Sie sind auf Seite 1von 366

Electron Multiplication through Secondary Electron Emission

By Bruce Darrow Gaither

In this era of energy shortages we have all daydreamed about owning a device which

would take the energy that we have and multiply it. Imagine how happy we would be if

you could simply plug in a device which would double your electricity. Numerous researchers, writers and inventors have sought to do just that.

But scientists have cautioned that the law of conservation of energy dictates that energy is never created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. None of these schemes, they say, would ever work. They are just perpetual motion machines.

The purpose of this book is to discuss advances in electronics and materials science which have made things possible which were not contemplated when the laws of Thermodynamics were postulated decades ago.

Secondary electron emission is a well-known process. It is that effect which causes additional electrons to be emitted when a substance is bombarded by a stream of electrons. This secondary emission effect was discovered a century ago, and it has found application in a variety of devices which are in use today.

Advances in electronics and the development of new materials have revealed new methods and substances which make this secondary electron emission even more effective. In fact, today the impossible is possible—one electron at a time.

If a beam of electrons is aimed at a target electrode coated with a given substance then

electrons are emitted from that target. The number of electrons emitted from the target which has been bombarded is compared to the number of primary electrons in the original electron beam. The electrons emitted after bombardment by primary electrons are called secondary electrons.

The material’s propensity to emit electrons after bombardment is called the “secondary electron emission coefficient”. That is expressed as the number of secondary electrons divided by the number of primary electrons.

A secondary electron coefficient of less than 1 means that the substance does not emit as

many electrons as it is bombarded with. A coefficient of greater than 1.0 means that the

substance emits more secondary electrons than bombarded it

We are interested in this book in those materials which exhibit a high coefficient of secondary electron emission. The goal is to perfect a device which will emit more

electrons than you started out with. Some devices have been invented to minimize or eliminate secondary electron emission, but those are not within the scope of this book.

Years of testing and research have resulted in well-known coefficients of secondary electron emission for scores of materials. Research first focused upon basic substances such as copper, steel, silver, gold and other metals. Then more exotic combinations and alloys were tested, such as oxides and alkalai metal combinations. Some metals and some combination coatings worked much better than others.

In

recent years miniaturization and nanotechnology as well as chemical vapor deposition

of

thin films have come up with even more effective secondary electron multipliers.

In

fact today’s plasma televisions and LED lights are examples of such substances and

processes.

A reference to various charts is now possible to determine at a glance exactly what the

secondary electron emission coefficient is for these materials.

But the devil is still in the details.

Two variables are of importance as to the materials. One variable is the angle at which the primary electrons impact the target. In general it has been found that a better result is obtained when the primary electrons graze the target material at an angle rather than hitting straight-on. But the physics of the secondary emission process and the atomic and molecular structure of the target materials mean that the optimum angle is different for different materials. The second main variable is the voltage of the beam of primary electrons. Some substances max out their secondary emission coefficient at very low voltages and some materials reach their highest secondary emission only at much higher voltages. This is believed to be due to the depth to which the primary electrons impinges the material and the amount of tunneling into the substance.

Therefore care must be be paid to the research of the variables in the individual research papers and patents and there is no magical formula which will work for all materials. The configuration of the device used in the secondary emission process will need to vary to meet the characteristics of the target material.

Once the primary electrons have impacted the target material and secondary electrons are released, then the secondary electrons do not form a focused beam. Instead they tend to just sit there in a cloud of electrons. Meanwhile the primary electrons will usually bounce off the target at an angle equal to the angle with which they make incidence to the target. This means that the kinetic energy of the primary electrons is greater than that of the secondary electrons after impact. In other words the secondary electrons are indeed a larger number of electrons—but they are of low voltage.

However numerous methods exist to increase the voltage or kinetic energy of the secondary electrons.

One process which is common in devices which employ secondary electron emission is that of multiple impacts upon this emissive target material. The great inventor, Philo Farnsworth, was the first to devise methods to facilitate these multiple impacts upon emissive materials. He called his devices “multipactors” because of the multiple impacts they made with secondary electron emissive material. Thus, if a target electrode had a secondary electron emission coefficient of 2 then the number of primary electrons would double when they hit the target electrode. If there were two successive impacts then the primary electrons would double, and then that total would double again—or be four times the original primary electrons put into the device.

If the primary electrons were somehow sent through a series of 8 target electrodes then the multiplication factor would become astronomical, and each of the impacts would result in an exponential increase of electrons based upon the coefficient of secondary electron emission from that material.

So various devices were designed and perfected to make the primary electrons impact numerous electrodes one after another. One branch of these devices is employed by photomultiplier tubes. Many of these devices are capable of multiplying the primary electrons one hundred million times. Thus minute electric currents can be sensed and multiplied so that they can register on scientific equipment. But numerous other configurations and devices are in use today.

One method is to bounce the electrons off of two opposing electrodes over and over again, like a game of ping pong. Another configuration would be to have the electrons strike electrodes arranged inside a circular tube so that they impact coated electrodes over and over again. A third method is that of forming a cascade of specially-coated electrodes and having the primary electrons bounce off off each successive electrode until they all come out the end.

Another genre of devices are called “channel” devices. In these designs the primary electrons are sent down a waveguide or tunnel of some sort and the entire length of the device is coated with the emissive materials. The electrons keep bouncing off the walls of these guides until they reach the end and the repeated impacts result in a high multiplication of the primary electrons.

One of the axioms of electricity is that current will not conduct very well when exposed to the atmosphere because the gas acts as an insulator. Therefore most secondary electron emission devices were made in the form of vacuum tubes. The electricity goes through the vacuum without loss and then the impacts upon emissive material have the desired result.

However secondary emission and multipactors have been made into semiconductors and chips. These use the process of “avalanche” multiplication in many instances, where the electrons hit the emissive substance and are then multiplied and pass through a solid state stack of materials. Sometimes the semiconductors include a tiny vacuum space and they act in the same way as a vacuum tube.

However there is a snag or two for the use of secondary emission in chips. The first problem is “space charge”. That is the effect of completely filling up a given space with electrons. One you saturate the evacuated space with space charge then an equilibrium state is achieved and the primary electrons will no longer multiply as desired. As you might guess, the greater the area the more electrons will fit into the space before the space charge saturates the area. The space charge, then, has been found to diminish as to the 4/3 power of the area of the evacuated space. This means that, for instance, if you

triple the size of vacuum space then that would result in 3x 4/3 power= 12/3 power (or the 4 th power). Then a tripling of space would end up in shrinking the space charge by the

4 th power. The bottom line is that bigger is better.

The second drawback to micro multipactors is that the vacuums must be higher than in vacuum tubes, and this is hard to achieve. Also many devices use sharp points as electrodes because more electrodes will emit from sharp points than from blunt shapes. In the micro world though the sharpness of the sharp point has to be correspondingly sharper. The finer the point on the electrode the harder it is to fabricate and fit into the layered semiconductor devices.

What this book hopes to achieve is not the simple multiplication of electrons to provide light or brightness but to generate electricity on a larger scale. The aim is not to build a generator station for thousands of people but to scale the multipactor devices to work with individual appliances and vehicles. Thus the size and rated capacities of the components in the proposed multipactors must be designed to be in the range of home current up to the amount of voltage and current required to power an electric car.

At this point the discussion of secondary electron emission must include some of the math and physics. Don’t let your eyes glaze over. Everybody knows a little bit about electricity—and it is pretty simple. But there is a hazy horizon on the amount of knowledge of the basics of electricity. The terms are VOLTAGE, AMPERAGE and POWER. The easy rule of thumb is that VOLTAGE x AMPS = POWER.

You need to throw in the RESISTANCE into this formula—but for now we will stick with VOLTSxAMPS=POWER.

OK—so we will calculate one AMP. An Ampere involves the amount of “charge”, which is calculated in terms of a COULOMB. A Coulomb is −6.24151 × 10 18 electrons. So the process of secondary electron emission results in a lot of electrons. The secondary electrons are not moving very much after they are multiplied. So they have low voltage—but they DO have AMPERAGE because of the presence of lots of electrons.

The purpose of this analysis is to point out that we have low volts and high amps from secondary emission. When you remember volts x amps = power then you can see that we have to have just a high enough voltage to meet the requirements of modern electrical devices.

There are numerous well-known devices which can act as VOLTAGE MULTIPLIERS. These devices will increase the voltage, but only at the expense of a proportional decrease in the amperage.

The end product of these multipactors can be made usable, therefore, by running these high amperage currents through a voltage multiplier. You just fine-tune the voltage multiplier to give the right mix of volts and amps.

In

short, secondary electron emission creates NEW electrons. We put the new electrons

to

use by stepping up the voltage to required levels.

In

this way the laws of conservation of energy are negotiated. The multipactor creates

new electrons and THEN the energy is converted from one form into another. But there is indeed a creation of new electrons in multipactors.

I will leave it to the scientists and inventors in their respective papers and patents to describe the manner in which the secondary electrons are created and how the multipactor devices are designed.

The point of my analysis is simply that the multipactors will create new electrons and the new electrons can be made usable through voltage multipliers.

One of these voltage multipliers is a Cockroft-Walton circuit. Modern electronics has manufactured numerous cheap transistor devices that you could get at Radio Shack or electric supply houses. A Cockroft-Walton circuit is simply a ladder of diodes and capacitors (pennies apiece) which double the voltage at each step of the ladder. So a multi-step ladder creates a multiple doubling of the original voltage. Some of the older designs apply a step-up transformer to do the same thing.

A simple Cockroft-Walton multiplier would look like this

diagram:

Cockroft-Walton multiplier would look like this diagram: So we see that there is a problem with

So we see that there is a problem with voltage in secondary electron emission. The inventors have figured out a method to use voltage to their advantage in the multipactor devices. They apply the rule that opposite charges attract. This accelerates the cloud of secondary electrons so that they will impact the next target with it’s emissive coating. The electron is a negative charge. So the inventors manipulate the sluggish cloud of negative charge by providing a positive electrode to put it into motion.

Some designs will make the next electrode one with a positive charge, so when the primary electrons strike the first target and are multiplied then the cloud of secondary electrons is accelerated right up to the second electrode coated with emissive materials. When they make a long chain or cascade of these target electrodes then they give each of them a successively higher positive charge so that the ever-increasing cloud of secondary electrons is accelerated one step at a time in the desired direction.

Other designs use an electrode which is positioned between the first impact target and the second and they give that intermediate electrode a positive charge to accelerate the cloud of secondary electrons in the desired direction. This intermediate electrode might be in the form of a screen or grid or a tube. The positive charge, in every instance, attracts the opposite charge on the electrons and they are suddenly accelerated through the holes in these intermediate electrodes and then the electrons continue with their increased voltage until they impact the coated electrode. This step may be repeated again and again.

The positive charge on these attracting electrodes is often provided by using Cockroft- Walton circuits. So either a single or a multi-step CW circuit may be used to multiply an initial small current to give a charge bias of increasing strength to a series of attracting electrodes. Oftentimes the CW circuit contains “taps” which tap the current at a certain step in that multiplying step ladder. The step would then have one voltage level to apply to the attracting electrode, and then the next step would have a higher voltage which could be tapped at that level and applied to the next attracting electrode, and so on.

Going back the purpose of this analysis again: we are trying to get as many electrons as possible out of the multipactor. So the gameplan is to select the coating material for electrodes which has the highest secondary electron emission coefficient. Then the voltage at which the primary electrons must be accelerated to achieve the optimal secondary emission must be applied. The spatial requirements are important too because we want the right angle and the right depth for the impact zone. So we get the highest electron multiplication at each step. Then we take that level of electron multiplication and exponentially multiply it by the number of impacts in the multipactor device.

Some devices, as aforestated, simply bounce the electrons back and forth between two opposed electrodes. In these designs the electrons are moving at the speed of light, so they hit the opposite electrode in a known length of time. Then they bounce back to the original electrode. The desired effect is to have but one cloud of secondary electrons bouncing back and forth, and not a lot of different clouds. Therefore the two electrodes are given opposite charges, positive and negative, and these charges are sequentially reversed so that the electron cloud always moves away from the first electrode after they have been multiplied and then toward the target electrode for more multiplication. Since we know the distance between the two electrodes and because the speed of light is known, then we can determine the FREQUENCY at which the electric charge is reversed on these electrodes. So, take the speed of light and divide it by the distance between the electrodes. Say, 186,000 miles per second divided by 6 inches.

The resulting frequency is in the range of billions of cycles per second. There are modern oscillator chips which cost pennies which can do that.

The point here is that we take the secondary electron coefficient, and let’s say that this is 2 for the sake of argument. Then we apply the frequency of the impacts on these emissive electrodes—and that is perhaps one billion times per second. In this example we would then obtain 2 to the one billionth power!

Are you beginning to get the picture?

If we make the device the right size so that the space charge does not saturate the vacuum then we can generate sufficient electrons so that we can step up the voltage and step down the amperes to achieve the desired power characteristics for our electric appliance or motor.

For the purposes of our last example we have a secondary emission coefficient of 2, or a doubling of the primary electrons at each impact with the electrode with the emissive coating. But what if the secondary emission coefficient were 10…or 100…or even 1000? Just apply the math and you can see the possibilities of these multipactors.

Attached to this anthology is one of the latest research papers from Korea where scientists have obtained a new record for the secondary emission coefficient: 22,000!

Thus reason dictates that the proper coating must be selected for the electrodes. Then the rest of the components must be selected and positioned so that the size, frequency and angle of impact are optimal.

I think I heard somebody say, “Hey, Einstein—it still has to be hooked up to electricity to start up and to power the attracting electrodes. What about that?”

The answer lies in the principle of feedback and self-oscillation. We know that many oscillators are known to exhibit the characteristic of self-oscillation. Once you get them going then they tend to keep on oscillating on their own. This process works in multipactor-oscillators. It just takes a little electricity to get them started and then the internal processes take over and they self-oscillate, producing electrons without the input of outside electricity.

Many electronic devices apply the principle of feedback, especially in audio devices. We can remember Jimi Hendrix hitting a note on his guitar and then holding the guitar in front of his amplifier. The amp’s sound creates a feedback loop with the guitar and a sound is created which is self-sustaining without the additional input of playing another note. Numerous transistors work with feedback loops to take the electrical output of the device and split that output and send part of it back to the original input where it is again amplified. So the coupling of the output to the input wires is what is required.

So using either feedback or self-oscillation or both a multipactor device can be fabricated so that it will have self-sustaining output of electrons.

That still leaves us the positive bias charge that is placed upon the attracting electrodes to accelerate those sluggish clouds of secondary electrons.

Again, we simply split the output signal and loop part of it back to the accelerating electrodes, and this is the positive charge remember. So the negative charge goes back to feedback the input and the other loop goes to the voltage multiplier. A Cockroft-Walton multiplier can be either positive or negative in charge—you simply reverse the connection between the diodes and capacitors and it multiplies the positive charge.

Therefore, we could use batteries to start up the multipactor and then apply common electronics components and devices to split the output and loop it back to the input and bias the positive electrodes. Then the battery can be shut off, and even recharged while the multipactor runs on self-sustaining current.

That guy who used Einstein’s name like a dirty word again wants to voice his opinion, “Hey, genius, this stuff is a bunch of hooey! How do we know this would work?”

