ordal_1985#
M. A. Ordal, R. J. Bell, R. W. Alexander, Jr., L. L. Long and M. R. Querry, “Optical properties of fourteen metals in the infrared and far infrared: Al, Co, Cu, Au, Fe, Pb, Mo, Ni, Pd, Pt, Ag, Ti, V, and W”, Appl. Opt. 24, 4493-4499 (1985)
Source record · Catalogue · Review register
DOI: 10.1364/AO.24.004493
Source kind: measurement
Recorded technique: Copper (Table II; also Ni and Fe, not transcribed): the power reflectance measured against an aluminium mirror, corrected for that mirror’s absolute reflectance ‘using values measured by us’; a Perkin-Elmer 580 at 180-4000 cm-1 and a Varian model 2300 at 4000-50,000 cm-1 (p. 4494). A Kramers-Kronig analysis of the reflectance gave n and k, from which epsilon_1 and epsilon_2 were calculated. Wings for Cu: below 180 cm-1 a Drude extrapolation to 1 cm-1 and a constant reflectance below that (the Table II values); above, the authors’ data to 20,000 cm-1 (cut there ‘arbitrarily’, after ‘essentially perfect agreement in the 17,000-23,000-cm-1 range’ with Weaver et al.), then Weaver et al.’s data (Ref. 2), then an inverse fourth power of the energy until the reflectance fell to ~4e-4, then constant (pp. 4495-4496). Drude parameters of fourteen metals (Table I) fitted by trial and error (‘a trial and error eyeball technique’) to the compiled and new epsilon, starting from Eqs. (12)-(13) at the lowest frequencies with epsilon_inf = 1 (p. 4494).
Materials in structured entries: Ag, Al, Au, Cu
Dataset quantities: extinction_coefficient, permittivity_imaginary, permittivity_real, refractive_index
Contents: 4 datasets; 4 formulas.
Curation notes#
Journal pages 4493-4499 = PDF pages 1-7. Page 4499 also carries, below the references, an unrelated NASA Tech Briefs item (‘Laser schlieren crystal-growth imager’). Identity checked against the first page (the library flags warnings on the bibliographic record only). The paper extends Ordal et al. 1983 (ordal_1983, its Ref. 1) and is Ref. 3 of Ordal et al. 1988 (ordal_1988).
TABLE II, COPPER (p. 4495): the authors’ own data, 56 wavenumbers 180-19400 cm-1 (55.6-0.517 um), omega, lambda, -epsilon_1, epsilon_2, n, k to three figures. n and k are the Kramers-Kronig result (use = primary); epsilon_1 and epsilon_2 were calculated from them (use = check). -epsilon_1 is stored as printed with scale = -1. lambda stays in printed. Every row satisfies epsilon_1 = n^2 - k^2, epsilon_2 = 2nk and lambda = 1e4 / omega to the printed rounding (worst: epsilon_2 at 1900 cm-1, 239 printed against 238.05, 0.80 of the rounding bound; checked 2026-09-28): no misprint. The paper says nothing of the copper sample (bulk or film, preparation, surface) or the temperature, and gives no uncertainty; its only statement of accuracy is the low-frequency wing’s effect: ‘The use of a Drude model low frequency wing changed the values of the optical constants at 180 cm-1 by at most 4% relative to the case of a constant wing. There was a <1% difference in the optical constants at 500 cm-1, with the difference becoming correspondingly smaller at higher frequencies’ (p. 4495). Fig. 1 plots these data (solid lines) with the 1983 compilation’s copper blocks (ordal_1983) and the Drude fit.
