4.6 Article

Plasma diagnostics by optical emission spectroscopy on argon and comparison with Thomson scattering

期刊

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/42/4/045208

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG [SFB 591, GRK 1051]
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation [3.4-Fokoop-DEU1004933]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel optical emission spectroscopy (OES) technique for the determination of electron temperatures and densities in low-pressure argon discharges is compared with Thomson scattering (TS). The emission spectroscopy technique is based on the measurement of certain line ratios in argon and a collisional-radiative model (CRM) including metastable transport. The investigations are carried out in a planar inductively coupled neutral loop discharge (NLD) over a wide range of pressures, p = 0.05 Pa-5 Pa. This discharge is a weakly magnetized novel radio-frequency (rf) plasma source, proposed for plasma etching. The NLD is operated in pure argon at a frequency of f = 13.56 MHz and powers varied between P = 1 kW and 2 kW. Both diagnostics, OES and TS, are applied in parallel. The electron energy distribution functions obtained by TS are clearly Maxwellian at low pressures but exhibit a certain enhancement of the energetic tail at higher pressures. Electron densities and temperatures obtained by both diagnostic techniques are compared. Further, absolute numbers of the metastable densities derived from the measurement by the CRM are compared with earlier measurements under similar conditions. Excellent agreement is found throughout if depletion of the neutral gas density by increasing gas temperature and electron pressure is included in the CRM. Electron pressure is the dominant depletion mechanism at gas pressures p <= 0.1Pa and rf powers P > 1 kW. There, the electron pressure exceeds more than 3 times the neutral pressure and the ionization degree approaches 7% while at pressures p > 1 Pa the degree of ionization is relatively low (< 10(-3)) and neutral gas depletion is dominated by gas heating.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据