How do we know? Because of TELEVISION. These multipactor devices were invented by Philo Farnsworth when he invented television. Just one glance at this super-egghead fellow should give you the answer. This guy was a super-brain and he just NEEDED to have special vacuum tubes to strengthen the broadcast signal of television from remote locations to make the picture tubes bright enough to see—so he simply invented multipactors to multiply that weak input signal. Check out that cranium!

bright enough to see—so he simply invented multipactors to multiply that weak input signal. Check out
If these multipactors work then why didn’t Farnsworth take over the whole world? The reason

If these multipactors work then why didn’t Farnsworth take over the whole world? The reason is related to the laws of business and not the laws of physics. Philo Farnsworth saw the value of television and his multipactors but he had an independent streak which caused him to form his own Farnsworth Television company with which he intended to put RCA and GE out of business. Instead they put Farnsworth out of business by using monopoly tactics. But Philo Farnsworth applied his principles based upon secondary electron emission to the point that he invented a nuclear fusion reactor before he was through.

The heyday of vacuum tubes was filled with imitators of every sort. There is even an International Patent classification which contains only “Farnsworth Tubes”.

Since Farnsworth’s day the vacuum tube was supplanted by the Japanese transistor and then the Silicon Valley semiconductor chip. Nobody makes vacuum tubes anymore and the vacuum tube multipactor concepts have been lost in the world of microelectronics. But even today secondary electron emission is applied in the plasma television sets where scores of little holes and dots are brightened by electron multiplication. Other areas such as scintillation counters and electron detectors and night vision goggles use the process, often in the solid-state configuration. There exists an offshoot applying vacuum tubes— the sector called PHOTONICS which use vacuum tubes to multiply light into electronic signals.

As stated above, there are several basic methods of achieving multiple impacts of electrons.

The CASCADE

The CASCADE

The BACK AND FORTH method:

The BACK AND FORTH method:

and the CIRCULAR ACCELERATOR method:

and the CIRCULAR ACCELERATOR method: Secondary Emission Coefficients These graphs and excerpts were developed over a

Secondary Emission Coefficients

These graphs and excerpts were developed over a period of time. The more ancient the research the lower the coefficients. As newer and newer materials were invented and tested there is a general trend toward higher and higher coefficients. I would respectfully call your attention to the source material in the following sections for detailed analyis of the methodology and results of individual studies and devices with various emissive materials.

Attention should be paid to the voltage required to obtain a certain coefficient of secondary electron multiplication. The graphs are not in parallel so they are slightly different pictures. But they should give a general idea of how much electron multiplication could be obtained by a particular substance.

The following chapters will discuss individual studies and patents. Some of these resource documents contain excellent discussion of historical development of the secondary electron emission devices. It is of note that secondary electron emission was first discovered about a century ago, and the first patent for a vacuum tube as applied for in 1919.

The discussion also includes mention of “work factor” as an indicator of secondary emission coefficient. The lower the work factor the higher the coefficient.

Another area of interest is that of “negative electron affinity” as an explanation for secondary electron emission. In short, the term affinity implies that a particular substance either likes or rejects electrons. The materials with negative electron affinity then are predisposed to not like negatively-charged particles and thus reject them when bombarded.

Treatises on vacuum tubes have been consulted and quoted in pertinent part. Patents are inserted to this anthology to examine their significance at particular points in time. Various studies on the individual materials exhibiting secondary emission.

Finally, I include several of my own designs for multipactor devices to power electrical appliances and motors.

The photomultiplier is a very versatile and sensitive detector of radiant energy in the ultraviolet, visible, and near infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. A schemat- ic diagram of a typical photomultiplier tube is given in Fig. 1. The basic radiation sensor is the photocathode which is located inside a vacuum envelope. Photoelectrons are emit- ted and directed by an appropriate electric field to an electrode or dynode within the envelope. A number of secondary electrons are emitted at this dynode for each imping- ing primary photoelectron. These secondary electrons in turn are directed to a second dynode and so on until a final gain of perhaps 10 6 is achieved. The electrons from the last dynode are collected by an anode which provides the signal current that is read out.

anode which provides the signal current that is read out. PHOTOELECTRONS 92cs-32288 Fig. 1 - Schematic
anode which provides the signal current that is read out. PHOTOELECTRONS 92cs-32288 Fig. 1 - Schematic

PHOTOELECTRONS

92cs-32288
92cs-32288

Fig. 1 - Schematic representation of a photo- multiplier tube and its operation

representation of a photo- multiplier tube and its operation For a large number of applications, the

For a large number of applications, the photomultiplier is the most practical or sen- sitive detector available. The basic reason for the superiority of the photomultiplier is the secondary-emission amplification that makes it possible for the tube to approach “ideal” device performance limited only by the statistics of photoemission. Amplifica- tions ranging from 10 3 to as much as 10 8 provide output signal levels that are com- patible with auxiliary electronic equipment

1.
1.

Introduction

without need for additional signal amplifica- tion. Extremely fast time response with rise times as short as a fraction of a nanosecond provides a measurement capability in special applications that is unmatched by other radiation detectors.

EARLY

DEVELOPMENT

The development (history) of the photo-

multiplier is rooted in early studies of secon- dary emission. In 1902, Austin and Starke 1 reported that the metal surfaces impacted by cathode rays emitted a larger number of elec- trons than were incident. The use of secon- dary emission as a means for signal amplification was proposed as early as

In 1935, Iams and Salzberg 3 of RCA

reported on a single-stage photomultiplier. The device consisted of a semicylindrical photocathode, a secondary emitter mounted on the axis, and a collector grid surrounding the secondary emitter. The tube had a gain of about eight. Because of its better frequen- cy response the single-stage photomultiplier was intended for replacement of the gas-

filled phototube as a sound pickup for movies. But despite its advantages, it saw only a brief developmental sales activity before it became obsolete.

Multistage Devices In 1936, Zworykin, Morton, and Malter, all of RCA4 reported on a multistage photomultiplier. Again, the principal con- templated application was sound-on-film pickup. Their tube used a combination of electrostatic and magnetic fields to direct electrons from stage to stage. A photograph of a developmental sample is given in Fig. 2. Although the magnetic-type photomultiplier provided high gain, it had several dif- ficulties. The adjustment of the magnetic field was very critical, and to change the gain by reducing the applied voltage, the magnetic field also had to be adjusted.

1919.

2

critical, and to change the gain by reducing the applied voltage, the magnetic field also had

3

Photomultiplier Handbook

Another problem was that its rather wide open structure resulted in high dark current because of feedback from ions and light developed near the output end of the device. For these reasons, and because of the development of electrostatically focused photomultipliers, commercialization did not follow.

focused photomultipliers, commercialization did not follow. Fig. 2 - Magnetic-type multistage photomul- tiplier

Fig. 2 - Magnetic-type multistage photomul- tiplier reported by Zworykin, Morton, and Malter in 1936.

The design of multistage electrostatically focused photomultipliers required an analysis of the equipotential surfaces be- tween electrodes and of the electron trajec- tories. Before the days of high-speed com- puters, this problem was solved by a mechanical analogue: a stretched rubber membrane. By placing mechanical models of the electrodes under the membrane, the height of the membrane was controlled and corresponded to the electrical potential of the electrode. Small balls were then allowed to roll from one electrode to the next. The trajectories of the balls were shown to cor- respond to those of the electrons in the cor- responding electrostatic fields. Working with the rubber-dam analogue, both J.R. Pierce5 of Bell Laboratories and J.A. Rajchman6 of RCA devices linear arrays of electrodes that provided good focusing prop- erties. Although commerical designs did not result immediately from the linear dynode array, The Rajchmann design with some modifications eventually was, and still is, used in photomultipliers-particularly for high-gain wide-bandwidth requirements. First Commercial Devices The first commercially successful photomultiplier was the type 931. This tube had a compact circular array of nine dynodes using electrostatic focusing. The first such arrangement was described by Zworykin and Rajchman.7 Modifications were later reported by Rajchmann and

Modifications were later reported by Rajchmann and Snyder 8 and by Janes and Gloverg, all of
Modifications were later reported by Rajchmann and Snyder 8 and by Janes and Gloverg, all of
Modifications were later reported by Rajchmann and Snyder 8 and by Janes and Gloverg, all of

Snyder 8 and by Janes and Gloverg, all of RCA. The basic electron-optics of the cir- cular cage was thus well determined by 1941 and has not changed to the present time although improvements have been made in processing, construction, and performance of the 931A product. The success of the 931 type also resulted from the development of a much improved photocathode, Cs 3 Sb, reported by Gorlich in 1936. The first experimental photo- multipliers had used a Ag-O-Cs photocath- ode having a typical peak quantum efficien- cy of 0.4% at 800 nm. (The Ag-O-Cs layer was also used for the dynodes.) The new Cs3Sb photocathode had a quantum effi- ciency of 12% (higher today) at 400 nm. It was used in the first 931’s, both as a photocathode and as a secondary-emitting material for the dynodes.

and as a secondary-emitting material for the dynodes. 10 PHOTOEMITTER AND SECONDARY- EMITTER DEVELOPMENT

10

PHOTOEMITTER AND SECONDARY- EMITTER DEVELOPMENT Photocathode Materials Much of the development work on photomultiplier tubes has been concerned with their physical configuration and the related electron optics. But a very important part of the development of photomultiplier tubes was related to the photocathode and secondary-emission surfaces and their pro- cessing. RCA was very fortunate during the 1950’s and 60’s in having on its staff, prob- ably the world’s foremost photocathode ex- pert, Dr. A.H. Sommer. His treatise on Photoemissive Materials1 1 continues to pro- vide a wealth of information to all photocathode process engineers. Sommer explored the properties of numerous photocathode materials-par- ticularly alkali-antimonides. Perhaps his most noteworthy contribution was the multialkali photocathode (S-20 spectral response). This photocathode, Na2KSb:Cs, is important because of its high sensitivity in the red and near infrared; the earlier Cs 3 Sb photocathode spectral response barely ex- tends through the visible, although it is very sensitive in the blue where most scintillators emit. Bialkali photocathodes were also de- veloped by Sommer and have proven to be

the blue where most scintillators emit. Bialkali photocathodes were also de- veloped by Sommer and have
the blue where most scintillators emit. Bialkali photocathodes were also de- veloped by Sommer and have
better in some applications than the Cs3Sb photocathode. Thus, the Na2KSb photo- cathode has been

better in some applications than the Cs3Sb photocathode. Thus, the Na2KSb photo- cathode has been found to be stable at higher temperatures than Cs3Sb and, in addition, has a very low dark (thermal) emission. It has been particularly useful in oil-well- logging applications. Another bialkali pho- tocathode, K2CsSb, is more sensitive than Cs3Sb in the blue and is, therefore, used by RCA to provide a better match to the NaI:Tl crystals used in scintillation count- ing.

to the NaI:Tl crystals used in scintillation count- ing. Dynode Materials The first secondary-emission material used
to the NaI:Tl crystals used in scintillation count- ing. Dynode Materials The first secondary-emission material used
to the NaI:Tl crystals used in scintillation count- ing. Dynode Materials The first secondary-emission material used

Dynode Materials The first secondary-emission material used practically by RCA was the Ag-O-Cs surface. But with the development of the Cs3Sb RCA was the Ag-O-Cs surface. But with the development of the material for photocathodes, it was material for photocathodes, it was found that this material was also an excellent secondary emitter. Other practical secondary emitters developed during the early years of

photomultiplier development were MgO:Cs (often referred to as “silver-magnesium”) and BeO:Cs (“copper-beryllium”). In the early 1960’s, R.E. Simon12 while working at the RCA Laboratories developed his revolutionary concept of Negative Elec- tron Affinity (NEA). Electron affinity is the energy required for an electron at the conduction-band level to escape to the vacuum level. By suitably treating the sur- face of a p-type semiconductor material, the band levels at the surface can be bent downward so that the effective electron af- finity is actually negative. Thermalized elec- trons in the conduction band are normally repelled by the electron-affinity barrier; the advantage of the NEA materials is that these electrons can now escape into the vacuum as they approach the surface. In the case of secondary emission, secondary electrons can be created at greater depths in the material and still escape, thus providing a much greater secondary-emission yield. In the case of photoemission, it has been possible to achieve extended-red and infrared sen- sitivities greater than those obtainable with any other known materials. The first prac- tical application of the NEA concept was to

secondary emission. l3 An early paper by

described the theory

and early experimental results of secondary-

emission yields as high as 130 at 2.5 kV for GaP:Cs.

emission yields as high as 130 at 2.5 kV for GaP:Cs. Simon and Williams APPLICATIONS Introduction

Simon and Williams

as high as 130 at 2.5 kV for GaP:Cs. Simon and Williams APPLICATIONS Introduction DEVELOPMENT Astronomy

APPLICATIONS

Introduction

DEVELOPMENT

Astronomy and Spectroscopy Early applications of the photomultiplier were in astronomy and spectroscopy. Because the effective quantum efficiency of the photomultiplier was at least ten times that of photographic film, astronomers were quick to realize the photomultiplier tube’s advantage. Furthermore, because the output current of the photomultiplier is linear with incident radiation power, the tube could be used directly in photometric and spec- trophotometric astronomy. The type 1P28, a tube similar to the 931 but having an ultraviolet-transmitting envelope was par- ticularly useful in spectroscopy. The size and shape of the photocathode were suitable for the detection and measurement of line spec- tra and the very wide range of available gain proved very useful. 14

Radar Jammer

A totally unexpected application for the

new photomultiplier tube occurred during World War II. The development of radar for detecting and tracking aircraft led to the simultaneous need for wideband electronic- noise sources as radar jammers. Although other sources of noise were tried, the photomultiplier proved to be most suc- cessful. The advantage of the tube was its high gain (107) and wide band width (several hundred MHz). As a noise source the tube was operated with a non-modulated input light source and with high gain. The output amplifier photoelectric shot noise was “white” and thus indistinguishable from natural noise sources. This application of photomultiplier tubes resulted in production of thousands per month compared with previous production measured in only hun- dreds per year.

previous production measured in only hun- dreds per year. Scintillation Counting A proliferation of photomultiplier

Scintillation Counting

A proliferation of photomultiplier designs

followed the invention of the scintillation counter shortly after World War II. 15,16 The

photomultiplier tubes were designed with semitransparent photocathodes deposited on an end window which could be coupled directly to the scintillator. The principal scintillator used, NaI doped with thallium, was discovered by Hofstadter17. Much of the development work on photomultiplier

used, NaI doped with thallium, was discovered by Hofstadter17. Much of the development work on photomultiplier

Photomultiplier

Handbook

tubes during this period was reported by RCA and its competitors in the biannual meetings of the Scintillation Counter Sym- posium. These symposia were reported fully in the IRE (and later the IEEE) Transactions on Nuclear Science beginning with the meeting in Washington, January 1948. The scintillation counter became the most impor- tant measurement instrument in nuclear physics, nuclear medicine, and radioactive tracer applications of a wide variety. Headlight Dimmer During the 1950’s, RCA collaborated with the General Motors Company (Guide-Lamp Division) on a successful headlight dimmer. The photoelectric headlight dimmer-first made available only on Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles-basically used a tube similar to the 931A, but redesigned and tested to the auto manufacturer’s particular require- ments. The optical engineering problem was to sense the oncoming headlights or tail- lights being followed without responding to street and house lights. Vertical and horizon- tal angular sensitivity was designed to match the spread of the high beams of the automo- bile. A red filter was installed in the optical path to provide a better balance between sen- sitivity to oncoming headlights and to tail- lamps being followed. The device achieved a remarkable success, probably because of the novelty, and thousands of photomultiplier tubes were used. But today, one rarely sees a headlight dimmer.

