895. Approximation of the apparent secondary emission coefficient in a broad range of target potential variations

Vacuum ◽  
1971 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 432
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Emission ◽  
Emission Coefficient

Total Secondary Emission Coefficient of Gold Black

1964 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1067-1067 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. D. Roberts ◽  
D. S. Burch
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Emission ◽  
Emission Coefficient

scholarly journals Электронно-эмиссионные свойства полупроводниковых субмикронных частиц

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
М.В. Гавриков ◽  
Н.Д. Жуков ◽  
Д.С. Мосияш ◽  
А.А. Хазанов
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy ◽  
Electron Emission ◽  
Secondary Emission ◽  
Emission Coefficient ◽  
Emission Properties ◽  
Semiconductor Particles ◽  
Scanning Electron

AbstractThe electron emission properties of submicron Si, GaAs, InSb, and InAs semiconductor particles and their multigrain structures have been investigated. The effect of the properties of nanoparticles on the field and secondary emissions has been established. A scanning electron microscopy-based method for measuring the secondary emission coefficient of semiconductors has been proposed. The effect of photoexcitation of the multigrain structure of submicron semiconductor particles on their secondary emission properties has been investigated by the vacuum triode method.

A device and procedure for measurements of the effective secondary emission coefficient

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-251
Author(s):  
I. V. Lopatin ◽  
S. S. Kovalskiy ◽  
N. N. Koval ◽  
Yu. H. Akhmadeev
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Emission ◽  
Emission Coefficient

S.E.M.-T.E.M. Image Comparison

1971 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 132-133
Author(s):  
G. M. Greene ◽  
J. W. Sprys
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Low Carbon Steel ◽  
Secondary Emission ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Preparation Time ◽  
Actual Surface ◽  
Fine Detail ◽  
Transmission Electron ◽  
Transmission Study ◽  
Large Sections

The present study demonstrates that fracture surfaces appear strikingly different when observed in the transmission electron microscope by replication and in the scanning electron microscope by backscattering and secondary emission. It is important to know what form these differences take because of the limitations of each instrument. Replication is useful for study of surfaces too large for insertion into the S.E.M. and for resolution of fine detail at high magnification with the T.E.M. Scanning microscopy reduces sample preparation time and allows large sections of the actual surface to be viewed.In the present investigation various modes of the S.E.M. along with the transmission mode in the T.E.M. were used to study one area of a fatigue surface of a low carbon steel. Following transmission study of a platinum carbon replica in the T.E.M. and S.E.M. the replica was coated with a gold layer approximately 200A° in thickness to improve electron emission.

Historical Introduction

1977 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 2-5
Author(s):  
R. D. Heidenreich
Keyword(s):  
Electron Emission ◽  
Secondary Electron ◽  
Secondary Electron Emission ◽  
50Th Anniversary ◽  
Secondary Emission ◽  
Wave Nature ◽  
Nobel Prize In Physics ◽  
Primary Electrons ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Mutual Agreement

This program has been organized by the EMSA to commensurate the 50th anniversary of the experimental verification of the wave nature of the electron. Davisson and Germer in the U.S. and Thomson and Reid in Britian accomplished this at about the same time. Their findings were published in Nature in 1927 by mutual agreement since their independent efforts had led to the same conclusion at about the same time. In 1937 Davisson and Thomson shared the Nobel Prize in physics for demonstrating the wave nature of the electron deduced in 1924 by Louis de Broglie.The Davisson experiments (1921-1927) were concerned with the angular distribution of secondary electron emission from nickel surfaces produced by 150 volt primary electrons. The motivation was the effect of secondary emission on the characteristics of vacuum tubes but significant deviations from the results expected for a corpuscular electron led to a diffraction interpretation suggested by Elasser in 1925.

Analysis of Contrast Reversal in SEM Images

1972 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 398-399
Author(s):  
M. D. Coutts ◽  
E. R. Levin
Keyword(s):  
Incident Beam ◽  
Normal Incidence ◽  
Beam Current ◽  
Secondary Emission ◽  
Image Contrast ◽  
Sem Images ◽  
Secondary Electrons ◽  
Image Position

On tilting samples in an SEM, the image contrast between two elements, x and y often decreases to zero at θε, which we call the no-contrast angle. At angles above θε the contrast is reversed, θ being the angle between the specimen normal and the incident beam. The available contrast between two elements, x and y, in the SEM can be defined as,(1)where ix and iy are the total number of reflected and secondary electrons, leaving x and y respectively. It can easily be shown that for the element x,(2)where ib is the beam current, isp the specimen absorbed current, δo the secondary emission at normal incidence, k is a constant, and m the reflected electron coefficient.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document