![]() |
|||
On Focusing in 2-Dimensions | |||
Version 1.3 Why Osmic recommends the Confocal Max-Flux Optic |
|||
Summary Two-dimensional focusing is an important aspect of many x-ray analytical experiments. It is especially important when small samples are involved or localized features must be probed. Consequently two-dimensional focusing can advantageously be applied in fields as diverse as Protein Crystallography. Microcrystaline studies, High Pressure Single Crystal Diffractometry, SAXS, Micro-Fluorescence etc.. This document describes why we recommend using the Confocal Max-Flux (CMF) optic for such applications. After having read this document you should clearly understand why the CMF optic has 4 distinct advantages over other existing schemes. |
|||
|
|||
In order to
understand these advantages, we first discuss existing alternative schemes and how the
Confocal Max-Flux Optic differs from these approaches. We then describe how each advantage is a direct result of the shortcomings of the alternative systems. |
|||
![]() |
|||
Traditional Two-Dimensional Focusing | |||
Introduction In our view of the world there exists 3 mechanisms for manipulating x-ray above 4 Kev1. |
|||
|
|||
Early forms of
one-dimensional focusing were obtained by Crystal Diffraction, in presently well-known
geometries, such as Johann and Johansson. However, these techniques have not been
routinely employed for two-dimensional focusing in a laboratory environment. The other two mechanisms have been used extensively in two-dimensional focusing schemes such as |
|||
|
|||
The following text, will describe the first two in general. Then comparisons will be made to the Confocal Max-Flux Scheme. | |||
Kirkpatrick-Baez Total Reflection Scheme | |||
Total reflection at grazing angles was first used for two-dimensional focusing in the so-called Kirkpatrick-Baez geometry, where one reflector focuses in one dimension. Focusing in the second dimension is obtained by a second reflector further downstream, as seen in the figure below. | |||
![]() |
|||
Such optics found their way into Protein Crystallography and SAXS under the names of Supper Mirrors, and Franks Mirrors and Yale Mirrors. | |||
Cross-coupled Focusing Multilayer Scheme | |||
By substituting
total reflection coatings with appropriate laterally graded multilayers, one can use the
Kirkpatrick-Baez scheme for two-dimensional focusing with multilayers. The geometry
is thus exactly the same as shown above, except that the angles are a factor of 3 to 4
higher than previously. These kinds of systems have been available since the mid-90's, but have not become very common since the major instrument manufactures have tried to push the collimating versions. Our opinion is that for most applications where two-dimensional information, the focusing cross-coupled scheme is superior to the collimating cross-coupled scheme. This opinion will be expanded upon in an upcoming Osmic document. |
|||
Focusing with the Confocal Max-Flux Optic | |||
General Concept | |||
The Confocal Max-Flux Optic can essentially be described as a Multilayer-based Kirkpatrick-Baez Scheme with the reflectors positioned side-by-side. Both reflectors are part of the same block but are positioned at a 90º angle to each other. | |||
![]() |
|||
Optical Scheme | |||
The optical scheme of the Confocal Max-Flux Optic is similar to that of the Kirkpatrick-Baez scheme in that each reflector focuses the beam in one dimension only. However, the optical scheme is a bit more complicated in that, as shown below, the x-rays can arrive at the focus in two different ways: either by first reflecting from reflector 1 and afterwards from reflector 2 (yellow path) or the other way around (red path). In general, the width of the reflectors will be larger than required and consequently reflection will take place near the intersection of the two reflectors. | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Advantage #1: Ease of alignment | |||
Ease of alignment is
perhaps the most critical improvement of all, not only because it obviously makes initial
alignment and fine-tuning less time-consuming, but more importantly because systems that
are difficult to align are often not aligned correctly and thus can provide considerably
sub-standard performance. Three very important differences make Confocal Max-Flux Optics much easier to align than Total Reflection KB or Cross-coupled optics.
|
|||
|
|||
The problem of coupled parameters | |||
An additional problem with the KB and the Cross-coupled optical scheme is that the various degrees of freedom are actually coupled when the system is aligned well. For example, when the first optic is slightly rotated the beam exits the first optic at a different angle. Ideally, the second optic should be rotated and translated to intercept the new beam properly, as shown schematically below. | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Easily verifiable optimal alignment | |||
An advantage over specifically the Total Reflection Kirkpatrick-Baez scheme is that the Confocal Max-Flux uses Bragg-Reflection. Total reflection characteristically has equivalent throughput over a relatively wide angular range, while Bragg-Reflection provides a high throughput only in a very narrow angular range. Optimal alignment of the Confocal Max-Flux is verified when a small rotational adjustment produces a definite reduction in overall throughput. | |||
The Confocal Max-Flux maintains a horizontal beam | |||
Most sources used in
two-dimensional analysis provide a horizontal beam in the laboratory environment. As
clearly illustrated in the previous drawing, all the reflectors will change the direction
of the beam. For example, for a traditional total reflection Kirkpatrick-Baez
system, the first mirror could deflect the beam to the upwards, while the second reflector
would deflect the beam to right (see figure below). The resultant beam would
propagate upwards and to the right -a direction that is not particularly appropriate to
laboratory instrumentation. This consideration is the same for the Confocal Max-Flux. However, Osmic has chosen to solve this problem by rotating the optics by 45 degrees around the incident beam. As seen in the figure, this ensures that the total deflection is only in the horizontal plane. |
|||
![]() |
|||
Anecdotal evidence of the importance of simple alignment | |||
Our installation
experience, has shown that even though existing Kirkpatrick-Baez systems should be able to
deliver 20 - 40% of what the Confocal Max-Flux geometry does, in reality we see
anywhere from 7 - 40%. A large part of the research groups are simply not able to
align the Kirkpatrick-Baez system for optimal performance and consequently some systems
are underperforming by a factor of 3. With the above mentioned advantages in ease of alignment of the Confocal Max-Flux scheme this will not happen. |
|||
|
|||
Advantage #2: Monochromatization | |||
The second advantage of the multilayer is that it provides a degree of monochromatization that is appropriate for many laboratory instruments. The monochromatization is an intrinsic property of Bragg-Reflection, but as discussed below the fluorescence lines of the source also play a crucial part. | |||
Intrinsic Multilayer Bandwidth | |||
The theoretical
reflectivity of a typical multilayer can be seen in the figure below in red.