Medical Diagnostic Equipment In recent years two medical applications have used large numbers of photomultiplier tubes and have spurred further develop- ments and improvements. The gamma cam- era18 is a sophisticated version of the scin- tillation counter used medically for locating tumors or other biological abnormalities. A radioactive isotope combined in a suitable compound is injected into the blood stream or ingested orally by the patient. The radioactive material disintegrates and gam- ma rays are ejected from preferential loca- tions such as tumors or specific organs. A large crystal intercepts the gamma rays and scintillates. Behind the crystal are photo- multiplier tubes, perhaps 19, in hexagonal array. The location of the point of scintilla- tion origin is obtained by an algorithm

point of scintilla- tion origin is obtained by an algorithm depending upon the individual signals from

depending upon the individual signals from each of the photomultipliers. Counting is continued until several hundred thousand counts are obtained and the organ in ques- tion is satisfactorily delineated. The location of each scintillation is represented by a point on a cathode-ray-tube presentation. The Computerized Axial Tomographic (CAT) scanner was introduced to this coun- try in 1973. The device uses a pencil or fan- beam of X-rays which rotates around the pa- tient providing X-ray transmission data from many directions. A scintillator coupled to a photomultiplier detects the transmitted beam-as an average photomultiplier cur- rent-and a computer stores and computes the cross-section density variation of the pa- tient’s torso or skull. The photomultipliers are1/ or 3 /4-inch end-on tubes which couple to the scintillator, commonly BGO (bismuth germanate). Each unit is equipped with as many as 600 photomultipliers.

PHOTOMULTIPLIERS AND SOLID- STATE DETECTORS COMPARED In some applications either a photomulti- plier or solid-state detector could be used. The user may make his choice on the basis of factors such as cost, size, or previous ex- perience. In other applications, the choice may be dictated by fundamental properties of the photomultiplier or the solid-state detector. A discussion follows of some of the common applications favoring one or the other detector with reasons for the choice. A summary presents the principal considera- tions the user must apply in making a choice in an application for which he requires a photodetector. This information should be particularly useful to the designer who is not well acquainted in this field. Photomultiplier Features The photomultiplier is unique in its ability to interface with a scintillation crystal and not only count the scintillations but measure their magnitude and time their arrival. Most scintillators emit in the blue and near ultra- violet. This spectral output obviously favors the photomultiplier having a photocathode with high quantum efficiency in the short wavelength range. On the other hand a sili- con p-i-n diode is relatively poor in this part of the spectrum but does best in the red and near infrared. The most important factor,

is relatively poor in this part of the spectrum but does best in the red and

probably, is the gain of the photomultiplier which permits the measurement of the very small signals from individual scintillations with a good signal-to-noise ratio, limited primarily by the statistics of the number of photoelectrons per pulse. Finally, the short rise time of the photomultiplier using fast scintillators permits time-of-flight measure- ments to be made in nuclear physics. Although the CAT scanner equipment also uses photomultipier tubes to detect the scintillations in bismuth germanate (BGO) crystals, the situation is somewhat different from the scintillation counting applications discussed above. In the CAT scanner the X-rays produce a broad band of pulse heights and no attempt is made to single out and detect single scintillation events. The photomultiplier is used in an analog mode to detect the level of radiation incident on the crystal. In the CAT scan operation the typical machine scans the patient in a few seconds and the level of irradiance from the crystal onto the photomultiplier is relatively high so that only a relatively low gain photo- multiplier is required. Furthermore, the speed of response requirement for the photomultiplier is relatively modest-per- haps a few hundred microseconds. Still, the principal advantage of using a photomulti- plier in this application for the detection of the radiant signal is its good signal-to-noise ratio. This ratio is very important to the pa- tient because a reduction in its signal-to- noise ratio would have to be made up for with an increased X-ray dose. Nevertheless, there is interest and development activity aimed at replacing the photomultiplier with silicon p-i-n detectors. Two factors could favor the alternate use of a silicon cell: (1) a better scintillator (BGO is almost an order of magnitude less sensitive than NaI:Tl; (2) a faster scanning machine (a very desirable technological advance because is would minimize effects of body motions). Both of these factors would result in a larger photocurrent and could bring the signal level for the silicon detector to the point where the fundamental signal-to-noise ratio from the X-ray source would not be degraded. Such developments may be anticipated because the silicon detector would also have the ad- vantage of smaller size and perhaps lower cost.

Introduction

As a result of increasing concern about en- vironment, pollution monitoring is becom- ing another important application for photo- multiplier tubes. For example, in the moni- toring of NOx the gas sample is mixed with O 3 in a reaction chamber. A chemilum- inescence results which is measured using a near-infrared-pass filter and a photomulti- plier having an S-20 spectral response. Al- though the radiation level is very low, NO can be detected down to a level of 0.1 ppm. The advantage of the photomultiplier in this application is again the high gain and good signal-to-noise ratio (the photomultiplier is cooled to 0°C to reduce dark-current noise) even though the radiation spectrum is ob- served near the threshold of the S-20 spectral range. In another pollution-monitoring applica- tion, SO2 is detected down to a level of 0.002 ppm. Here, the sample containing SO 2 is ir- radiated with ultraviolet and the excited SO2 molecules fluoresce with blue radiation that is detected with a combination of a narrow- band filter and photomultiplier. Very weak signals are detected and again it is the high gain, good signal-to-noise ratio and, in addi- tion, good blue sensitivity which makes the detection and measurement of small contam- inations of SO 2 possible. Spectroscopy is one of the very early ap- plications for photomultipliers. The wide range of radiation levels encountered is readily handled by the approximately loga- rithmic gain variation of the photomultiplier with voltage. At very low signal levels, the signal-to-noise capability of the photomulti- plier is essential. Because photomultiplier spectral response (with quartz or ultraviolet- transmitting-glass windows) covers the range from ultraviolet to near infrared, the photomultiplier is the logical choice for spec- troscopic applications, except in the infrared region of the spectrum.

Photocell*

Because of their small size and low cost, CdSe and CdS type photocells are the logical selection for applications such as automatic exposure control in photographic cameras or

various inspection and counting require- ments.

*“Photocell” is used here to indicate a photosensitive device in which the charge transport takes place through a solid as compared with “phototube” in which the charge transport is through a vacuum.

place through a solid as compared with “phototube” in which the charge transport is through a
place through a solid as compared with “phototube” in which the charge transport is through a

Features

Photomultiplier

Handbook

Many p-i-n silicon cells are used in com- bination with lasers or LED’s (light emitting diodes). Here, one of the principal advantages of the silicon cell is its good response in the near infrared out to 1100 nm. In combina- tion with the Nd:YAG laser emitting at 1060 nm, the silicon cell is used widely in laser ranging and laser tracking. A similar ap- plication utilizes an LED emitting near 900 nm with a silicon cell for automatic ranging for special camera equipment. Size and in- frared sensitivity are again the important qualifications. A rapidly growing application for photo- cells is for fiber-optic communication systems. LED’s are coupled to the fibers and the detector may be a p-i-n diode or, for a better signal-to-noise ratio, a silicon ava- lanche diode. The qualifying attributes for the choice of detector are size, near infrared sensitivity, adequate speed of response, and good signal-to-noise ratio. Smoke detectors now use large numbers of LED’s and p-i-n silicon cells. Again size, cost, and infrared sensitivity are the impor- tant qualifications. Characteristics Comparison Summary Spectral Response. Photomultipliers can be obtained with good spectral sensitivity in the range 200 to 900 nm. Silicon cells have rather poor blue sensitivity, but are excellent out to 1100 nm. In general, then, the photo- multiplier is to be preferred for applications involving the shorter wavelengths, although other factors may override this considera- tion. Speed of Response. If very fast response is required, the photomultiplier is usually the best choice of a detector. Photomultipliers are available with rise times (10 to 90%) of 1 or 2 nanoseconds using a 50-ohm load. The inherent rise time of silicon cells may be in the range 10 to 20 nanoseconds, depending upon the area of the cell. However, because of the cell’s capacitance, the effective rise time is much longer depending upon the choice of load resistance. For example, with a 1-megohm load resistance, the rise time may be of the order of 20 microseconds. A fairly large load resistance must be chosen to maintain good signal-to-noise characteristics for the silicon cell. Silicon avalanche photo- diodes can have rise times as short as 2 nanoseconds. Gain for an avalanche photo-

8
8

diode can be of the order of 100, but the sen-

is small-about 0.5 square

millimeter. Sensitive Area. Photomultiplier tubes are made in a variety of sizes so that many dif- ferent optical configurations can be accom- modated. The largest photocathode area available in commercial RCA photomulti- plier tubes has a nominal diameter of 5 in- ches and a minimum useful area of 97 square centimeters. By way of contrast, the 1 /2-inch side-on photomultiplier has a projected pho- tocathode area of 0.14 square centimeter. Silicon p-i-n diodes are available with sen- sitive areas generally not larger than 1 square centimeter; and avalanche silicon cells, 0.005

square centimeter. In many applications, a fairly large area is required, e.g., coupling to

a cathode-ray tube or a large scintillator.

This requirement generally indicates the use

of a photomultiplier tube. Silicon cells are at

an advantage when the source is small for direct coupling or for lens imaging. Temperature. Photomultipliers are gener- ally not rated for operation at temperatures higher than 75° C. Exceptions are photomul- tipliers having a Na 2 KSb photocathode. This bi-alkali photocathode can tolerate temper- atures up to 150° C or even higher for short cycles. In oil-well logging measurements this consideration is important. Photocathode sensitivities and gain change very little with temperature, but dark current does increase

rapidly. Dark currents at room temperature are of the order of 10 - l5 ampere at the pho- tocathode and double about every 10° C. Silicon cells are rated from - 50 to 80° C. Sensitivities are also relatively independent

of temperature. But dark current which may

be 10- 7 ampere at room temperature, also tends to double about every 10° C. Signal-to-Noise Ratio. At very low light levels, the limitation to detection and measurement is generally the signal-to-noise ratio. One way of describing the limit to detection is to state the Equivalent Noise In- put (ENI) or the Noise Equivalent Power (NEP). The NEP is the power level into the device which provides a signal just equal to the noise. Most often the bandwidth is specified as 1 hertz and the wavelength of the measurement is at the peak of the spectral responsivity. ENI is the same type of specifi- cation except the unit instead of power may

sitive

area

of the spectral responsivity. ENI is the same type of specifi- cation except the unit instead
of the spectral responsivity. ENI is the same type of specifi- cation except the unit instead

be luminous flux. For a photomultiplier such as one used for spectroscopy, the NEP at room temperature at 400 nm is about 7 x 10 -16 watts, or the EN1 is about 7 x 10 - l3 lumens. Both specifications are for a l-hertz ban For a p-i-n silicon photocell, the NEP at 900 nanometers may be of the order of 2 x 10 - watts, or the EN1 of 1.5 x 10 - l1 lumens. Both values are for a l-hertz band- width. Thus, the photomultiplier is clearly superior in this category. Also it should be pointed out that the silicon diode must be coupled into a load resistance of about 5 megohms in order to avoid noise domination from the coupling resistor. Unfortunately, this large resistance then increases the effec- tive rise time of the silicon device to about 100 microseconds. The NEP of a silicon ava- lanche photodiode is about 10 -14 watt at 900 nanometers or the ENI is 8 x 10 - l3 lumens, both for a l-Hz bandwidth. The lumen in these descriptions is that from a tungsten source operating at 2856 K color temperature. Peak emission for such a source is near 1000 nm and thus closely matches the spectral peak of the silicon devices. Gain. A photomultiplier can have a gain factor, by which the fundamental photo- cathode signal is multiplied, of from 10 to 10 8 . Silicon avalanche photodiodes have a gain of about 100. Silicon p-i-n diodes have no gain. The high gain of the photomulti- plier frequently eliminates the need of special amplifiers, and its range of gain con- trolled by the applied voltage provides flex- ibility in operation. Stability. Photomultiplier tubes are not noted for great stability although for low anode currents and careful operation they are satisfactory. When the light level is reasonably high, however, the very good stability of the silicon p-i-n cell is a con- siderable advantage. The silicon cell makes a particularly good reference device for this reason. In fact, the National Bureau of Stan- dards has been conducting special calibra- tion transfer studies using p-i-n silicon diodes.

REFERENCES 1. H. Bruining, Physics and applications of secondary electron emission, (McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc.; 1954).

electron emission, (McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc.; 1954). dwidth. 3 Introduction 2. J. Slepian, U.S. Patent

dwidth.

emission, (McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc.; 1954). dwidth. 3 Introduction 2. J. Slepian, U.S. Patent 1,
emission, (McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc.; 1954). dwidth. 3 Introduction 2. J. Slepian, U.S. Patent 1,
emission, (McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc.; 1954). dwidth. 3 Introduction 2. J. Slepian, U.S. Patent 1,

3

Introduction

2. J. Slepian, U.S. Patent 1, 450, 265,

April 3, 1923 (Filed 1919).

3. H. E. Iams and B. Salzberg, “The

secondary emission phototube,” Proc. IRE,

Vol. 23, pp. 55-64 (1935).

4. V.K. Zworykin, G.A. Morton, and L.

Malter, "The secondary-emission multipli - er-a new electronic device,” Proc. IRE,

Vol. 24, pp. 351-375 (1936).

5. J.R. Pierce, “Electron-multiplier

design,” Bell Lab. Record, Vol. 16, pp. 305-309 (1938).

6. J.A. Rajchman, “Le courant residue1

dans les multiplicateurs d’electrons elec-

trostatiques,” These L’Ecole Polytechnique Federale (Zurich, 1938). 7. V.K. Zworykin and J.A. Rajchman,

“The electrostatic electron multiplier, Proc. IRE, Vol. 27, pp. 558-566 (1939).

8. J.A. Rajchman and R.L. Snyder, “An

electrostatically focused multiplier phototube,” Electronics, Vol. 13, p. 20

(1940).

9. R.B. Janes, and A.M. Glover, “Recent

developments in phototubes,” RCA Review,

Vol. 6, pp. 43-54 (1941). Also, A.M. Glover, “A review of the development of sensitive

phototubes,”

Proc. IRE, Vol.

29,

pp.

413-423 (1941).

10. P. Gorlich, “Uber zusammengesetzte,

durchsichtige Photokathoden,” 2. Physik,

Vol. 101, p. 335 (1936).

11. A.H.

Sommer, Photoemissiv e

materials, John Wiley and Sons; 1968.

12. R.E. Simon, Research in electron

emission from semiconductors, Quarterly

Report, Contract DA 36-039-AMC-02221 (E) (1963).

13. R.E. Simon and B.F. Williams,

“Secondary-electron emission,” IEEE

Trans. Nucl. Sci., Vol. NS-15, pp. 166-170

(1968).

14. M.H. Sweet, Logarithmic photomul-

tiplier tube photometer,” JOSA, Vol. 37, p.

432 (1947).

15. H. Kallmann, Natur u Technik (July

1947).

16. J.W. Coltman and F.H. Marshall, “A

photomultiplier radiation detector,” Phys.

Rev., Vol. 72, p. 582 (1947).

17. R. Hofstadter, “Alkali halide scintilla-

tion counters,” Phys. Rev., Vol. 74, p. 100

(1948).

18. H.O. Anger, “Scintillation camera”,

Rev. Sci. Instr., Vol. 29, pp. 27-33 (1958).