TABLE I (p. 4494): omega_tau and omega_p of the Drude model, Eq. (2), for fourteen metals, printed as 10^-2 omega_tau and 10^-4 omega_p (cm-1), with the optical resistivity rho_opt = 60 omega_tau / omega_p^2 (Eq. 16, ohm cm; printed in micro-ohm cm), the handbook dc resistivity rho_0 (footnote a: Ref. 5, the AIP Handbook, pp. 9-39, 9-40) and rho_0 / rho_opt. Al, Cu, Au and Ag are the formulas below. The others (10^-2 omega_tau, 10^-4 omega_p, rho_opt, rho_0, rho_0/rho_opt as printed): Co 2.95, 3.20, 17.3, 5.80, 0.34; Fe 1.47, 3.30, 8.10, 9.80, 1.20; Pb 16.3, 5.94, 27.7, 21.0, 0.76; Mo 4.12, 6.02, 6.82, 5.33, 0.78; Ni 3.52, 3.94, 13.3, 7.04, 0.52; Pd 1.24, 4.40, 3.84, 10.55, 2.8; Pt 5.58, 4.15, 19.4, 10.42, 0.54; Ti 3.82, 2.03, 55.6, 43.1, 0.78; V 4.89, 4.16, 17.0, 19.9, 1.2; W 4.87, 5.17, 10.9, 5.33, 0.49. Against ordal_1983’s Table 13: ‘The Drude model parameters for Cu are revised ... due to the availability of additional data’, Al, Au, Ag and W change slightly (‘Refinements in our fitting technique’), and ‘The Drude model parameters for Pb correct a numerical error in our earlier tabulation’ (abstract). The paper also corrects the 1983 paper’s Eq. (5) (epsilon_inf removed from omega_p) and Eq. (10) (the sign convention of the surface impedance; Eq. (10) here, R(omega), is unchanged, so the 1983 numbers stand).
THE OTHER TABLES (not transcribed; the metals are not registered). Table III, Ni (p. 4495, 180-20000 cm-1, the authors’ data): not extracted by the library (its caption survives only as a note on Table II). Table IV, Fe (p. 4498, tbl_1b9df4038551, unlabelled in the library; 180-19200 cm-1, 56 rows, the authors’ data): consistent to the rounding except the last row (19200 cm-1: -epsilon_1 2.08, epsilon_2 3.11 printed with n = 5.36, k = 13.0, which give 140 and 139; a misprint of the page). Table V, Mo (tbl_d6d1e12f21d0, 807-20200 cm-1, 24 rows, ‘Weaver et al.’, Ref. 2 p. 148): 5970 cm-1 prints -epsilon_1 = 69.7 against k^2 - n^2 = 67.9. Table VI, V (tbl_8ff99e8acf56, 807-53200 cm-1, 30 rows, Weaver et al., Ref. 2 p. 50): epsilon_2 at 968 and 1610 cm-1 is 0.7 % and 2 % from 2nk, and lambda at 1.05E+4 cm-1 is printed 0.984 um (1e4 / omega = 0.952). The text says Tables II, III and IV are Cu, Fe and Ni; the captions on the page are Cu, Ni and Fe. Fig. 9’s caption cites ‘Ref. 4: Johnson and Christy’, which is Ref. 3 (Ref. 4 is Moravec et al.).
FIGURES 1-9 (pp. 4496-4497): -epsilon_1 and epsilon_2 against omega (log-log) for Cu, Fe, Co, Ni, Pd, Ti, Pt, Mo and V, with the Drude fits of Table I (dashed) and the compiled or new data; not digitised.
Recorded bibliographic identity status: VALIDATED_WITH_WARNINGS. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents.
Datasets#
ordal_1985/n_Cu#
{
"id": "n_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"file": "Cu/ordal_1985__n_Cu.csv",
"table": "tbl_08c9b2542049",
"quantity": "refractive_index",
"abscissa_unit": "cm-1",
"use": "primary",
"parameters": {
"technique": "reflectance and Kramers-Kronig analysis"
}
}
Table II, p. 4495: n of copper, 180-19400 cm-1 (55.6-0.517 um), 56 rows; the Kramers-Kronig analysis of the authors’ reflectance (record notes). Sample and temperature not stated. At 180 cm-1 the low-frequency wing’s choice moves the values by up to 4 %, below 1 % from 500 cm-1 (p. 4495).
