Historical Introduction

Author(s):  
R. D. Heidenreich

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.

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (04) ◽  
pp. 1750045 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. XIE ◽  
Z. H. LIU ◽  
Y. Q. XIA ◽  
M. M. ZHU

Based on the processes and characteristics of secondary electron emission and the formula for the yield due to primary electrons hitting on semiconductors and insulators, the universal formula for maximum yield [Formula: see text] due to primary electrons hitting on semiconductors and insulators was deduced, where [Formula: see text] is the maximum ratio of the number of secondary electrons produced by primary electrons to the number of primary electrons. On the basis of the formulae for primary range in different energy ranges of [Formula: see text], characteristics of secondary electron emission and the deduced universal formula for [Formula: see text], the formulae for [Formula: see text] in different energy ranges of [Formula: see text] were deduced, where [Formula: see text] is the primary incident energy at which secondary electron yields from semiconductors and insulators, [Formula: see text], are maximized to maximum secondary electron yields from semiconductors and insulators, [Formula: see text]; and [Formula: see text] is the maximum ratio of the number of total secondary electrons produced by primary electrons and backscattered electrons to the number of primary electrons. According to the deduced formulae for [Formula: see text], the relationship among [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and high-energy back-scattering coefficient [Formula: see text], the formulae for parameters of [Formula: see text] and the experimental data as well as the formulae for [Formula: see text] in different energy ranges of [Formula: see text] as a function of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] were deduced, where [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are the original electron affinity and the width of forbidden band, respectively. The scattering of [Formula: see text] was analyzed, and calculated [Formula: see text] values were compared with the values measured experimentally. It was concluded that the deduced formulae for [Formula: see text] were found to be universal for [Formula: see text].


2005 ◽  
Vol 473-474 ◽  
pp. 293-296
Author(s):  
György Vida ◽  
Ildikó Beck ◽  
V. Katalin Josepovits ◽  
Miklós Győr

In the present paper the secondary emission and work function of W covered with different thickness Ba layers are compared. The secondary emission and work function were measured by Work Function Spectroscopy (WFS). It is clearly pointed out that the thin Ba coating causes the the enhancement of electron induced secondary electron emission. In high pressure discharge lamps high secondary emission and high thermionic current are required for reliable operating conditions, i.e., for reaching the nominal burning voltage and current etc. The results prove that the Ba spreading on the W surface from an alkali earth tungstate material is advantageous for lowering the work function and, simultaneously, for increasing the secondary emission yield.


The velocity distribution of the secondary electrons produced by bombarding a metallic face with a stream of primary electrons has been a matter of interest ever since the beginning of the study of secondary electron emission. As early as in 1908, Richardson and von Baeyer independently showed that slow moving electrons were copiously reflected from conducting faces. Farnsworth showed that for primary electrons having velocities less than 9 volts, most of the secondary electrons had velocities equal to the primary. As the primary potential was increased, the percentage of the reflected electrons decreased gradually but was appreciable at 110 volts. Davisson and Kunsman obtained reflected electrons even at primary potentials of 1000 and 1500 volts in the cases of some metal faces. At higher potentials we have also the electrons that undergo the Davisson and Germer scattering from the many crystal facets on the bombarded targets. As the potential is increased, the number of electrons with low velocities increases steadily and at large applied potentials, we have a large percentage of these in the secondary beam. These conclusions followed as a result of the work of Farnsworth who studied the distribution of velocities of the secondary electrons by the retarding potential method. He did not actually calculate the energy distribution from his curves but has drawn attention to the above conclusions. A careful investigation of the velocity distribution of the secondary electrons from various conducting faces was made by Rudberg at primary potentials ranging up to about 1000 volts. He adopted a magnetic deflection method similar to the one used in the analysis of the β rays and of the electrons excited by X-rays. The method had indeed been used by previous workers for the study of secondary emission, but Rudberg improved the technique considerably and obtained better focussing conditions. His results suggest that there are three groups of electrons in the secondary beam. The first group contains electrons returning with the same velocity as the primary. In the second group of electrons, we have those which undergo inelastic collisions with the orbital and structure electrons and hence are returned with some loss of energy. Richardson has drawn attention to the well-marked minimum between the two groups in Rudberg’s curves and infers that free electrons are not involved in the collisions. Finally there is the third group which contains the slow secondary electrons. The second and the third groups appear to be definitely connected with each other since they are both predominant at high primary potentials and become negligible at low primary potentials. Richardson suggests that the third group is the result of the excitation accompanying the inelastic collisions.