2. Photomultiplier Design PHOTOEMISSION The earliest observation of a photoelectric effect was made by Becquerel

2. Photomultiplier

2. Photomultiplier Design PHOTOEMISSION The earliest observation of a photoelectric effect was made by Becquerel in

Design

PHOTOEMISSION The earliest observation of a photoelectric effect was made by Becquerel in 1839. He found that when one of a pair of electrodes in an electrolyte was illuminated, a voltage or current resulted. During the latter part of the 19th century, the observation of a photovoltaic effect in selenium led to the development of selenium and cuprous oxide photovoltaic cells. The emission of electrons resulting from the action of light on a photoemissive sur- face was a later development. Hertz dis- covered the photoemission phenomenon in 1887, and in 1888 Hallwachs measured the photocurrent from a zinc plate subjected to ultraviolet radiation. In 1890, Elster and Geitel produced a forerunner of the vacuum phototube which consisted of an evacuated glass bulb containing an alkali metal and an auxiliary electrode used to collect the negative electrical carriers (photoelectrons) emitted by the action of light on the alkali metal. Basic Photoelectric Theory The modern concept of photoelectricity stems from Einstein’s pioneer work for which he received the Nobel Prize. The essence of Einstein’s work is the following equation for determining the maximum kinetic energy E of an emitted photoelec- tron:

(1)
(1)

Eq. (1) shows that the maximum energy of the emitted photoelectron mv2/2 is propor- tional to the energy of the light quanta hv

is propor- tional to the energy of the light quanta hv must be given to an
is propor- tional to the energy of the light quanta hv must be given to an

must be given to an electron to allow it to escape the surface of a metal. For each metal, the photoelectric effect is character-

For each metal, the photoelectric effect is character- ed in electron-volts. In the energy diagram for

ed in electron-volts.

In the energy diagram for a metal shown in Fig. 3, the work function represents the energy which must be given to an electron at the top of the energy distribution to raise it to the level of the potential barrier at the metal-vacuum interface.

METAL FERMI ENERGY
METAL
FERMI
ENERGY
barrier at the metal-vacuum interface. METAL FERMI ENERGY 92CS - 32289 Fig. 3 - Energy mode/

92CS

- 32289

Fig. 3 - Energy mode/ for a metal showing the relationship of the work function and the Fermi level.

the relationship of the work function and the Fermi level. According to the quantum theory, only

According to the quantum theory, only

one electron can occupy a particular quan- tum state of an atom. In a single atom, these states are separated in distinct “shells”; nor- mally only the lower energy states are filled. In an agglomeration of atoms, these states are modified by interaction with neighboring atoms, particularly for the outermost elec- trons of the atom. As a result, the outer energy levels tend to overlap and produce a continuous band of possible energy levels, as shown in Fig. 3.

in Fig. 3 is for a

temperature of absolute zero; all lower energy levels are filled. As the temperature is increased, some of the electrons absorb ther- mal energy which permits them to occupy

The diagram shown

ELSEVIER

Applied SurfaceScience 111 (1997) 251-258

surface science

Secondary electron emission studies

A. Shih *, J. Yater, C. Hor, R. Abrams

Natal Research l_xlboratory, Washington.

DC 20375, USA

Received 14 June 1996;revised 28 July 1996; accepted23 August 1996

Abstract

Secondary-electron-emission processes under electron bombardment play an important role in the performance of a variety of electron devices. While in some devices, the anode and the grid require materials that suppress the secondary-elec- tron-generation process, the crossed-field amplifier (CFA) is an example where the cathode requires an efficient secondary- electron-emission material. Secondary-electron-emission processes will be discussed by a three-step process: penetration of the primary electrons, transmission of the secondary electrons through the material, and final escape of the secondary electrons over the vacuum barrier. The transmission of the secondary electrons is one of the critical factors in determining the magnitude of the secondary-electron yield. The wide band-gap in an insulator prevents low-energy secondary electrons from losing energy through electron-electron collisions, thereby resulting in a large escape depth for the secondary electrons and a large secondary-electron yield. In general, insulating materials have high secondary-electron yields, but a provision to supply some level of electrical conductivity is necessary in order to replenish the electrons lost in the secondary-electron- emission process. Our secondary-emission study of diamond demonstrates that the vacuum barrier height can have a strong effect on the total yield. The combined effect of a large escape depth of the secondary electrons and a low vacuum-barrier height is responsible for the extraordinarily high secondary-electron yields observed on hydrogen-terminated diamond samples.

1. Introduction

Secondary-electron-emission processes under electron bombardment play an essential role in vac- uum electronic devices. The materials used in the devices may need to be judiciously selected in some cases to enhance the secondary-electron emission and in other cases to suppress the emission. In microwave and millimeter wave power tubes, low secondary-electron-emission materials are desirable for depressed collectors in order to ensure a high efficiency in the energy conversion. Low-emission materials are also sought for coating the grids and

Correspondingauthor. Fax: + 1-202-7671280;e-mail address:

shih@estd.nrl.navy.mil.

the tube walls to prevent RF vacuum breakdown. On the other hand, high secondary-electron-emission materials are desirable for grids in electron multipli- ers and for cathodes in crossed-field devices, which is the area of our interest. Crossed-field devices, e.g., magnetrons and crossed-field amplifiers (CFA), have established a long history of applications in radar systems. Their advantages include high efficiency, low cost, low voltage, and compactness. Consequently, they also find wide applications in microwave cooking, indus- trial processing and radiation therapy equipment [1]. More recent applications are found in the generation of plasma for precision etching and in highly-effi- cient electric lighting. Exotic applications [1] are being explored for the generation of gigawatt-power

0169-4332/97/$17.00 Copyright © 1997Elsevier ScienceB.V. All rights reserved. PII S01 69-4332(96)00729-5

252

A. Shih et al. /Applied SurJace Science 111 (1997) 251-258

microwaves using a magnetically-insulated-line- oscillator (MILO) concept, and for beaming power (wireless power transmission) using an electroni- cally-steerable-phased-array-module (ESPAM) con- cept. A good knowledge of secondary-electron-emis- sion processes are crucial to the design of these devices. In some applications, e.g., AEGIS CFA's, only limited materials are available which have suffi- ciently high secondary-electron yields to satisfy the device's needs. One of the major current challenges to crossed- field devices (CFD's) is noise reduction. The re- quirement on the signal-to-noise ratio becomes more stringent in radar applications, which demand high resolution and fast response for small and close-to- gether targets in a cluttered environment. In mi- crowave-oven applications, a potential interference with the neighboring band allocated to the new 'wireless' services calls for a reduction in the side- band noise of the magnetrons. At present, CFDs are much noisier than coupled-cavity traveling-wave tubes, although in principle they should have compa- rable noise characteristics [2,3]. Both experimental and theoretical efforts are pursuing noise reduction in CFDs with vigor. A thorough understanding of the secondary-electron-emission processes is essential to the success of these efforts. The secondary-electron- emission characteristics of the cathodes are found to have a major effect on the signal-to-noise ratio [4,5]. In particular, numerical simulations and experimental results have demonstrated that a very high electron emission (primary or secondary) would cause the transition of the CFD to a low noise state [5]. Secondary-electron-emission is a complex pro- cess, and theoretical treatments are numerous. Earlier treatments have been reviewed by Dekker [6] and by Hachenberg and Brauer [7]. More recent theoretical developments are summarized by Devooght et al. [8]. While the earlier models produced an overall agree- ment with experimental observations as good as the more elaborate later models, the main problem was the lack of justification for the simplifying assump- tions [8]. These theories were able to predict most of the important characteristics of the secondary-elec- tron emission, such as the secondary-electron yield as a function of primary-electron energy and the energy distribution of the secondary electrons. All of the theories predict well only the functional depen-

dence (but not the magnitude) of the emission, ex-

cept in the

assumed free-electron picture [9]. We will discuss the secondary-electron-emission process in a mostly qualitative manner, as done by Jenkin and Trodden [10], and will support the discussion with our obser- vations. The discussion of the secondary-emission process is organized according to the distinct steps

used in all of the theories. The final step, which involves the overcome of the vacuum barrier, was considered to play only a minor role in the sec- ondary-electron-emission process. However, the sec- ondary-electron-emission behavior observed on dia- mond demonstrates the important role of the vacuum barrier.

simple case of A1, which is close to the

2. Primary electron penetration and internal sec- ondary electron generation

The theories treat secondary-electron emission as

occurring in three distinct steps: (l) production of internal secondary electrons by kinetic impact of the primary electrons, (2) transport of the internal sec- ondary electrons through the sample bulk toward the surface, and (3) escape of the electrons through the solid-vacuum interface. The primary electrons are assumed to travel in a straight-ahead path, slowing down through collisions with electrons and ions and transferring kinetic en- ergy to internally generated secondary electrons. Most of the theories treat the energy loss according

to the 'power law',

dE

dx

A

E"

(1)

where E is the energy of a primary electron at a depth x, and A is an arbitrary constant. N(x), the number of the secondary electrons produced in the layer dx, is assumed to be equal to the energy loss in the layer dE divided by the average excitation en- ergy B. Thus,

 

dE

N(x)dx

=

-

~

(2)

A

straight forward derivation [ 10] leads to

 

,

N(x)

=

B( R -

x)"/"+ '

(3)

A. Shih et al. / Applied Surf'ace Science Ill

(1997) 251-258

253

and

R

E~ +1

(n+

1)a

(4)

where R is the maximum penetration depth and Eo is the initial energy of the primary electrons. The best fit for the value of n was found to be 0.35, as determined by electron transmission mea- surements in A1203 [11] as well as by fitting the 'reduced yield curves' [6] taken from many materi- als. A quantum mechanical calculation [7] derived an approximate value of n = 0.39, which is fairly close to 0.35. The value obtained for n is valid over the energy range between 300 eV and 3 keV for the theory and 300 eV and 7 keV for the experiments. Eq. (3) reveals the increasing importance of sec- ondary-electron production near the end of the pri- mary-electron path and Eq. (4) points out that the penetration depth of the primary electrons increases with increasing energy. The former fact is clearly shown in Fig. 1, which can be understood on a physical level by considering a simple description of the primary electrons moving through the solid. At high primary energies, the high-velocity electrons have a relatively short time to interact with the lattice electrons, and the internal yield per unit length is low. As the primary electrons lose energy, the interaction time increases and so does the yield. The combined effect is that as the primary-electron en- ergy increases, the internal secondary electrons origi- nate deeper beneath the surface. The transport of secondary electrons through the material is modeled by either a single-scattering

Z

z

0

- I

0

GI

0

w

13.

,

,

,

I

,

,

'

-

-

'

DEPTH

-

'

R

Fig.

function of distance along the primary-electron path.

1. The

production rate of internal secondary electrons as a

II

2.00

1.60

1.20

0.80

0.40

0.00

:

.?/

.i;

"

0=°

oo

 

4

22.5

 

°

 

0 °

i

i

i

i

500

1000

1500

2000

Primary Electron Energy (eV)

Fig. 2. Changes in the secondary-electron yield with incident angle 0. Normal incidence is at 0 = 0°. The data were taken on a clean molybdenumsample.

process or by a diffusion process which involves a large number of scattering events. Some later models explicitly take into account the electron-cascade pro- cess, which is the electron multiplication that occurs during the slowing-down of the internal secondary electrons. In all of the models, the escape of the internal secondary electrons is described by an expo- nential decay law with a characteristic escape depth

X s •

Based on the penetration-depth (R) and escape- depth (X~) concepts, the shape of the secondary-elec- tron yield curve as a function of the primary energy is easily explained [10]. At very low primary ener- gies for which R << X~, the internal secondary elec- trons escape efficiently, and due to the small primary energy only a few secondary electrons are created. Since the number of internal secondary electrons generated increases with primary energy, the ob- served yield also rises with primary energy. At very high primary energies for which R >> X~, the expo- nential nature of the escape process causes the de- crease in the number of internal secondary electrons that escape to be more rapid than the increase in generation of internal secondary electrons. Conse- quently, the observed yield decreases with primary energy. The yield has a maximum value at a primary energy for which R ~ X~. The resulting energy de- pendent yield curve is bell shaped, as commonly observed on most materials. An example is shown in Fig. 2 of yield curves taken on a molybdenum sample.

254

A. Shih et al. /Applied SurJace Science I 11 (1997) 251-258

A similar qualitative discussion can be made about

the variation in yield with incident angle. If the

primary beam is incident at an angle 0 to the

surface, the maximum penetration depth is reduced

by a factor cos0

(0= 0), assuming a straight-ahead path for the pri- mary beam. Consequently, the yields are larger at more oblique angles, and the enhancement in yield is more apparent at the higher primary energies for

which R >> X~. The family of yield curves shown in Fig. 2 were taken at various 0 on a clean molybde-

num sample [12]. E

maximum yield occurs, increases with 0: E,

and 660 eV

490, 520,

, the energy at which the

relative to that at normal incidence

=

550,

580,

for

0 = 0, 22,5.40,

50, and 60 °, respectively. Since E,,,~,x occurs at an

conduction-band minimum. The electron affinity is typically on the order of an electron volt for insula- tors. Since there are few conduction electrons in insulators, the secondary electrons lose energy through the excitation of valence electrons into the conduction band. The wide band gap prevents sec- ondary electrons with kinetic energy less than E~,p from participating in such electron-electron colli- sions. For these electrons, electron-phonon and elec- tron-impurity collisions are mainly responsible for

the energy loss. Because of the absence of electron- electron scattering, the secondary electron loses much less energy as it moves through material and the escape depth becomes large. Therefore, in general, the yields are high in insulators [6]. For example,

energy for which R cos0 = X~, a larger 0 results in a

6

is 6.8 for NaC1 and 25 for single-crystal MgO

larger R. Since the penetration depth R and the

[6].

primary energy

results in a larger Era, x as well.

E are related

by Eq.

(4),

a larger

0

3. Transport of internal secondary electrons

In general, a primary electron with a reasonably

high energy generates many internal secondary elec- trons. However, high secondary-electron yields are not always observed because most of the internal secondary electrons lose enough energy through col- lisions with electrons and ions to fall below the vacuum level. The energy-loss mechanisms for inter- nal secondary electrons differ in metals and insula- tors. In metals, the secondary electrons lose energy by interacting with conduction electrons, lattice vi- brations, and defects. The kinetic energy of a sec-

ondary electron must be at least E F + 05 when it reaches the surface in order to escape. E F and 05 are the Fermi energy and the work function of the metal, respectively, and the minimum escape energy E v + 05 is typically about 10 eV. This large minimum escape energy and the high collision probability due to the large number of conduction electrons result in the small secondary-electron yields found with metals. The maximum yield 6r~,~ for a metal is on the order of unity, and it varies between 0.5 (for Li) and 1.8 (for Pt) [6].

In insulators, the minimum kinetic energy for a

secondary electron to escape is the electron affinity X, the difference between the vacuum level and the

When the secondary-electron-yield coefficient ex- ceeds one, the number of emitted secondary elec- trons exceeds the number of arriving primary elec- trons. Consequently, there is a net electron flow from the emitting sample into vacuum, and some level of electrical conductivity is necessary in the sample in

order to replenish the lost electrons. Otherwise, sam- ple charging will decrease the secondary emission yield to 1. Different approaches have been used in practice to provide electrical conductivity. In oxi- dized beryllium, only a top 10-20 A thick layer is composed of BeO, beneath which metallic Be sup- plies the electrical conductivity. MgO/Au cermet is

,20[

composed of a mixture of Mg and Au micro-crystal-

10,0

il

4.0

::"

2O

0.0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Primary Electron Energy (eV)

Fig. 3. Effect of electrical conductivity on the secondary-electron yield from diamond.

