4.6 Article

Extraction of emission parameters for large-area field emitters, using a technically complete Fowler-Nordheim-type equation

Journal

NANOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/23/9/095706

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In papers on cold field electron emission from large-area field emitters (LAFEs), it has become widespread practice to publish a misleading Fowler-Nordheim- type (FN-type) equation. This equation over-predicts the LAFE-average current density by a large highly variable factor thought to usually lie between 10(3) and 10(9). This equation, although often referenced to FN's 1928 paper, is a simplified equation used in undergraduate teaching, does not apply unmodified to LAFEs and does not appear in the 1928 paper. Technological LAFE papers often do not cite any theoretical work more recent than 1928, and often do not comment on the discrepancy between theory and experiment. This usage has occurred widely, in several high-profile American and UK applied-science journals (including Nanotechnology), and in various other places. It does not inhibit practical LAFE development, but can give a misleading impression of potential LAFE performance to non-experts. This paper shows how the misleading equation can be replaced by a conceptually complete FN-type equation that uses three high-level correction factors. One of these, or a combination of two of them, may be useful as an additional measure of LAFE quality; this paper describes a method for estimating factor values using experimental data and discusses when it can be used. Suggestions are made for improved engineering practice in reporting LAFE results. Some of these should help to prevent situations arising whereby an equation appearing in high-profile applied-science journals is used to support statements that an engineering regulatory body might deem to involve professional negligence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available