The results of the various investigations which have been carried out during the last few years on the critical potentials for the excitation of soft X-rays, and for the production of secondary electrons, from solids, have shown that the effects occurring at solid surfaces under electronic bombardment in vacuo are more complex than was anticipated when this line of investigation was begun, and that they cannot be interpreted in any simple way in terms of the displacements of electrons within the atoms of the target. The work of various investigators* on the distribution of velocities among the electrons leaving a surface subjected to bombardment by primary electrons of known energy, has shown that a certain number of the electrons leaving the bombarded surface have energies practically equal to that of the primary stream, suggesting that a readily detectable proportion of the primary electrons is scattered or reflected at the target surface without appreciable loss of energy. The proportion of such electrons is greatest for small bombarding energies, e.g ., about 10 volts, and decreases as the voltage accelerating the primary electrons increases. The other marked feature in the velocity distribution curves, for bombarding voltages up to about 1000, is a group having a sharp maximum at about 10 volts. Apart from these features the distribution is a more or less continuous one, the number of electrons having a given velocity increasing as that velocity increases, except that after achieving a small maximum at about 25 volts less than the primary voltage, the curve falls to a minimum before rising to the very sharp peak indicating true reflection There are no indications of maxima for electron energies differing from the primary by amounts corresponding to those required to effect characteristic electron transitions within the atoms of the target. Moreover, there appears to be nothing in the velocity distribution curves for the secondary emission to correspond to the discontinuities which have been found by various investigators to occur in the current-voltage curves of the secondary electron current from a bombarded surface, or in the current-voltage curves of the photoelectric effect of the soft X-radiation excited by the bombardment. As regards the latter effect an explanation is to hand on the view that the proportion of the primary electrons whose energy is converted, in part, to photoelectrically active radiation is so small that indications of the various different energy transfers suggested by the critical potential curves are swamped in the velocity distribution curves of the secondary electrons. It is, however, more difficult to reconcile the absence of any correlation between the discontinuities which have been observed in the current-voltage curves for secondary electron emission, and the velocity distribution of the latter.


Author(s):  
W.C. Nixon

The transmission electron microscope can be traced back to the work of K. Knoll and E. Ruska in Berlin who succeeded in 1931 in demonstrating a two lens electron microscope. The scanning electron microscope may also be traced back to the work of M. Knoll in 1935, during a study of secondary electron emission from surfaces. Two cathode ray tubes were used with a time-base generator supplying deflection signals to both tubes at once. The specimen under test was sealed into the first tube and the electron beam from the gun was scanned across the specimen surface and the variations in specimen current formed the signal. This signal was used to modulate the grid of the second cathode ray tube and the image displayed gave the variation in secondary emission on the specimen surface. In one case the word “Stuggart” was shown.


Author(s):  
D. Voreades

Secondary electrons are used in making topographical pictures of specimens in the scanning electron microscope. A better understanding of the secondary emission process will contribute in improving the resolution in this mode of operation.Recent experiments have indicated first that the escape depth of secondary electrons is a few atomic layers at the surface of the solid and second that the backscattered electrons are much more efficient in producing secondaries than the incoming ones. The results vary considerably. However, any model that one makes, for example similar to that of Jonker, consistent with these recent experimental results, will have the thickness as an important parameter.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document