A. Shih et al./Applied Surface Science 111 (1997) 251-258

255

lites of about 50 ,~ diameter, with the Au particles providing the conducting path [13]. In diamond, appropriate dopants are used to provide the neces- sary electrical conductivity. Fig. 3 compares the secondary-electron-yield curves from N-doped and B-doped diamond samples. N is a deep donor in diamond, and at room temperature N-doped diamond samples are insulators. Fig. 3 shows that the sec- ondary-electron yields from the N-doped diamond are very low. In contrast, B is a shallow acceptor in diamond, and therefore B-doped diamond samples are conductive. The three B-doped samples studied here have electrical resistivities between 50 f~ cm and 170 kl) cm, and all three as-received samples showed comparably high yields. The yield curve taken from one of the samples is shown in Fig. 3.

4. Escape of secondary electrons over the vacuum barrier

Most of the theories do not explicitly treat the escape process at the solid-vacuum interface. A phe- nomenological approach by Bouchard and Carette [14] found that the potential barrier at a solid-vacuum interface controls the final shape of the secondary- electron energy distribution. This model and other theories do not regard the vacuum-barrier height as having a strong impact on the magnitude of the yield. For example, Jenkins and Trodden [10] argued that "most of the secondary electrons have energies greater than 10 eV. For this reason, we should expect that changes of the order of a volt in the work function of the surface would have only a small effect on the secondary emission coefficient". Fur- thermore, they provided experimental evidence of Na adsorption on W, which reduced the work function by nearly 3 eV but increased the yield by only 60%. However, the results of secondary-electron emission studies on diamond disagree with the conventional wisdom. We will show below that hydrogen-termina- tion of diamond lowers the vacuum level by 1.45 eV but enhances the secondary-electron yield by more than an order of magnitude. Recent investigations have found very high sec- ondary-electron yields from hydrogen-terminated di- amond samples [15-18]. Malta et al. [18] found a yield as high as 86 from a (100) diamond surface.

Our study reveals that two of the key reasons for the extremely high secondary-electron yields from H- terminated diamond surfaces are: (1) the presence of a wide-band gap in diamond (5.47 eV) which allows low-energy secondary electrons to have large escape depths, and (2) a very low or even negative electron affinity at the surface which permits a large concen- tration of secondary electrons residing near the bot- tom of the conduction band to escape. These premises are supported by the analysis of the secondary-elec- tron-yield data and the secondary-electron-energy- distribution spectra taken on diamond samples as presented below. All of the diamond samples were grown by chem- ical vapor deposition (CVD) on Si substrates and then lifted off in a free-standing form. All samples were acid cleaned to remove surface impurities such as Si and non-diamond carbon. Most of the diamond samples that we studied were subjected to a 30-min hydrogenation process at 20 Tort hydrogen pressure, 600 W microwave power, and 800°C sample temper- ature. Hydrogenated diamond samples are H- terminated [ 19]. Fig. 4 shows an energy distribution curve (EDC) of the secondary electrons emitted from a H- terminated diamond sample. The measurement tech- nique has been discussed in an earlier paper [20]. The energy of the secondary electrons is measured relative to the Fermi level E F of the sample. The

~*

0

5

\

~'\

/ Ec +

1'0

xlO

"

'

Egap

1'5

ENERGY (eV above EF)

Fig. 4. Secondary-electronEDC of an as-receivedhydrogenated, B-doped, diamond sample. The data was taken at a primary

electron energy of 1000 eV.

taken from samples with a saturated hydrogen coverage or in spectrataken with higherprimaryelectronenergies.

The sharp peak is larger in spectra

256

A. Shih et al. /Applied Surface Science 111 (1997) 251-258

diamond sample used in the illustration is a B-doped sample, which has a Fermi level above but near the

band maximum E v. The conduction band

minimum E c is an energy Eg,p above E v, where Egap, the band gap energy, is 5.47 eV for diamond. The position of E~ in Fig. 4 was determined by a method described previously by Shih et al. [21]. Photoemission EDCs from diamond have been shown to contain a high concentration of "quasi thermalized secondaries in the lowest conduction band" [22]. This high concentration of low-energy electrons is also present in the electron-stimulated secondary-electron distribution from diamond. They are called quasi-thermalized electrons because the energy width, although narrow (FWHM > 0.5 eV), is much larger than that expected for fully thermal- ized electrons (0.025 eV). These electrons are piled up just above E c as showed in Fig. 4. They represent a large fraction of the total emitted secondary elec- trons, and in some cases over 90% of the emitted electrons are contained in the sharp peak. When the vacuum level falls near or below E~, these electrons can escape, resulting in a high secondary-electron yield. The vacuum level is ordinarily at the energy where the emission onset occurs, except in the case of a negative electron affinity (NEA) when the vac- uum level can be below the emission onset energy• Fig. 4 shows that the emission onset occurs below E~ for the H-terminated diamond sample. This observa- tion indicates the presence of a NEA on at least part of the surface• H-termination of diamond is essential for the low electron affinity and is consequently crucial to the high secondary-electron yield• In Fig. 5, the sec- ondary-electron EDC from a H-terminated diamond sample is compared with that from the same sample after heating at 1000°C for 15 min. The heating is sufficient to desorb a large fraction of the surface hydrogen. Accompanying the hydrogen desorption, the vacuum-barrier height increases by about 1.45 eV and is too high for the quasi-thermalized elec- trons to escape, resulting in a disappearance of the sharp peak in the EDC. Simultaneously, the sec- ondary-electron yield drops precipitously. Fig. 6 shows the secondary-electron yield curves taken on the same sample before and after heating• The other important factor for the large yield is the large escape depth of the low-energy secondary

valence

Z

3

5

10

15

ENERGY (eV above EF)

Fig. 5. Change in the secondary-electronEDC of a H-terminated, B-doped, diamond sample after a 1000°Cheating. Curve A is the EDC taken from the H-terminated sample, and curve B is the EDC taken from the sample after the heating. The 1.45 eV rise in the vacuum level due to the heating prevents the high-concentra- tion of low-energysecondary electrons from beingemitted.

electrons because of the absence of electron-electron scattering. The 'turn-off' of electron-electron scat- tering is demonstrated in Fig. 4. In the enlarged part of the EDC, an abrupt change in the emission inten- sity occurs at the energy Ec + Egap. Below Ec + Egap, only electron-phonon and electron-impurity scatter- ings can occur, resulting in a large escape depth and relatively high emission intensities. Above Ec + Egap, electron-electron scattering occurs which results in a small escape depth and a drop in the emission inten- sity.

~-

70

oo

40

II30~

~

20

10

~

500

~/"

./

I000

.,f~'J

with H-termination

diamond

after H-desorption

1500

2000

2500

3000

Primary Electron Energy (eV)

Fig. 6. A large reduction in the secondary-electron yield from diamond occurs with hydrogen desorption.

A. Shih et al./Applied Surface Science 111 (1997) 251-258

257

The quasi-thermalized electrons constitute a dom- inant portion of the secondary electrons emitted from H-terminated diamond samples. The low kinetic en- ergy of these electrons may be responsible for the unusually large escape depth which is revealed by the unusually high Emax. Earlier we discussed that the maximum secondary-electron yield occurs at an energy for which R = X~. A large X~ means a large R, which in turn means a high Emax. Emax occurs at about several hundred eV for most metals and at about 1000-2000 eV for most wide-band-gap mate- rials [7]. For H-terminated diamond, the yield contin- ues to rise over the 0 to 3000 eV energy range used in the measurements (see Fig. 6). B impurities are introduced in the CVD diamond samples to provide the required electrical conductiv- ity. Since electron-phonon and electron-impurity scatterings are the main energy-loss mechanisms for the low-energy secondary electrons, an excessively high impurity concentration may reduce the escape depth and the yield. Fig. 7 compares the yield curves taken on diamond samples with different B-doping levels. The higher yield curves are typical for low or moderately B-doped diamond samples which have a resistivity between 50-170 k12 cm and are transpar- ent. The lower yield curve is taken from the highly B-doped sample which appears black and opaque and has a resistivity between 50-170 l-I cm. We have not studied any sample with a resistivity be- tween 170 ~ cm and 50 k f~ cm.

 

80

6O

 

o

50

 

40

~

J

High B concentration

 

II

3o

/

~

-

co

20

10

°0

500""'

;O'Od "

;5'00'

"

20'0O ''

25OO '

30'00

Primaw Electron Energy (eV)

Fig. 7. Effect of the B impuritylevel on the secondary-electron yieldfromdiamond.

5. Summary

Secondary-electron-emission processes have been

discussed using a three-step process: (1) generation

of internal secondary electrons during the slow-down

of primary electrons, (2) transport of the internal

secondary electrons through the material, and (3) the final escape of the electrons over the vacuum barrier.

A consideration of the penetration depth of the pri-

mary electrons and its relation to the escape depth of

the internal secondary electrons explains the depen- dence of the secondary-electron yield on the energy and the incident angle of the primary electrons. An examination of the scattering events experienced by

the internal secondary electrons explains the differ- ence in yield found for a metal and an insulator. The presence of a wide band gap allows a large escape depth for the low-energy secondary electrons, but it also depletes the number of conduction electrons available to sustain the emission process. Examples

of measures employed to supply electrical conductiv-

ity were given.

Diamond provides an opportunity to explore a possible novel secondary-electron-emission process; the novel characteristics are manifested by the dis- tinctive sharp feature in the secondary-electron EDC and by the exceedingly high yields. The final step, which involves the overcome of the vacuum barrier, was previously considered to play only a minor role

in the secondary-emission process. However, a high

concentration of quasi-thermalized secondary elec- trons is present above the conduction-band minimum

of diamond. Hydrogen-termination on diamond sur-

faces lowers the vacuum barrier height to near or below the conduction-band minimum which releases a flood of low-energy secondary electrons and boosts the total yield tremendously. The low electron affin- ity at the surface and the large escape depth of the secondary electrons are responsible for the extraordi- narily high secondary-electron yields from H- terminated diamond samples. The potentially rapid degradation in the yield from H-terminated diamond due to electron and ion impingement prevents the wide application of dia- mond in actual devices [16]. However, the knowl- edge gained from the secondary emission study of diamond points to the possibility of using other high

258

A. Shih et al. / Applied Surface Science 111 (1997) 251-258

secondary-yield materials, namely wide band-gap materials with low electron affinities.

Acknowledgements

The diamond samples studied were supplied by Drs. P. Pehrsson and J. Butler of the NRL Chemistry division. This work is supported in part by NSWC/Crane Division and in part by the Vacuum Electronics Initiative.

References

[1] D. Chernin and Y.Y. Lau, ed., Proc. of the First Int. Work- shop on Crossed-Field Devices, August 15-16, 1995, Ann Arbor, Michigan. [2] T.E. Ruden, G.E. Dombroski, D. Hobbs and G. Boles, Proc. of the First Int. Workshop on Crossed-Field Devices (1995)

66.

[3] G. Ya. Levin, L.A. Semenov, A. Ya Usikov, Yu.A. Belov,

Sov. J. Comm. Tech. Elect. 37 (1992) 128. [4] J.Z. Ye, R. MacGregor, C. Chan and T.E. Ruden, Proc. of the First Int. Workshop on Crossed-Field Devices (1995)

202.

[5] H.L.

McDowell, Proc. of the First Int. Workshop on

Crossed-Field Devices (1995) 236. [6] A.J. Dekker, in: Solid State Physics, Advances in Research and Applications, eds. F. Seitz and D. Turnbull (Academic Press, New York, 1958) p. 251.

[7] O. Hachenberg and W. Brauer, in: ed. L. Marton, Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics (Academic Press, New York, 1959) p. 413. [8] J. Devooght, A, Dubus and J.C. Dehaes, Phys. Rev. B 36 (1987) 5093. [9] A. Dubus, J. Devooght and J.C. Dehaes, Phys. Rev. B 36 (1987) 5110. [10] R.O. Jenkins and W.G. Trodden, Electron and Ion Emission (Dover, New York, 1965) p. 54. [11] J.R. Young, Phys. Rev 103 (1956)292.

[12] A. Shih and C. Hor, IEEE Trans. Elect. Devices 40 (1993)

824.

[13] V.H. Ritz, A. Shih and B. Sobocinski, Surf. Interface Anal. 18 (1992) 514. [14] C. Bouchard and J.D. Carette, Surf. Sci. 100 (1980) 251. [15] G.T. Mearini, I.L. Krainsky, Y.X. Wang, J.A. Dayton, Jr., R. Ramesham and M.F. Rose, Thin Solid Films 253 (1994) 151. [16] G.T. Mearini, I.L. Krainsky and J.A. Dayton, Jr., Surf. Int. Anal. 21 (1994) 138. [17] D.P. Malta, J.B. Posthill, T.P. Humphreys, R.E. Thomas, G.G. Fountain, R.A. Rudder, G.C. Hudson, M.J. Mantini and R.J. Markunas, Mat. Res. Soc. Syrup. Proc. 339 (1994) 39. [18] D.P. Malta, J.B. Posthill, T.P. Humphreys, M.J. Mantini and R.J. Markunas, Mat. Res. Soc. Syrup. Proc. 416 (1996) 311. [19] B.D.Thoms, P.E. Pehrsson and J.E. Butler, J. Appl. Phys. 75 (3) 1804 (1994). [20] A. Shih, J. Yater, C. Hor and R. Abrams, IEEE Trans. Elect. Devices 41 (1994) 2448. [21] A. Shih, J. Yater, P. Pehrsson, J. Butler, C. Hor and R. Abrams, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 416 (1996) 461. [22] F.J. Himpsel, J.A. Knapp, J.A. Van Vechten and D.E. East- man, Phys. Rev. B 20 (2) (1979) 624.

EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH European Laboratory for Particle Physics

NUCLEAR RESEARCH European Laboratory for Particle Physics Large Hadron Collider Project LHC Project Report 472 A

Large Hadron Collider Project

LHC Project Report 472

A SUMMARY OF MAIN EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS CONCERNING THE SECONDARY ELECTRON EMISSION OF COPPER

V. Baglin, I. Collins, B. Henrist, N. Hilleret and G. Vorlaufer

Abstract

The secondary electron emission of surfaces exposed to the impact of energetic electrons contributes significantly to the electron cloud build-up. For the prediction of the consequences of this effect the measurements of the secondary electron yield carried out at CERN are an important source of information. New experimental results concerning the total secondary electron yield for very low primary electron energy (between 5 eV and 50 eV) will be also given in the case of as received copper. Furthermore the energy distribution of the re-emitted electrons is drastically influenced by the primary electron energy. The ratio of the number of reflected electrons to the total number of re-emitted electrons has been measured and its variation with the primary electron energy will be shown. As a consequence of these new experimental data, a numerical approximation to express the secondary electron yield as a function of the primary electron energy will be given for the low incident electron energy region (E < 50 eV). It has been shown that the decrease of the secondary electron yield due to the electron bombardment could reduce sufficiently the consequences electron cloud effect. To understand further the origin of this decrease, the results of experiments showing the variation of the electron induced desorption yield with the incident electron dose will be compared to the concomitant reduction of the secondary electron yield.

LHC-VAC

Administrative Secretariat LHC Division CERN CH - 1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland

Geneva,

24 June 2002

1 THE EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS The measurements of the secondary electron yield versus electron energy have been carried out in two separate systems described previously 1,2 . They consist in an electron gun delivering a focused primary electron beam of energy variable between 45 and 3000 eV. This beam hits the surface of the sample under normal incidence at a circular spot (approximately 3 mm diameter). A conical cage, coaxial to the primary beam, collects the secondary electrons. The deflection plates and lens of the electron gun are driven by a computer program which optimises their settings on a dummy sample to maximise the transmitted primary current. For the measurements short pulses (30 ms) of low intensity (some nA) are used to reduce the electron dose received by the sample (10 nC/mm2 for a complete energy scan). The vacuum system is bakeable and is evacuated by a turbomolecular pump. After bake out the pressure reached in the system is in the low 10 -10 Torr region. In EPA 1,3 the second system used was based on the same principle as the laboratory system, the measurement procedure (beam optimisation, current pulses and data handling) was identical.

