3.8 Article

Focused ion beam processing to fabricate ohmic contact electrodes on a bismuth nanowire for Hall measurements

期刊

NANOSCALE RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGEROPEN
DOI: 10.1186/1556-276X-8-400

关键词

Bismuth nanowire; Hall measurement; Focused ion beam; Ohmic contact; Thermoelectrics

资金

  1. JSPS
  2. NEDO
  3. TEPCO Memorial Foundation
  4. Inamori Foundation
  5. Takahashi Industrial and Economic Research Foundation
  6. Low-Carbon Research Network (Lcnet)
  7. Nanotechnology Network Program (Center for Nanotechnology Network, National Institute for Material Science)
  8. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
  9. National Institute for Fusion Science (NIFS) Collaborative Research [NIFS13KBAS014]
  10. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [11J08106] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ohmic contact electrodes for four-wire resistance and Hall measurements were fabricated on an individual single-crystal bismuth nanowire encapsulated in a cylindrical quartz template. Focused ion beam processing was utilized to expose the side surfaces of the bismuth nanowire in the template, and carbon and tungsten electrodes were deposited on the bismuth nanowire in situ to achieve electrical contacts. The temperature dependence of the four-wire resistance was successfully measured for the bismuth nanowire, and a difference between the resistivities of the two-wire and four-wire methods was observed. It was concluded that the two-wire method was unsuitable for estimation of the resistivity due to the influence of contact resistance, even if the magnitude of the bismuth nanowire resistance was greater than the kilo-ohm order. Furthermore, Hall measurement of a 4-mu m-diameter bismuth microwire was also performed as a trial, and the evaluated temperature dependence of the carrier mobility was in agreement with that for bulk bismuth, which indicates that the carrier mobility was successfully measured using this technique.

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

3.8
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