ordal_1985/k_Cu#
{
"id": "k_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"file": "Cu/ordal_1985__k_Cu.csv",
"table": "tbl_08c9b2542049",
"quantity": "extinction_coefficient",
"abscissa_unit": "cm-1",
"use": "primary",
"parameters": {
"technique": "reflectance and Kramers-Kronig analysis"
}
}
Table II, p. 4495: k of copper, 180-19400 cm-1, 56 rows (as n_Cu).
ordal_1985/eps1_Cu#
{
"id": "eps1_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"file": "Cu/ordal_1985__eps1_Cu.csv",
"table": "tbl_08c9b2542049",
"quantity": "permittivity_real",
"abscissa_unit": "cm-1",
"scale": -1,
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"technique": "reflectance and Kramers-Kronig analysis"
}
}
Table II, p. 4495: the column headed ‘-epsilon_1’, stored as printed with scale = -1, so the values are epsilon_1. 56 rows. Calculated from n and k (‘The Kramers-Kronig analysis of the reflectance data yielded n and k from which epsilon_1 and epsilon_2 were calculated’, p. 4494): a check.
ordal_1985/eps2_Cu#
{
"id": "eps2_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"file": "Cu/ordal_1985__eps2_Cu.csv",
"table": "tbl_08c9b2542049",
"quantity": "permittivity_imaginary",
"abscissa_unit": "cm-1",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"technique": "reflectance and Kramers-Kronig analysis"
}
}
Table II, p. 4495: epsilon_2, 56 rows, calculated from n and k: a check.
Formulas#
ordal_1985/drude_Al#
{
"id": "drude_Al",
"material": "Al",
"equation": "Eq. (2), p. 4493, with Table I, p. 4494",
"printed": "epsilon_c = epsilon_inf - omega_p^2 / (omega^2 + i omega omega_tau); Table I, Al: 10^-2 omega_tau (cm-1) 6.60; 10^-4 omega_p (cm-1) 11.9; rho_opt (micro-ohm cm) 2.80; rho_0 2.74; rho_0/rho_opt 0.98",
"variable": "omega: wavenumber in cm-1; epsilon_inf = 1 ('with epsilon_inf taken to be unity', p. 4494); coefficients as printed under the headers 10^-2 omega_tau and 10^-4 omega_p, so omega_tau = 660 cm-1 and omega_p = 119,000 cm-1",
"range": "The infrared data of the 1983 compilation (ordal_1983); no range is stated",
"coefficients": {
"omega_tau": "6.60",
"omega_p": "11.9"
},
"check": "rho_opt = 60 omega_tau / omega_p^2 = 2.796 micro-ohm cm, printed 2.80. Against ordal_1983's Al blocks: at 313 cm-1, -epsilon_1 = 26,539, epsilon_2 = 55,963 against Bennett and Bennett's 2.60E+04, 5.56E+04 (+2.1 %, +0.7 %); at 1110 cm-1, +1.0 % and +0.6 %; against Shiles et al.'s block 15-40 % off (1050 cm-1: 9,206 + 5,787i against 6.93E+03 + 4.07E+03i). Against ordal_1988's Table I at 1000 cm-1: -9,863 + 6,510i against -7,562.9 + 4,687.1i. Checked 2026-09-28."
}
The Drude fit ordal_1988 quotes (its drude_ordal_1985_Al). It follows Bennett and Bennett’s Drude curve (omega_tau 663 cm-1, ordal_1983), not Shiles et al.’s data.