2.5

2.3

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000

Energy (eV)

Figure 1: Variation of the average secondary electron yield versus electron energy for 25 as received copper samples

For the energy measurements, a 4 grids hemispherical energy analyser has been used. Its energy resolution is limited to some eV and the energies given do not take into account any correction of contact potential between the filament gun and the sample. The dose effect was studied using various procedures. Initially (1978) the electron dose was delivered to the sample using the measurement gun. The yield was continuously measured at the bombardment energy. Because of the rapid destruction of the expensive gun filament, this method was abandoned and a rustic flood gun was added to the laboratory system allowing to irradiate completely the sample

2

surface. In EPA the electron dose was accumulated by biasing the sample to a variable positive voltage that attracted the photoelectrons created by the synchrotron light. A change in the bias voltage modifies the mean energy of the incident electrons as well as their amount. As the sample bias voltage changes the collection efficiency of the sample, the photon dose needed to condition the sample are not directly comparable when the sample bias is modified. The dose is determined by integrating the current collected on the sample. The main difference between these two methods to accumulate the dose is that in EPA any artefact linked to the presence of a hot filament for the production of the impinging electron has been eliminated.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

23-01-01/ A.R. 31-01-01/ A.R. 23-03-01 /5.6 e-4 31-01-01/ 5.6 e-4 31-01-01/ 1.01 e-2 23-03-01 /
23-01-01/ A.R.
31-01-01/ A.R.
23-03-01 /5.6 e-4
31-01-01/ 5.6 e-4
31-01-01/ 1.01 e-2
23-03-01 / 9.6 e-3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30

Energy (eV)

Figure 2: Variation of the average secondary electron yield versus electron energy for copper samples and energies lower than 30 eV

2 THE VARIATION OF THE SECONDARY ELECTRON YIELD OF COPPER VERSUS THE PRIMARY ELECTRON ENERGY Figure 1 shows the mean secondary electron yield (S.E.Y.) measured on 25 as received copper samples cleaned following the LHC recipe. The average maximum is 2.06 (σ = 0.16) for an energy of 271 eV (σ = 25). The bars are used to display the spread between the minimum and maximum S.E.Y. at each energy for these 25 samples. The low energy part of the δ (E) curves was measured recently and is displayed in Figure 2 for various electron doses (cf. next section). The two curves labelled 23/03 AR and 31/01 AR show the SEY as a function of the energy for electron energies between 4 eV and 30 eV. The SEY at 4 eV lies between 0.6 and 0.8. Below 10 eV the as received curves tend to indicate a constant value of the SEY, independent of the electron energy.

3

THE CHANGE OF THE SECONDARY ELECTRON EMISSION WITH THE INCIDENT ELECTRON DOSE The variation of the SEY with the electron dose is an effect leading, when not properly taken into account, to underestimated secondary electron yield. This brought us to modify the experimental set up and procedure in order to decrease as much as possible the electron dose received by the sample during the measurements 4 . In Chamonix X 1 it was proposed to take profit of this effect to obtain the decrease of the copper SEY necessary to operate LHC without “electron cloud effect”.

3

2.6 DELTA MAX 23-03 DELTA MAX 31-01 2.4 ELECTRON GUN measured at 500 eV DELTA
2.6
DELTA MAX 23-03
DELTA MAX 31-01
2.4
ELECTRON GUN measured at 500 eV
DELTA MAX EPA 99V
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02

Dose (C/mm2)

Figure 3: The variation of the secondary electron yield with the incident electron dose

In Figure 3, the variation of the SEY of as received copper is plotted against the incident electron dose for various measurements made using various procedures and under various experimental conditions:

The curve noted electron gun was obtained in 1979 using an electron gun on a copper

versus the electron dose. The

impinging electrons had an energy of 500 eV. The area irradiated by the beam was a circle of approximately 2 mm diameter.

The curve note “delta max EPA” gives the variation of the maximum SEY against the dose of electron collected with a bias of 99 V (i.e. 99 eV impinging electron energy).

The 2 curves noted ‘delta max 23-03” and “delta max 31-01” were obtained this year using a flood gun irradiating the whole sample with an electron energy of 500 eV. These curves show that an electron dose between 8x 10 -4 and 2x 10 -3 C/mm 2 is necessary to reach a SEY lower than 1.3. The minimum of the SEY (close to 1.1) is obtained for an electron dose close to 10 -2 C/mm 2. (fully conditioned sample).

sample. It gives the SEY of copper at 500 eV energy

4

In Figure 2 the low energy part of the two later curves (23-03 and 31-01) are also shown. The reproducibility is very good, the SEY are continuously decreasing below 10 eV and are close to 0.2 at an energy of 4 eV.

4 THE ENERGY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECONDARY ELECTRONS, EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND CURVES REFLECTED/TRUE SECONDARIES VERSUS INCIDENT ELECTRON ENERGY The preceding measurements have shown the peculiar behaviour of the SEY as the primary electron energy decreases. These peculiarities could be related to the change in the shape of the secondary electron energy distribution. This distribution was studied using a 4 grids hemispherical energy analyser. The energy axis is shifted by an unknown amount (< 3eV) due to the unknown contact potential between the filament and the sample. It must be emphasised that, because of the large amount of incident electrons needed for this type of measurement, the data presented here are related to a copper close to the conditioned state.

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

LAB SAMPLE 12 EPA 99 eV LAB SAMPLE 13 EPA 800 eV EPA 350 eV
LAB SAMPLE 12
EPA 99 eV
LAB SAMPLE 13
EPA 800 eV
EPA 350 eV
LAB GUN 500 eV
ARGON G.D. COPPER
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000

ENERGY (eV)

Figure 4: Variation of the secondary electron yield versus the primary electron energy for 6 fully conditioned (10 -2 C/mm 2 ) copper

In Figure 5 the energy distribution of secondary electrons emitted by a copper sample are shown using two normalised axis: the abscissae are normalised to 1 at the incident electron energy, the ordinates are normalised to 1000 for the maximum emitted intensity. On this graph the increased importance of the reflected electrons at low primary electron energy is striking when the curves measured at 10 eV and 550 eV are compared. A second fact, also reported in the literature 5 , is illustrated in Figure 6 which shows a slight shift towards lower energy in the position of the truesecondary electron peak when the incident electron energy is raised.

5

The truesecondary electron peak is found around an energy of 2 eV. Using the data partially presented in Figure 5 the ratio between the number of reflected electrons and the total number of emitted electrons has been calculated for the five energies considered (10, 30, 100, 300, 550 eV). This ratio is given in Figure 7 as a function of the primary electron energy.

5 NUMERICAL EXPRESSIONS FOR THE RELATION BETWEEN THE SECONDARY ELECTRON YIELD AND THE INCIDENT ELECTRON ENERGY Usual expressions given by M. Furman 6 or J.J. Scholtz 7 can be used to numerically express the variation of the true secondary electron yield δ s with the primary electron energy (E p ). Both formulae give good fits to the measured curves for a given energy range. The simple expression given by M. Furman produces a reasonable fit in the low primary energy part (E p < 1000 eV) which is the most interesting for LHC. In the low energy region (<100 eV) the importance of the reflected electrons becomes more important as it can be deduced from Figure 5. For this reason the fit formula proposed here uses the Furman formula corrected for the contribution of reflected electrons. The reflected electron contribution has been assessed from the previously shown experimental data on the secondary electron energy distribution for copper. Furmans relation for the true secondary electron yield is:

s × ( E p E ) MAX δ s = δ MAX s 
s
× ( E p
E
)
MAX
δ s = δ MAX
s
E p
s −1 + 
E MAX
δ MAX , s and E MAX are 3 parameters used to obtain the best fit to the experimental.
1000
900
Ep= 10 eV
800
Ep=30 eV
700
Ep= 100 eV
600
Ep=300 eV
500
Ep=550 eV
400
300
200
100
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00

NORMALISED ENERGY

Figure 5: Normalised secondary electron energy distribution for conditioned copper

6

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Ep= 10 eV Ep=30 eV Ep= 100 eV Ep=300 eV Ep=550 eV E max 550
Ep= 10 eV
Ep=30 eV
Ep= 100 eV
Ep=300 eV
Ep=550 eV
E max 550
Emax 10
0
2
4
6
8
10

ENERGY (eV)

Figure 6: Secondary electron energy distribution for copper ( below 10 eV)

100%

10%

1%

REF/TOT FIT II FIT II LOW ENERGY EXP FIT 0 100 200 300 400 500
REF/TOT
FIT II
FIT II LOW ENERGY
EXP FIT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

PRIMARY ELECTRON ENERGY

Figure 7: The ratio between the reflected and the total number of re-emitted electrons in the case of copper

7

The numerical value used to fit the experimental data presented in Figure 1 are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Fit parameters for the true secondary yield (M.Furman formula)

SAMPLE STATE

AS RECEIVED

FULLY CONDITIONED

δ

MAX

2.03

1.13

E

MAX

262

318

 

s

1.39

1.35

To introduce the correction due to the reflected electrons two approximations could be made depending on the accuracy needed. Of course as it appears in Figure 7, the correction for reflected electrons is only significant at energy lower than 300 eV and amounts to more than 10% for energies below 100 eV. A relation 7 allows to fit the experimental curve given in Figure 7:

ln( f ) = A 0 + A 1 × (ln(E p + E 0 )) + A 2 × (ln(E p + E 0 )) 2 + A 3 × (ln(E p + E 0 )) 3

To obtain the best fit in the low energy part (below 300 eV), the following constants has been used:

A 0 = 20.699890, A 1 = -7.07605, A 2 = 0.483547, A 3 = 0, E 0 =56.914686 (Curve labelled FIT II low energy).

For use up to higher primary electron energy (2000 eV), the following coefficients should be used:

A 0 = 0.300207076, A 1 = 0.044915014, A 2 = -0.155498672, A 3 = 9.50318 x 10 -4 , E 0 =0 (Curve labelled FIT II)

A simplified exponential relation of the form:

f = R 0 × exp(E p / w)

can also be used below 100 eV using the following numerical constants:

R 0 = .64438713, w=43.2268304. (Curve labelled EXP FIT)

The accuracy of the various approximations can be appreciated from Figure 7. The various formulae used to account for the reflected electron contribution at low energy combined with Furmans formula have been checked against the measured value of the total secondary electron yield (δ t ) in the two cases of as received copper and fully conditioned copper (dose = 10 -2 C/mm 2 ). To calculate δ t , the following formula was considered:

δ t =δ S + δ R ,

δ R =

f ×δ t δ t = δ S + f ×δ t

Hence: δ t

=

δ s ×

1

(1 f)

The results of the two fits are compared to the experimental results on the two Figures 8 (as received case) and 9 (fully conditioned case). In both cases the agreement with the measured secondary electron yield is good between 1000 and 100 eV incident energy. For energies greater than 300 eV, the contribution of the reflected electrons can be neglected and M. Furman formula used without correction. The low energy part (E p < 100 eV) of the two graphs 8 and 9 is expanded on the two graphs 10 and 11 to compare the results of the two fitting formulae to the experimental results. Above 20 eV incident energy, both formulae give the same results. Below 20 eV (i.e. when the reflected contribution accounts for more than 25% of the total number of secondary electrons) the exponential fit gives increasingly underestimated value.

8

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

CU AS RECEIVED EXPERIMENTAL DATA (AVERAGE ON 25 SAMPLES) FIT FURMAN REFLECTED FIT + REFLECTED
CU AS RECEIVED
EXPERIMENTAL DATA (AVERAGE ON 25 SAMPLES)
FIT FURMAN
REFLECTED
FIT + REFLECTED
EXP FIT + REFLECTED
0
200
400
600
800
1000

ENERGY (eV)

Figure 8: The numerical expressions for the various contributions to the secondary electron yield compared to the experimental measurements in the case of as received copper.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

CU EXPOSED TO 0.01 C/mm2 EXPERIMENTAL DATA FIT FURMAN FIT+REFLECTED REFLECTED EXP FIT + REFLECTED
CU EXPOSED TO 0.01 C/mm2
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
FIT FURMAN
FIT+REFLECTED
REFLECTED
EXP FIT + REFLECTED
0
200
400
600
800
1000

ENERGY (eV)

Figure 9: The numerical expressions for the various contributions to the secondary electron yield compared to the experimental measurements in the case of fully conditioned copper

9

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

CU AS RECEIVED EXPERIMENTAL DATA (AVERAGE ON 25 SAMPLES) FIT FURMAN REFLECTED FIT + REFLECTED
CU AS RECEIVED
EXPERIMENTAL DATA (AVERAGE
ON 25 SAMPLES)
FIT FURMAN
REFLECTED
FIT + REFLECTED
EXP FIT + REFLECTED
0
20
40
60
80
100

ENERGY (eV)

Figure 10: The numerical expressions for the various contributions to the secondary electron yield compared to the experimental measurements in the case of as received copper (Ep < 100 eV)

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

CU EXPOSED TO 0.01 C/mm2 EXPERIMENTAL DATA FIT FURMAN FIT+REFLECTED REFLECTED EXP FIT + REFLECTED
CU EXPOSED TO 0.01 C/mm2
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
FIT FURMAN
FIT+REFLECTED
REFLECTED
EXP FIT + REFLECTED
0
20
40
60
80
100

ENERGY (eV)

Figure 11: The numerical expressions for the various contributions to the secondary electron yield compared to the experimental measurements in the case of fully conditioned copper (Ep < 100 eV)

10

6 COMPARISON WITH OTHER PUBLISHED DATA Measurements of the secondary electron yield of as received copper have been published in references 8,9 . They are compared to the results obtained at CERN for as received copper in Figure 12. The agreement between CERN measurement and Hopman measurements is good. The measurements made at SLAC gives a maximum secondary electron yield, which is significantly smaller than those obtained in the two other labs. The different measurements obtained for a primary electron energy in the vicinity of 1000 eV are close to each other. A dose dependence curve has also been given in reference 8 . This curve is compared with a typical curve obtained at CERN in Figure 13. As noticed in Figure 12, the initial yield is much smaller than what is measured at CERN and the yield decrease proceeds at a slower rate. The fully conditioned state was apparently not obtained in that reference 8 .

HOPMAN,VERHOEVEN AS RECEIVED OFHC COPPER Appl.Surf.sci 150,1- 7,(1999) B. HENRIST AS RECEIVED OFHC COPPER CERN
HOPMAN,VERHOEVEN AS RECEIVED OFHC COPPER Appl.Surf.sci 150,1-
7,(1999)
B. HENRIST AS RECEIVED OFHC COPPER CERN 31/01/01
2.5
R.E.KIRBY OFE AS RECEIVED COPPER SLAC PUB-8212
2.3
R.E.KIRBY PEP-II HER COPPER SLAC PUB-8212
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0
1000
2000
3000
4000

ENERGY (eV)

Figure 12: The variation of the secondary electron yield versus the primary electron energy as obtained in three different laboratories

11

B. HENRIST CERN 31/01/01 2.4 R.E. KIRBY PEP II HER COPPER SLAC PUB-8212 2.2 2
B. HENRIST CERN 31/01/01
2.4
R.E. KIRBY PEP II HER COPPER SLAC
PUB-8212
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
1.E-09
1.E-07
1.E-05
1.E-03
1.E-01

DOSE (C/mm2)

Figure 13: Comparison of the dose dependence of the secondary electron yield as measured at CERN and at SLAC

7

CONDITIONING. During the electron bombardment of a surface, leading to the above mentioned decrease of the secondary electron yield, a significant decrease of the electron induced desorption yield is also observed 10,11 . The desorption yields data, obtained in a separate system, on an as-received copper sample, are presented together with the data concerning the secondary electron yield in Figure 14 as a function of the number of electrons impinging per unit area. To allow a better comparison, both data are normalised to 1 in the initial non-bombarded state. These data allow the calculation of the amount of gas released during the conditioning of a copper surface by integrating the product of the desorption yield and the electron dose.