State-of-the-art multilayers provide roughly the same kind of peak height and width.
Peak reflectivity is above 80% and width of the peak (DE/E FWHM) is roughly 400ev or 5%. Also shown is the reflectivity of a total reflection coating (in this case Nickel) shown in blue. The broad high reflectivity of the total reflection mirror makes it clear that Total Reflection mirrors do not make good monochromators. |
|||
![]() |
|||
When combined with a laboratory source | |||
The graph above has
been chosen to illustrate what happens when multilayer optics and total reflection optics
are used together with laboratory sources. The explanation follows: Taking a typical Cu laboratory source, whose spectrum consists of Ka1, Ka2, Kb and bremstranhlung we observe the following: For the multilayer:
For the total reflection mirror of Ni:
The difference can clearly be seen in the figure below, which shows the relative spectra for 3 optical schemes3.
The lack of low-energy background and Kb - line is clearly seen in the Confocal Max-Flux Spectrum. |
|||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Advantage #3: Maximizing Flux | |||
Maximizing flux is
naturally a very important part of any optical scheme. Laboratory sources typically emit x-ray radiation in all directions. The closer the focusing optic can come to the source the more of that radiation can be collected and focused onto the sample or the detector, as seen in the figure below. The limiting factor in trying to get close to the source is often the housing of the source. However, for the second optic of the Kirkpatrick-Baez or Cross-coupled multilayer scheme, it is the housing PLUS the length of the first optic that is the limiting factor. All other things being equal, the second mirror will intercept less radiation than the first mirror. |
|||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Advantage #4: Symmetric beam | |||
The final major advantage of the Confocal Max-Flux optical scheme is that it is inherently completely symmetric with respect to the two independent focusing dimensions. Consequently, there is no difference in the convergence and focus size of the beam in the two dimensions. This is not so for the Kirkpatrick-Baez total reflection scheme and the Cross-coupled Multilayer scheme as illustrated in the following discussion. | |||
Focus Size | |||
The size of the
image, as in any focusing optical scheme, is essentially determined by the Law of
Magnification4,
which states that where P is the distance from the optic to the source of size S, and Q is the distance from the optic to the image of size I, as illustrated below: |
|||
![]() |
|||
From this equation it is clear that for two optics located at different distances from the source, the image cannot be the same size. Consequently both the Kirkpatrick-Baez and Cross-coupled multilayer foci will be asymmetric. | |||
|
|||
Asymmetric Convergence | |||
Clearly, in the general case the convergence from the Kirkpatrick-Baez reflectors and the Cross-coupled reflectors will differ in the two dimensions, since Q will differ for optic 1 and optic 2. | |||
Asymmetry in practice means losing flux or resolution | |||
Although the
asymmetry documented above may not seem alarming, the asymmetry actually reveals that the
asymmetric systems are not delivering optimum performances. An argument for this statement may be: Asymmetry essentially means that your system resolution differs in the two dimensions. Very rarely5 does your instrumentation take this asymmetry into account. In fact, the majority of instrumentation will most likely work with the worst resolution. Consequently you are not benefiting from the good resolution in the other direction, and might as well have traded the resolution in for higher flux. |
|||
Conclusion | |||
We have argued that
the Focusing Confocal Max-Flux optical scheme has several clear advantages over
alternative approaches, such as the Kirkpatrick-Baez Total Reflection Scheme or the
Cross-coupled multilayer scheme. These advantages appear from simple geometrical considerations and specific multilayer characteristics. These advantages have proven to be so significant that the Confocal Max-Flux Optics have become the de-facto standard, especially in Protein Crystallography at the Cu-Ka wavelength, and is beginning to gain acceptance in the fields of Small Angle X-ray Scattering and Microcrystaline diffractometry. So far only Cu-radiation versions have been available, but with development of multilayers for Cr, Co, and Mo, acceptance in other applications should soon follow. |
|||
|
|||
[1]
Others (Fresnel Zoneplates, and Multiple Array Lenses) exists but are
only applicable to highly coherent sources such as synchrotrons. (Return to text) [2] For more information on how Bragg-Diffraction from multilayers work, please refer to the Osmic Homepage and/or our info-page "Multilayer Optics". (Return to text) [3] The spectra were taken with an energy-dispersive solid state detector. (Return to text) [4] For the multilayer there is a slight complication in that the angular acceptance of the multilayer is roughly 0.06 degrees. If the angular size of the source is larger than that, S in no longer the actual size of the source but instead P*tan(0.06). (Return to text) [5] We are unaware of any existing instrumentation that takes this asymmetry into account. (Return to text) |
|||
Copyright © 1999 by [Osmic, Inc]. All
rights reserved. Revised: 22 Oct 2001 17:42:12 -0400. |