ordal_1985/drude_Cu#
{
"id": "drude_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"equation": "Eq. (2), p. 4493, with Table I, p. 4494",
"printed": "epsilon_c = epsilon_inf - omega_p^2 / (omega^2 + i omega omega_tau); Table I, Cu: 10^-2 omega_tau (cm-1) 0.732; 10^-4 omega_p (cm-1) 5.96; rho_opt (micro-ohm cm) 1.24; rho_0 1.70; rho_0/rho_opt 1.3",
"variable": "omega: wavenumber in cm-1; epsilon_inf = 1; coefficients as printed under the headers 10^-2 omega_tau and 10^-4 omega_p, so omega_tau = 73.2 cm-1 and omega_p = 59,600 cm-1",
"range": "Fitted to the lowest frequencies of Table II (from 180 cm-1); no range is stated",
"coefficients": {
"omega_tau": "0.732",
"omega_p": "5.96"
},
"check": "rho_opt = 1.236 micro-ohm cm, printed 1.24 (rho_0/rho_opt = 1.37, printed 1.3). Against Table II: at 180 cm-1, -epsilon_1 = 94,080, epsilon_2 = 38,260 against 9.40E+4, 3.83E+4 (+0.1 %, -0.1 %); at 500 cm-1 +7 % and -45 %; at 1000 cm-1 -9 % and -75 %; epsilon_2 falls further below the data at higher omega (-91 % at 5000 cm-1), as Fig. 1 shows. Checked 2026-09-28."
}
Revised from ordal_1983/drude_Cu (278, 63,800) with the new data of Table II.
ordal_1985/drude_Au#
{
"id": "drude_Au",
"material": "Au",
"equation": "Eq. (2), p. 4493, with Table I, p. 4494",
"printed": "epsilon_c = epsilon_inf - omega_p^2 / (omega^2 + i omega omega_tau); Table I, Au: 10^-2 omega_tau (cm-1) 2.15; 10^-4 omega_p (cm-1) 7.28; rho_opt (micro-ohm cm) 2.43; rho_0 2.20; rho_0/rho_opt 0.91",
"variable": "omega: wavenumber in cm-1; epsilon_inf = 1; coefficients as printed under the headers 10^-2 omega_tau and 10^-4 omega_p, so omega_tau = 215 cm-1 and omega_p = 72,800 cm-1",
"range": "The infrared data of the 1983 compilation (ordal_1983); no range is stated",
"coefficients": {
"omega_tau": "2.15",
"omega_p": "7.28"
},
"check": "rho_opt = 2.434 micro-ohm cm, printed 2.43. Against ordal_1983's gold blocks: Bennett and Bennett's at 313 and 1000 cm-1 to -0.4/-0.6 % and +0.3/-0.1 % (-epsilon_1/epsilon_2); Brandli and Sievers's at 31.4 cm-1 +30 %/+23 % and at 100 cm-1 -11 %/+5 %. Checked 2026-09-28."
}
A slight refinement of ordal_1983/drude_Au (216, 72,500).
ordal_1985/drude_Ag#
{
"id": "drude_Ag",
"material": "Ag",
"equation": "Eq. (2), p. 4493, with Table I, p. 4494",
"printed": "epsilon_c = epsilon_inf - omega_p^2 / (omega^2 + i omega omega_tau); Table I, Ag: 10^-2 omega_tau (cm-1) 1.45; 10^-4 omega_p (cm-1) 7.27; rho_opt (micro-ohm cm) 1.65; rho_0 1.61; rho_0/rho_opt 0.98",
"variable": "omega: wavenumber in cm-1; epsilon_inf = 1; coefficients as printed under the headers 10^-2 omega_tau and 10^-4 omega_p, so omega_tau = 145 cm-1 and omega_p = 72,700 cm-1",
"range": "The infrared data of the 1983 compilation (ordal_1983); no range is stated",
"coefficients": {
"omega_tau": "1.45",
"omega_p": "7.27"
},
"check": "rho_opt = 1.646 micro-ohm cm, printed 1.65. Against ordal_1983's silver blocks: Bennett and Bennett's at 313 and 1000 cm-1 to 0.0/-0.1 % and +0.7/+0.2 % (-epsilon_1/epsilon_2); Hagemann et al.'s epsilon_2 lies 21 % (807 cm-1) to 52 % (4030 cm-1) above it. Checked 2026-09-28."
}
A slight refinement of ordal_1983/drude_Ag (145, 72,500).
Corrections#
No dataset errata are recorded in this source record.
Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the review register for the checks and decisions.