THE

ESTIMATION

OF

THE

QUANTITY

OF

GAS

RELEASED

DURING

Table 2: Total number of molecules released per unit area during processing for the main desorbed gases

GASES

H

2

CH 4

CO

C

2 H 6

CO 2

H

2 O

QUANTITY (cm -2 )

6x10 16

8x10 14

8x10 15

8x10 14

8x10 15

3x10 14

Figure 15 shows as a function of the total number of molecules released per unit surface area, the secondary electron yield ratio and the desorption yield ratio for three molecular species. These were chosen (for the sake of clarity) to represent the main desorbed gases of the two types:

hydrogen and carbon containing gases, (H 2, CO and C 2 H 6 ).

12

1.E+00 1 1.E-01 1.E-02 H2 CH4 CO C2H6 1.E-03 CO2 DELTA MAX 31-01 DELTA MAX
1.E+00
1
1.E-01
1.E-02
H2
CH4
CO
C2H6
1.E-03
CO2
DELTA MAX 31-01
DELTA MAX 23-03
1.E-04
0.1
1E+12
1E+14
1E+16
1E+18
1E+20
ELECTRON DOSE (e
- /cm2)
NORMALISED SECONDARY
ELECTRON YIELD

Figure 14: The variation of the normalised desorption and secondary electron yields with the electron dose

These data show that the reduction of both the secondary electron yield and the desorption yield are two processes evolving in parallel during the irradiation of a surface by electrons. The upper limit of the total number (the mantissa being rounded to the next integer) of molecules released during the conditioning of a copper surface is given in Table 2 for the main desorbed gases. Hydrogen is the main released gas, its predominance is established during the initial part of the conditioning when desorption yields are the highest and hydrogen the most abundant species, carbon monoxyde and dioxyde come in second position. These results are in good agreement with those concerning desorption yields published in the reference 11 .The total number of molecules removed from an as-received copper surface during its conditioning is smaller than 10 17 molecules per cm 2 i.e. less than 100 monolayers. The number of molecules released per unit surface area during the conditioning process is given in Figure 16 as a function of the final secondary electron yield achieved. Although both the desorption yield and the secondary electron yield evolve in parallel under electron bombardment, it should not be concluded that the cleaning of the surface is the origin of the decrease of the secondary electron yield. For example a clean copper surface (e.g. in situ glow discharge cleaned) has a secondary electron yield higher than a conditioned surface (see Figure 4, curve labelled: Argon G.D. Copper).

13

1.E+00 1.0 1.E-01 1.E-02 H2 CO C2H6 1.E-03 DELTA MAX 31-01 DELTA MAX 23-03 1.E-04
1.E+00
1.0
1.E-01
1.E-02
H2
CO
C2H6
1.E-03
DELTA MAX 31-01
DELTA MAX 23-03
1.E-04
0.1
x
1E+12
1E+13
1E+14
1E+15
1E+16
1E+17
SECONDARY ELECTRON YIELD RATIO

TOTAL NUMBER OF DESORBED MOLECULES PER UNIT

AREA (mol/cm

-2 )

Figure 15: The normalised desorption and secondary electron yields as a function of the total number of desorbed molecules

1.E+18

1.E+17

1.E+16

1.E+15

1.E+14

1.E+13

1.E+12

H2-23/03 CO-23/03 CO2-23/03 CH4-23/03 C2H6-23/03 H2O-23/03 TOT-23/03 T0T-31/01 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
H2-23/03
CO-23/03
CO2-23/03
CH4-23/03
C2H6-23/03
H2O-23/03
TOT-23/03
T0T-31/01
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4

SECONDARY ELECTRON YIELD

Figure 16: The quantity of desorbed molecules per unit area as a function of the final secondary electron yield

14

8 CONCLUSIONS The conditioning of as received copper surfaces has been studied in various experimental set- ups and coherent results have proved its efficiency to reduce the secondary electron yield. Based on measurements of the secondary electron energy distribution, a numerical expression has been given which allows to calculate the fraction of reflected electrons with a good agreement to the experimental data between 4 and 500 eV. The Furmans expression has been used and the relevant parameters are given to calculate the true secondary electron yield as a function of the primary electron energy. Combining both formulae permits to compute the total number of electrons emitted when the energy of the incident electrons is given. Using data obtained for electron induced desorption it has been shown that the quantity of molecules removed from a surface during processing is smaller than 10 17 molecules.cm -2 . Using these data, it is now possible to better estimate the amount of gas released during the beginning of the LHC operation when multipacting can occur because of the electron cloud effect. Although the phenomenon of conditioning has been obtained reproducibly on many samples, in different experimental set-ups, the exact mechanism leading to this effect is not properly understood. This is of course not a comfortable situation as the LHC operation at nominal intensity relies on this effect. Further studies are going on to try to elucidate the main physical parameters responsible for this beneficial effect.

1 V. Baglin, B. Henrist, N. Hilleret, E. Mercier, C. Scheuerlein: Proceedings of the X workshop on LEP-SPS performance Chamonix , 130, 2000.

2 V. Baglin, J. Bojko, O. Gröbner, B. Henrist, N. Hilleret, C. Scheuerlein, M. Taborelli: 7 th Europen Accelerator Conference, Vienna, 217-220, 2000.

3 V. Baglin, I.R. Collins, O. Gröbner, C. Grünhagel, B. Henrist, N. Hilleret, B. Jenninger: Proceedings of the XI workshop on LEP-SPS performance Chamonix , 141, 2001.

4 G. Arnolds-Mayer, N. Hilleret: Advances in Cryogenic Engineering Materials, 28, 611-621, 1982

5 R. Bindi, H. Lanteri, P. Rostaing, J. Phys. D: Appl.Phys. 13,267, 1980.

6 M. A. Furman, CERN LHC Project Report 180, 1998.

7 J.J. Scholtz, D. Dijkkamp, R.W.A. Schmitz, Philips J. Res. 50, 375-389, 1996.

8 R. E. Kirby, F. K. King SLAC-PUB-8212, 2000.

9 H.J. Hopman, J. Verhoeven: Applied Surface Science, 150, 1-7, 1999. 10 F. le Pimpec: Thèse Université de Paris VI, 2000. 11 J. Gomez-Goni, A.G. Mathewson, J. Vac. Sci.Technol. A 15, 6, 3093-3103, 1997

15

APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS

VOLUME 81, NUMBER 6

5 AUGUST 2002

Secondary electron emission from magnesium oxide on multiwalled carbon nanotubes

Won Seok Kim

BK21 Physics Division and Center for Nanotubes and Nanostructured Composites, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea

Whikun Yi, SeGi Yu, Jungna Heo, Taewon Jeong, Jeonghee Lee, Chang Soo Lee, and J. M. Kim

NCRI, Center for Electron Emission Source, Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 111, Suwon 440-600, Korea

Hee Jin Jeong, Young Min Shin, and Young Hee Lee a)

Department of Physics and Center for Nanotubes and Nanostructured Composites, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea

Received 22 March 2002; accepted for publication 10 June 2002

We have investigated effects of electric fields on the yield of secondary electron emission SEE from the primary electron bombardment on magnesium oxide MgO covering vertically grown multiwalled carbon nanotubes MWCNTs . We observe that the yield of SEE increases up to at least 22 000 at a special condition. The strong local field generated by the sharp tip of vertically grown MWCNTs accelerates secondary electrons generated by primary electrons. This eventually gives rise to so called Townsend avalanche effect, generating huge number of secondary electrons in a MgO film. Emission mechanism for such a high SEE will be further discussed with energy spectrum analysis. © 2002 American Institute of Physics. DOI: 10.1063/1.1498492

Secondary electron emission SEE with bombardment of primary electrons plays an important role in vacuum de- vices. For instance, electron multiplier, microchannel plate, and electron gun require the SEE materials with a high am- plification yield. In general, insulators are good candidates for high SEE. The secondary electrons generated by the pri- mary electrons in a magnesium oxide MgO film move to the surface with relatively weak electron–electron scatter- ings due to the absence of free electrons in insulator, and finally escape from the surface if they have enough energy to overcome the work function of the materials. 1 Single crystal MgO, for instance, has a SEE yield of about 25 at best. 2 On the other hand, the porous MgO produces high SEE yield of about 1000 under the high electric field. 3 However, for a given yield, it is always desirable to look for the condition in which the lowest field is used. Recently a MgO film was deposited on randomly oriented carbon nanotube CNT powder, where relatively large SEE of maximum 15 000 at a backbias of 1400 V was obtained. 4 Yet the SEE obtained was strongly dependent on the sample positions and not repro- ducible either. In this report, we introduce a systematic ap- proach to reproduce high SEE using MgO on vertically grown multiwalled carbon nanotubes MWCNTs . We ob- served an unusually high SEE yield of greater than 22 000 beyond the limit of a detector at a backbias of 850 V, which was strongly related to the MgO film thickness. MWCNTs were grown by thermal chemical vapor depo- sition on the Ni-coated Si substrate using a C 2 H 2 gas at 650 °C. 5 The average diameter and length of the grown CNTs were 300 Å and 20 m, respectively. A MgO thin film

a Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: electronic mail:

leeyoung@yurim.skku.ac.kr

was deposited on the vertically grown MWCNTs using elec- tron beam deposition. Figure 1 a shows the scanning elec- tron microscope SEM image of MgO-coated MWCNTs, where CNTs are encapsulated by MgO only on the top area. The inset shows a typical transmission electron microscope TEM image, where the thickness of MgO film at the side- wall is about 50–300 Å and the thickness at top of the CNT tip about 500–2000 Å, although the nominal thickness of MgO film from an electron-beam evaporator was 3000 Å. This suggests that relatively small amount of MgO was de- posited on CNTs compared to the thin film on a flat surface. Figure 1 b shows a schematic diagram of our apparatus setup to measure the SEE. The MgO-coated CNT films were bombarded by the primary electrons (I p ) which generates the secondary electrons (I s ) in the MgO film. The I p was mea- sured by applying a positive bias of 200 V to the sample holder in order to avoid the leakage current to the chamber wall. The I p was fixed at 233 nA during the experiment, while its kinetic energy was varied. The yield of secondary electron emission is then defined as I s /I p (I p I t )/I p 1 I t /I p , where I s can be measured by the Faraday cup. In practice, I s can be easily obtained by measuring I p and I t the current supplied from the substrate , instead. The nega- tive backbias to the sample decelerates the incident primary electrons, while accelerating the secondary electrons to es- cape from the surface. In case of no primary electron, no secondary electrons are generated. Note that the electric field generated by the negative backbias is small such that no field emission currents are observed. The charge replenishment is achieved by the current through the sample from the I t . Figure 2 a shows the yield as a function of net primary electron energy ( E), which is defined by the energy differ- ence E p -eV t , where E p and V t are primary electron energy

5

0003-6951/2002/81(6)/1098/3/$19.00

1098

Downloaded 30 Jul 2002 to 202.20.193.209. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://ojps.aip.org/aplo/aplcr.jsp

© 2002 American Institute of Physics

Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 81, No. 6, 5 August 2002

Kim et al.

1099

Phys. Lett., Vol. 81, No. 6, 5 August 2002 Kim et al. 1099 FIG. 1. a

FIG. 1. a The SEM image of MWCNTs covered with a MgO film. b The schematic diagram for SEE experimental setup.

and the negative bias applied to the substrate, respectively. The nominal MgO thickness was 3000 Å. The yield is rela- tively small for low E p over the whole range of E up to 900 eV, whereas this value shows an abrupt increase near E of 250 eV for the E p of 1000 eV. The existence of the threshold voltage suggests that the SEE mechanism may be

related to an avalanche effect. 7 With further increase of the E p the yield was too large to measure by our multimeter whose maximum current is limited to 5 mA. The yield does not increase with low E and the maximum peak is ob- served near 200 eV. We measured the SEE by varying the thickness of the MgO film. Figure 2 b shows the yield as a function of time with different nominal MgO film thick-

of 1100 eV. The yield becomes stabilized

nesses at fixed E

after long measurement time. The very thin film of 1000 Å

gives a low yield. The MgO film with a nominal thickness of

3000 Å gives rise to a maximum yield of 22 000, which is

beyond the detection limit of our multimeter. The SEE yield drops at larger MgO thickness. This may indicate the exis-

tence of an optimum penetration depth. The TEM image, as shown in the inset of Fig. 1 a , shows the actual thickness of the MgO film of about 500–2000 Å on the top of the CNT. In general, the maximum yield is obtained when the penetra- tion depth is about five times the escape depth in insulator. 6 The escape depth of MgO is known as 60–200 Å, 7 which implies the penetration depth of the MgO film to be 300–

1000 Å. This is in good agreement with our observations of

the TEM image. We emphasize that the MgO film without

p

of the TEM image. We emphasize that the MgO film without p FIG. 2. a The

FIG. 2. a The yield for three different primary electron energies as a function of the net primary electron energy. b The yield as a function of measuring time with different nominal MgO film thicknesses at a fixed primary electron energy of 1100 eV and the backbias of 850 eV, and c the yield as a function of the backbias for various net primary electron energies.

