Non-volatile memory devices are so named because they retain information when power is interrupted; thus they are important computer components. In this context, there has been considerable recent interest1,2 in developing non-volatile memories that use ferroelectric thin films—‘ferroelectric random access memories’, or FRAMs—in which information is stored in the polarization state of the ferroelectric material. To realize a practical FRAM, the thin films should satisfy the following criteria: compatibility with existing dynamic random access memory technologies, large remnant polarization (Pr) and reliable polarization-cycling characteristics. Early work focused on lead zirconate titanate (PZT) but, when films of this material were grown on metal electrodes, they generally suffered from a reduction of Pr (‘fatigue’) with polarity switching. Strontium bismuth tantalate (SBT) and related oxides have been proposed to overcome the fatigue problem3, but such materials have other shortcomings, such as a high deposition temperature. Here we show that lanthanum-substituted bismuth titanate thin films provide a promising alternative for FRAM applications. The films are fatigue-free on metal electrodes, they can be deposited at temperatures of ∼650 °C and their values of Pr are larger than those of the SBT films.

Lanthanum-substituted bismuth titanate for use in non-volatile memories

We present an overview of the current status of transition-state theory and its generalizations. We emphasize (i) recent improvements in available methodology for calculations on complex systems, including the interface with electronic structure theory, (ii) progress in the theory and application of transition-state theory to condensed-phase reactions, and (iii) insight into the relation of transition-state theory to accurate quantum dynamics and tests of its accuracy via comparisons with both experimental and other theoretical dynamical approximations.

Current status of transition-state theory

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the uses of isotopes to understand water chemistry.I Isotopic compositions generally cannot be interpreted successfully in the absence of other chemical and hydrologic data. The chapter focusses on uses of isotopes in tracing sources and cycling of nitrogen in the water-component of forested catchment, and on dissolved nitrate in shallow waters, nutrient uptake studies in agricultural areas, large-scale tracer experiments, groundwater contamination studies, food-web investigations, and uses of compound-specific stable isotope techniques. Shallow waters moving along a flowpath through a relatively uniform material and reacting with minerals probably do not achieve equilibrium but gradually approach some steady-state composition. The chapter also discusses the use of isotopic techniques to assess impacts of changes in land-management practices and land use on water quality. The analysis of individual molecular components for isotopic composition has much potential as a method for tracing the source, biogeochemistry, and degradation of organic liquids and gases because different materials have characteristic isotope spectrums or biomarkers.

