias

The next sample bias I analyzed was at 200V, allowing for the positrons to

annihilate at a much shallower depth in the material. This low depth allows for the

presence of oxygen to influence the Doppler-shift in the material. For the 200V sample

run, I also collected 299,997 gamma photons, though this time 116,709 of the counts

occurred underneath the 511keV peak. This produced a significantly narrower, taller peak

(Figure 3.3) with an S-parameter of 0.3864 and a W-parameter of 0.2722. The ratio

between these values is 1.4963, showing that appreciably more photons are being

produced with little to no Doppler-shift

3.4 Comparative Spectral Analysis

3.4.1 Electron Momentum and Gamma Energy Relation

When both the 20kV and the 200V data is analyzed in conjunction, the Broadening

effect that the various electron momenta can have on the annihilation-induced gamma

photons becomes readily apparent. Figure 3.4 shows the broadening effect both in terms of

energy as well as electron momentum. In terms of electron momentum, the 200V spectrum

18
 0.032
AREA NORMALIZED 0.028
COUNTS 0.024
0.02
0.016
0.012
0.008
0.004
0
503 505 507 509 511 513 515 517 519
GAMMA ENERGY (KEV)

Figure 3.3: The Doppler-Broadened 511keV peak for Al/Al2O3 at 200V sample bias

was produced primarily via low momentum electrons annihilating with the positrons, while

for the 20kV spectrum, the electron momentums were on average higher compared to the

overall distribution. It is these momenta that are responsible for the shifts in energy in

annihilation–induced gammas.

ELECTRON MOMENTUM (10-3m0c)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
0.032
AREA NORMALIZED

0.028
0.024
COUNTS

0.02 .2keV
0.016
20keV
0.012
0.008
0.004
0
511 512
513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520
GAMMA ENERGY (KEV)
Figure: 3.4: Comparative graph of both the 200V and 20kV high energy section of
the 511keV peak for Al.

19
 CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

4.1 Systematic Issues

Though preliminary results using our beam are system are promising, there are still

a series of systematic and technical issues that are preventing the beam from being

considered completely ready.

4.1.1 Signal Drift and Gain Shift

The first, and one of the biggest issues, is that because of signal drift over the course

of gamma collection, any peaks formed can be distorted and make the final data less

reliable. These gain shifts can be caused by a myriad of problems; ambient temperature

changes in the detector, gradual voltage changes, or changes in gain in any of the electrical

components comprising the detector.[6]

For our high purity Ge (HPGe) detector, this is especially problematic, as it is

liquid nitrogen cooled and is always is a constant state of warming up and being cooled

back down, often mid-collection run. The electronics involved in the HPGe detector are

also fairly complex, so there are multiple components, which could be causing gain shifts.

Because the sodium-iodide detector is only used for timing information and kept at room

temperature constantly, it manages to avoid these complications almost entirely for the

purpose of our experiment.

An example of a large signal drift that seems to have had an effect on this

experiment was between the 20kV sample run and the calibration/200V sample run. After

20
calibration, in order for the annihilation peak to occur at 511keV for the 20kV sample run,

the energy spectrum had to be manually shifted by 68keV to the left. To contrast this, the

200V peak only needed to be shifted by 2.6keV in the same direction for the peak to align

properly. This change in energy is not necessarily a one-to-one ratio, therefore while the

data can be analyzed when compensating for the shift in energy, there is a significant

chance that this is skewing the data. Though this does impact any current comparison we

could make to past literature, it does not prevent us from comparing samples collected with

the current system, just with the knowledge that these measurements will likely need to be

repeated after the beam apparatus has been improved. In order to develop ratio curves

comparable to that of Brusa et al., we will need to develop a spectrum stabilizer to ensure

that our data is corrected for any potential gain or signal shift.

4.1.2 Oscilloscope Settings

Though likely not a huge source of error, small changes might have been made to

the collection parameters of the digital oscilloscope during the collection of data. This

change could represent some of the issues for what signals were received, relative

background ratios, and other problems that are still being ironed out in the development of

this beam apparatus.

4.1.3 Background Radiation

Again, though likely not a major contributing factor, background radiation in the

detection process could have some unforeseen effects on the area normalized 511keV

peaks, though given the amount of background filtering going on, this effect should be

almost negligible.

21
 4.2 Conclusion

In conclusion, though the beam is functioning properly, I can say that there are still

many technical issues with the beam before it can be declared fully operational. The data

collected on aluminum does shine some light about the nature of electron annihilation

within the material, though the data likely needs to be repeated after errors in the system

are smoothed out. As of now, a true comparison to the work of Brusa is still not feasible

given the quality of the data we have collected, but the next steps are to construct a digital

spectrum stabilizer and continue onward with aluminum analysis.

22
 REFERENCES

[1] Martin Deutsch, "Evidence for the formation of positronium in gases," Physical

Review 82 (3), 455 (1951).

[2] Paul G. Coleman, Positron Beams and Their Applications, (World Scientific, 2000).

[3] A. P. Mills and E. M. Gullikson, "Solid neon moderator for producing slow

positrons," Appl.Phys.Lett. 49 (17), 1121-1123 (1986).

[4] K. G. Lynn et al., "Positron-annihilation momentum profiles in aluminum: core

contribution and the independent-particle model," Phys.Rev.Lett. 38 (5), 241 (1977).

[5] R. S. Brusa et al., "Doppler-broadening measurements of positron annihilation with

high-momentum electrons in pure elements," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in

Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 194 (4),

519-531 (2002).

[6] Glenn F. Knoll, Radiation detection and measurement, (John Wiley & Sons, 2010), .

23
 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Nicholas Byrnes began attending the University of Texas at Arlington in fall 2015

and graduated in spring 2018. Nicholas was a Presidential Merit Scholarship recipient and

originally intended on being a teacher after graduation, but after having realized that what

he really loved was the actual pursuit of science, he switched majors to a physics degree

plan. In the three years Nicholas was an undergraduate at the University of Texas at

Arlington, he has held three separate jobs in the Information Technology sector; working

as a Computer Technician for a non-profit, as a Learning Material Software Administrator,

and remotely as a Network Architect. In addition to this, Nicholas began a research position

in the Positron-Surface Laborotory under the guide of Dr. Alex Weiss and Dr. Ali Koymen

in late 2017, where he began working on the new variable energy positron beam apparatus

being constructed. After his graduation, Nicholas began researching at he University of

Texas at Arlington full-time while he started his graduate school application process, where

he intends to pursue a Ph.D. in Physics.

24