CNTs gives the yield of up to 800 at best at very high E p of 1500 eV and the CNTs without a MgO film gives a yield of less than one. Figure 2 c shows the yield as a function of the backbias for fixed net E p . The yield increases abruptly with increasing the backbias, indicating again an avalanche effect. The values of on-set backbias are large at low and large net E p . The minimum on-set backbias exists at net E p of 250 eV. We next measured kinetic energies of the emitted sec- ondary electrons by an electron energy analyzer VG Sci- ence, Clam IV . Figure 3 a shows the distribution of the kinetic energy of the secondary electrons in terms of three different backbiases at fixed E p of 1000 eV. The small peak at 1000 eV, independent of the backbias, indicated by K 1 , results from the elastic backscatterings of the primary elec-

Downloaded 30 Jul 2002 to 202.20.193.209. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://ojps.aip.org/aplo/aplcr.jsp

1100 Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 81, No. 6, 5 August 2002

1100 Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 81, No. 6, 5 August 2002 FIG. 3. a The energy

FIG. 3. a The energy distribution for the secondary electrons in terms of three different backbiases at a fixed primary electron energy of 1000 eV. b The schematic diagram of the potential drop of the secondary electron emis- sion spectrum under a backbias of 800 V.

trons. The electrons generated at the MgO surface (K 2 ) at a backbias of 800 V are negligible within kinetic energies of 800–1000 eV. The secondary electrons start emitting from below 800 eV, where the sharp peak (K 3 ) at 800 eV is at- tributed to the field emission. The broad peak (K 4 ) from 320 to 800 eV is considered to originate from the SEE that are generated through the whole MgO film layer. This trend of broad energy distribution is very similar for other backbiases except the position of the on-set kinetic energy (K 5 ) at around 320 eV. The voltage drop across the MgO film is shown in the diagram of Fig. 3 b . Although the backbias of, for instance, 800 V is applied between the chamber wall and the substrate, it is only 480 V that is applied across the MgO film with a voltage drop of 320 V between the chamber wall and the MgO surface. The position of the on-set kinetic energy is dependent on the geometry, i.e., the separation dis- tance between the MgO surface and the chamber wall. In general, the electric field within MgO is considered to be small, since the dielectric constant of MgO ( 9.8 0 ) is about ten times larger than that of vacuum. However, the electric field of MgO in this experiment may be enhanced under the bombardment of primary electrons due to the es- cape of secondary electrons of the surface from MgO. We now estimate the strength of the electric field across the MgO film. For instance, at a backbias of 800 V, large secondary electrons are obtained as shown in Fig. 2 a . The potential

Kim et al.

drop across MgO film is considered to be about 500 V, i.e., corresponding to the voltage difference between K 3 and K 5 in Fig. 3 a . The average field strength is 500 V/d (500– 2000 Å) (2.5– 10) 10 7 V/cm, where the thickness d of the MgO film on top of the CNT was measured from the TEM image. This value is the same order of magnitude of the field strength corresponding to the on-set field of ava- lanche effect in typical metal oxides. This field may launch the cascade emission of secondary electrons, but still cannot explain such a high amplification factor. Thus, a higher back- bias is required to ensure the avalanche effect in an MgO insulator. We note that without CNTs such a high amplifica- tion factor could not be observed. This proves that the small diameter of CNTs enhances the local field strength near the tip of nanotubes, since the typical diameter of MWCNTs is about 100–300 Å. The field enhancement factor from a CNT film is usually an order of 10 3,8 and the field enhancement factor of a MgO coated CNT film was found to be 700– 1200, from the I V curve of the field emission experiment. Therefore, the local field near the tip can be enhanced by a factor of 10 3 . This high local field will accelerate the primary electrons arrived near the tip and generate a cascade emis- sion of secondary electrons. This process results in the charge depletion on the MgO surface and induces an addition local field across the MgO film. 3 The charge depletion was replenished by the I t . In order to have avalanche phenom- enon to occur, the primary electrons should reach the MgO film near the nanotube tip and therefore optimum net energy for the primary electrons is expected, as observed from our results. Our data were fully reproducible with repetition of the measurements. The variance of the SEE yield over the entire sample was within 10%. In summary, we have investigated the yield of SEE from MgO/MWNTs. The SEE yield was measured for various MgO film thicknesses, primary electron energies, and back- biases. The SEE yield was achieved to be much greater than 22 000. The electron energy analysis revealed that this high yield originates from an avalanche phenomenon due to the strong local field generated by the sharp CNT tip. We em- phasize that this high SEE is obtainable over the sample with good reproducibility. We expect our approach to be applied for various vacuum electronic devices.

This work was supported by the KOSEF through CNNC at SKKU and MOST through NRL and CRI

1 Shih, J. Yates, C. Hor, and R. Abrams, Appl. Surf. Sci. 111, 251 1997 .

2 J. Dekker, Solid State Phys. 6, 251 1958 .

3 Jacobs, J. Freely, and F. A. Brand, Phys. Rev. 88, 492 1952 .

4 W. K. Yi, S. Yu, W. T. Lee, I. T. Han, T. W. Jeong, Y. S. Woo, J. H. Lee,

S. H. Jin, W. B. Choi, J. N. Heo, D. R. Jeon, and J. M. Kim, J. Appl. Phys.

A.

A.

H.

89, 4091 2001 .

5 J. Jeong, Y. M. Shin, S. Y. Jeong, Y. C. Choi, Y. S. Park, S. C. Lim, G.

H.

S.

Park, N. S. Lee, J. M. Kim, and Y. H. Lee, Chem. Vap. Deposition 8, 11

2002 .

6 H. Seiler, Z. Angew. Phys. 22, 249 1967 .

7 Kanaya, S. Ono, and F. Ishigaki, J. Phys. D 11, 2425 1978 .

8 G. Collins and A. Zettl, Phys. Rev. B 55 , 9391 1997 .

K.

P.

Downloaded 30 Jul 2002 to 202.20.193.209. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://ojps.aip.org/aplo/aplcr.jsp

MEASUREMENTS AND STUDIES OF SECONDARY ELECTRON EMISSION OF DIAMOND AMPLIFIED PHOTOCATHODE

Qiong Wu

Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Physics, Indiana University

September, 2008

ii

Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Doctoral Committee

August 21, 2008

(Shyh-Yuan Lee, PhD)

(David V. Baxter, PhD)

(Mark H. Hess, PhD)

(Richard J. Van Kooten, PhD)

iii

Copyright ©2008 by Qiong Wu ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iv

To my parents.

v

Acknowledgement

The work covered in this thesis could not be done without the help and support from a great number of people. It is a pleasure to convey my gratitude to them all in this humble acknowledgment.

In the first place, I would like to record my gratitude to my advisor Dr. Shyh-Yuan Lee for his supervision, advice, and guidance from the very early stage of my accelerator career as well as giving me the opportunity and encouragement of finding this project. His diligence and passion in science always inspired me as a student, and I believe the benefit I received from this will continue on. He opened my mind to this distinguished field, and led me through the hardest time at the beginning. I am honored to become one of his students, and would like to give him my deepest respect.

After two and half years of course study in Indiana University, I moved to Collider-Accelerator Department of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) looking for a PhD research topic. Dr. Ilan Ben-Zvi’s diamond secondary emission group caught my interest. After I joined the group, all group members offered the most generous help to my day-to-day research and learning experience.

Dr. Ben-Zvi, as my local advisor in BNL, always sat with me with patience whenever I am puzzled with the project. As a fully experienced and genuinely talented scientist, he would then analyze the problem along with me and lead me to a solution. I am deeply indebted to him for his detailed editing of this document and of all the guidance he has provided.

I am also very grateful to Xiangyun Chang for his careful explanation to

vi

all my questions and bright thoughts to this project. The working experience with Xiangyun is very pleasant and profitable.

I would like to give my special thanks to Andrew Burrill, David Pate,

Triveni Rao, and John Smedley. As members in the group, they taught me so much knowledge that a qualified experimentalist should know, little by little. It is my honor to work with them and learn from them.

I would also like to acknowledge the people who have contribute in this

project: Craig Rhein, Joseph Saetta, John Walsh, Harrold Dorr, and Richard Talman.

I also wish to thank the other three scientists on my Doctorate committee:

Dr. David Baxter, Dr. Mark Hess, and Dr. Richard Van Kooten for agreeing take time to review my thesis. They have given me many good suggestions during my defense and in the thesis.

Finally, I would like to end this acknowledgement with my sincere appreciation to my family. Their support and understanding is what led me to this point and what made me the way I am.

vii

ABSTRACT

Qiong Wu

Measurements and Studies of Secondary Electron Emission of Diamond

Amplified Photocathode

The Diamond Amplifier Photocathode (DAP) provides a very promising new

approach

to

provide

accelerators.

high-average-current,

high-brightness

electron

source

for

High purity Chemical Vapor Deposition diamond films are used as the amplifier

of the electron beam. Primary electrons are provided by a traditional photocathode

and are bombarded onto tens of nanometer thick metal coating and into the diamond

sample.

Within 1 micron travel in the diamond, the primary electrons generate

secondary electrons by collision on the order of two magnitudes increase in number.

Secondary electrons are accelerated through the diamond and will emit into vacuum

through surface with hydrogen termination.

The electrons emitted should have very

low thermal emittance, for the electrons are constrained to the bottom of the

conduction band. The entire sample preparing process includes severe chemical

etching, metallization coating, and hydrogenation. Measurements are done with

viii

specific equipments, and the quality of preparation is controlled by the Atomic Force

Microscope and electron or photon spectroscopy.

This thesis covers all aspects of this project, and will focus on the physics of

electron transfer within and out of the diamond sample. The measurements of the gain

are

taken

and

compared

under

different

conditions

for

obtaining

the

highest

amplification. The experiments have already demonstrated the secondary electron

gain of over 200 in the diamond and over 70 for emission into the vacuum. The

diamond will also act as a vacuum barrier, protecting the photocathode from

contamination by the accelerator vacuum. The emittance measurement is carefully

designed to reach the precision of 0.1eV. Theoretical calculations and computational

simulation are developed to fit with our experimental results.

ix

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

1

1.1 The Diamond Amplified Photocathode (DAP) Project

1

1.2 Advantages of diamond for amplified photocathodes

5

1.2.1 Wide Band Gap

5

1.2.2 Best Rigidity

6

1.2.3 Highest Thermal Conductivity

7

1.2.4 Very high Mobility and Saturation Velocity

8

2 DAP Design

10

2.1 Vacuum

11

2.2 Temperature and current

11

2.3 Energy bands and NEA surface in the diamond

12

3 Preparation of diamond sample

15

3.1 Acid Etching

15

3.2 Metallization

19

x

3.3 Hydrogenation

20

3.4 Brazing

20

4 Diamond laser ablation

22

4.1 Laser system

23

4.2 Sample preparation and characterization

23

4.3 Laser ablation of polycrystalline diamond

27

4.3.1 Ablation in vacuum

27

4.3.2 Ablation in rich O 2 environment

34

4.3.3 UV exposure

35

4.4 Laser ablation of single crystalline diamond

36

5 Transmission mode measurement of Diamond Secondary electron yield

5.1

40

Measurement setup

40

5.1.1 Primary electron source

40

5.1.2 Diamond holder and system setup

42

5.1.3 Signal collection circuit

45

xi

5.2 Experimental results

46

5.3 Laser Detrapping

53

5.3.1 Current Density

57

5.3.2 Primary Energy

59

5.3.3 Repetition Rate

61

5.4 Energy lost in metal coating and estimation of energy needed for each e-h

pair

63

5.5 Recombination of the charges in diamond

66

6 Emission Mode Measurement of Diamond Secondary Electron Yield 71

6.1 Measurement setup

71

6.2 DC beam or continuous long pulse measurements

73

6.3 Short-pulse

measurements

75

6.3.1 Delay time dependence

76

6.3.2 Temperature dependence

79

6.3.3 Laser effect

83

xii

7 Thermal emittance measurement design

87

7.1 Methods

88

7.2 Limitations

89

7.3 Comparison of lenses

92

7.4 Shielding

94

7.5 Alignment

95

7.6 Conclusion

98

8 Summary and conclusion

99

xiii

List of Tables:

Table 1.1: Band gap energy list @300K

6

Table 1.2: Thermal conductivity of various materials [6,

8

Table 2.1: Electron affinity of carbon and

13

Table 5.1: Energy needed for create one electron hole pair

66

Table 6.1: Average radii used in theoratical model calculation.Error! Bookmark not defined.

xiv

List of Figures:

Figure 1.1: A complete DAP

 

3

Figure 1.2: Diamond conventional unit

 

5

Figure 2.1: DAP Design. (Photo on the left is taken by J. Grimes)

 

10

Figure 2.2: Field and energy bands in the diamond with NEA

14

Figure 3.1: Near-edge x-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAF) comparison of diamond

before and after acid cleaning

 

17

Figure 4.1: AFM scanning pictures of typical single crystal diamond sample bare and

metalized surfaces. Top two are taken by optical camera, and the structure on the

bare diamond surface is the image of the holder of the diamond. The scanning

cantilever width of the AFM is 0.04mm. The middle and bottom pictures are AFM

scanning topography and feedback circuit signal of the bare diamond surface.

Sample number HID8. Sample scanned after ultrasonic cleaning in ethyl alcohol

25

Figure 4.2: Raman/photoluminescence spectra of different diamond sample

 

26

Figure

4.3:

532nm

ns

pulse

laser

ablated

polycrystalline

diamond

under

optical

microscope (left) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) (right). (These pictures

 

are taken by J. Smedley and T. Rao)

 

28

Figure

4.4:

266nm

ns

pulse

laser

ablated

polycrystalline

diamond

under

optical

microscope (left) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) (right). (These pictures

 

are taken by J. Smedley and T. Rao)

 

29

Figure 4.5: AFM image of polycrystalline diamond 266nm laser ablated area

 

30

Figure 4.6: NEXAFS trace of unablated and ablated regions of diamond sample and

reference trace for amorphous carbon. (These curves are obtained by J. Smedley)

31

Figure

4.7:

213nm

ns

pulse

laser

ablated

polycrystalline

diamond

under

optical

microscope. (This picture is taken by J. Smedley and T. Rao)

 

32

xv

Figure 4.9: Raman spectra of samples following ablation with different O2 pressures.

(These curves are obtained by J. Smedley)

35

Figure 4.10: FTIR spectra of before and after UV exposure of ablated area. Different

thickness of graphite and AC theoretical absorption curves are also shown as

reference. (These curves are obtained by J. Smedley)

36

Figure 4.11: Optical microscope picture of 213nm laser ablated single crystal diamond.

(This picture is taken by J. Smedley and T. Rao)

37

Figure 4.12: AFM image of single crystal diamond 213nm laser ablated area edge

38

Figure 4.13: AFM image of single crystal diamond 213nm laser ablated area center

38

Figure 5.1: EGG-3101 thermionic electron gun from Kimball

41

Figure 5.2: Sketch of electron gun pulsing

42

Figure 5.3: Diamond holder structure. (Created by Chong-Jer Liaw)

43

Figure 5.4: Simple sketch of the transmission mode measurement principle. Either side of

the high-voltage supply can be

45

Figure 5.5: Primary electron signal with pulse width of 200μs

47

Figure 5.6: Comparison of low field (top: 0.3MV/m) and high field (bottom: 3MV/m)

secondary electron signal of single crystal diamond with 0.3mm thickness in

transmission

49

Figure 5.7: Single crystal diamond window gain with primary electron energy ranges from

4keV to 8keV. Primary currents are shown in the legend

51

Figure 5.8: Secondary electron signal of 10μs pulse width with different duty cycles. No

laser beam applied. Primary electron peak current density is 0.03A/m 2 and the field

applied in the diamond is

54

Figure 5.9: Secondary electron signal of 10μs pulse width with different duty cycles. Laser

beam applied (532nm, <5mW). Primary electron peak current density is 0.03A/m 2

and the field applied in the diamond is

56

xvi

Figure 5.10: Gain comparison of with and without laser detrapping under different current

densities. Primary electron energy fixed at 6keV

58

Figure 5.11: Gain comparison of with and without laser detrapping under different primary

electron energies. The primary current density is fixed at 0.04A/m 2

60

Figure 5.12: Gain comparison of with and without laser detrapping under various pulse

repetition rates. The pulse width for each measurement is fixed at 10μs.

Primary

current density fixed at 0.036A/m 2 and energy fixed at

62

Figure 5.13: Maximum gain of different primary electron

65

Figure 5.14: Diamond electron band structure

67

Figure 6.1: Simple sketch of emission mode measurement principle. Either side can be

71

Figure 6.2: Emission mode gain with DC primary

74

Figure 6.3: First pulse gain under room temperature (23°C) with different field and

effective energy for each pulse. Effective energy is the energy of the primary beam

excluding the energy loss in the metal

77

Figure 6.4: Secondary signal with different delays for the primary electron after applying

the DC

78

Figure 6.5: Emission signal of the diamond amplifier at

80

Figure 6.6: Emission signal of the diamond amplifier at

82

Figure 6.7: Room temperature (23°C) measurement with laser applied (532nm laser,

<5mW)

84

Figure 6.8: High temperature (200°C) measurement with laser applied (532nm laser,

<5mW)

85

Figure 6.9: Low temperature (-140°C) measurement with laser applied (532nm laser,

<5mW)

86

Figure 7.1: Setup design for thermal energy measurement of diamond secondary emission

88

xvii

Figure 7.2: Acceleration of the secondary electrons by applying a high voltage across the