Tracing nitrogen sources and cycling in catchments

The document begins with the illustration of the most widespread misunderstandings in the literature about the physical meaning of absolute electrode potential. The correct expression for this quantity is then de— rived by a thermodynamic analysis of the components of the emf of an elec— trochemical cell. It is shown that in principle three reference levels can be chosen to measure an absolute value of the electrode potential. Only one of these possesses all the requisites for a meaningful comparison on a con— mon energy scale between electrochemical and physical parameters. Such a comparison is the main problem for which the adoption of a correct scale for absolute electrode potentials is a prerequisites. The document ends with the recommendation of a critically evaluated value for the absolute potential of the standard hydrogen electrode in water and in a few other protic solvents. The \"electrode potential\" is often misinterpreted as the electric potential difference between a point in the bulk of the solid conductor and a point in the bulk of the electrolyte solution (L4) (Note a). In reality, the transfer of charged particles across the electrode/electrolyte solution interface is controlled by the difference in the energy levels of the species in the two phases (at constant T and p), which includes not only electrical (electric potential difference) but also chemical (Gibbs energy difference) contributions since the two phases are compositionally dissimilar (refs. 1,2). The value of the tjq of a \"single\" electrode, e.g. one consisting of an electronic conductor in contact with an ionic conductor, is not amenable of direct experimental determination. This is because the two metallic probes from the measuring instruments, both made of the same material, e.g. a metal M1, have to be put in contact with the bulk of these two phases to pick up the signal there. This creates two additional interfaces: a M1/solution interface, and a M1/electrode metal interface. The experimental set-up can be sketched as follows: M1 SIMIMI (1) where M is the metal of the electrode under measure, S is the electrolyte solution, M1 is the metal of the \"connections\" to the measuring instrument and the prime on M indicates that this terminal differs from the other one (M1) by the electrical state only. It is expedient to replace the M1/S interface with a more specific, reproducible and stable system known as the reference electrode. It ensues that an electrode potential can only be measured against a reference system. The measured quantity is thus a relative electrode potential. For the specific example of cell (1), the measured quantity E, the electrode potential of M relative to M1 (Note b), is conventionally split into two contributions, each pertaining to one of the electrodes: EEM_EM1 (2) EM and EM1 can be expressed in their own on a potential scale referred to another reference electrode. In this respect, the hydrogen electrode is conventionally taken as the universal Note a: This quantity, known as the Galvani potential difference between M and 5, has been defined in ref. 3. Note b: In accord with the IUPAC convention on the sign of electrode potentials, all electrode potentials in this document are to be intended as \"reduction potentials\", i.e. the electrode reaction is written in the direction of the reduction (refs. 3,4). 956 Absolute electrode potential (Recommendations 1986) 957 (for solutions in protic solvents) reference electrode for which, under standard conditions, E°(H/H2) = 0 at every temperature (Note c). Since EM as measured is a relative value, it appeals to many to know what the absolute value may be: viz. , the value of EM measured with respect to a universal reference system not including any additional metal/solution interface. Actually, for the vast majority of practical electrochenilcal problems, there is no need to bring in absolute potentials . The one outstanding example where this concept is useful is the matching of semiconductor energy levels and solution energy levels . However, from a fundamental point of view, this problem comes necessarily about in every case one wants to connect the \"relative\" electrode potential to the \"absolute\" physical quantities of the given system. On a customary basis, since the electrode potential is envisaged as the electric potential drop between M and S, the cell potential difference for system (1) is usually written as the electric potential difference between the two metallic terminals: EMi M1 (3) Since three interfaces are involved in cell (1), eqn.(3) can be rewritten as: E (M{ M) + (M S) + (S Mi) (4) Comparison of eqn. (4) with eqn. (2) shows that the identification of the absolute electrode potential with (M S) is not to be reconmended because it is conceptually misleading. Since M' and M are in electronic equilibrium, then (ref. 3): (4M ) = ('/F pr/F) (5) where the right hand side of eqn. (5) expresses the difference in chemical potential of electrons in the two electrode metals. Substitution of eqn.(5) into eqn.(4) gives: E = (p ii'/F) (E'q p'/F) (6) The two exoressions in brackets do not contain quantities pertaining to the other interfaces. They can thus be defined as single electrode potentials (Note d). Since eqn. (6) has been obtained with the two electrodes assembled into a cell, it is possible that terms common to both electrodes do not appear explicitly in eqn. (6) because they cancel out ultimately. The relationship between the truly absolute electrode potential and the single electrode potential in eqn.(6) can thus be written in the form (Note e) (ref. 5): EM(abs) = EM(r) + K (7) where K is a constant depending on the \"absolute\" reference system, and

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/pac.1986.58.issue-7/pac198658070955/pac198658070955.xml

The absolute electrode potential: an explanatory note (Recommendations 1986)

Quantum superposition lies at the heart of quantum mechanics and gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of de Broglie matter waves1 has been observed for massive particles such as electrons2, atoms and dimers3, small van der Waals clusters4, and neutrons5. But matter wave interferometry with larger objects has remained experimentally challenging, despite the development of powerful atom interferometric techniques for experiments in fundamental quantum mechanics, metrology and lithography6. Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules by diffraction at a material absorption grating. This molecule is the most massive and complex object in which wave behaviour has been observed. Of particular interest is the fact that C60 is almost a classical body, because of its many excited internal degrees of freedom and their possible couplings to the environment. Such couplings are essential for the appearance of decoherence7,8, suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should facilitate detailed studies of this process.

Wave–particle duality of C 60 molecules

Reformulation of the quasiequilibrium theory of ionic fragmentation

van der Waals molecules as prepared in the laboratory are often found to be evaporating. Recent work has shown, sometimes by fiat, sometimes by calculation, that this can actually serve to characterize them precisely. The present article recapitulates these developments, establishes their roots in unimolecular reaction theory, and clarifies their limitations. Applications in a number of laboratory settings are noted.

Evaporation from small particles

Formulations are examined for connecting average kinetic energies of the products of a unimolecular decomposition with the total available energy. A straightforward method for the calculation of kinetic shifts is then described. Existing data suggest, nevertheless, that the effective number of internal degrees‐of‐freedom for energy disposal may be greater than the physical number, a result inaccessible to existing theory. A formal reconciliation is indicated here.

Thermochemical and kinetic information from metastable decompositions of ions

The kinetic energy released in a unimolecular decomposition is examined within the framework of quasiequilibrium theory. It is assumed that the motion is governed by the long‐range forces between the separating moieties. Explicit formulas are obtained for cases where the total angular momentum is either very low or very high. Comparison with experiment and with other formulations is made.

Cornelius E. Klots

Papers

Reformulation of the quasiequilibrium theory of ionic fragmentation

Evaporation from small particles

Thermochemical and kinetic information from metastable decompositions of ions

Kinetic energy distributions from unimolecular decay: predictions of the Langevin model

Rate constants for unimolecular decomposition at threshold