diff --git a/chap05.tex b/chap05.tex index 0da0fc0d3f611936842ac1425544eb047d729ad3..d1d6c448b708b335d68bf5227f22fb6d6624cf6b 100644 --- a/chap05.tex +++ b/chap05.tex @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ This process was performed for every recorded dot and with multiple line cuts ne \label{fig:evaporation_measured_penumbra} \end{figure} Figure \ref{fig:evaporation_measured_penumbra} shows the values obtained from analysis of exemplary \ce{Pb} dots of each field. For each field a dot on the top of the field, one on the bottom, one near the center and on each on the left and the right were chosen to analyze. The dots were chosen based on how contaminated the data looked in an AFM image of the top right and bottom left of the field, and if the phase showed line artifacts. \\ -The data in Figure \ref{fig:evaporation_measured_penumbra_sigs} shows that for the smaller penumbra values of well below the threshold of $100$ nm can be found, with most of the fields lying near $50$ nm. From the evaporation conditions it would be expected, that field $1$ and field $5$ should be very similar and both should show smaller penumbra than the other fields, but this does not appear to be the case. While field $5$ shows some of the smallest penumbras, its behavior seems to be more akin to field $3$ than $1$. Field $4$ also has the largest penumbras, which is unexpected since it was evaporated at the point of second contact and should thus perform better than both field $3$ and field $2$. Both field $2$ and $4$ have the largest uncertainties, due to more noisy data, which could explain this discrepancy. The difference between top, bottom, right, left and center seems to be within measurement uncertainty and thus no conclusive statements can be made about it.\\ +The data in Figure \ref{fig:evaporation_measured_penumbra_sigs} shows that for the smaller penumbra values of well below the threshold of $100$ nm can be found, with most of the fields lying near $50$ nm. Showing that the evaporation gave very sharp interfaces. From the evaporation conditions it would be expected, that field $1$ and field $5$ should be very similar and both should show smaller penumbra than the other fields, but this does not appear to be the case. While field $5$ shows some of the smallest penumbras, its behavior seems to be more akin to field $3$ than $1$. Field $4$ also has the largest penumbras, which is unexpected since it was evaporated at the point of second contact and should thus perform better than both field $3$ and field $2$. Both field $2$ and $4$ have the largest uncertainties, due to more noisy data, which could explain this discrepancy. The difference between top, bottom, right, left and center seems to be within measurement uncertainty and thus no conclusive statements can be made about it.\\ The height of the dots (Figure \ref{fig:evaporation_measured_penumbra_height}) is spread around a mean value of $2.6 \pm 0.3$ nm and shows strong deviation from the expected $5$ nm, obtained from calibration measurements for the particle flux that was used in the evaporation. This seems to suggest a large amount of \ce{Pb} particles never reaches the mask, even though they are expected to by the setup conditions. \\