Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T22:27:33.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of low-voltage field emission from TaC and tungsten fiber arrays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

J. K. Cochran ,
K. J. Lee  and
D. N. Hill
J. K. Cochran
Affiliation:
School of Materials Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0245
K. J. Lee
Affiliation:
School of Materials Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0245
D. N. Hill
Affiliation:
School of Materials Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0245
Get access

Abstract

Field emitter array (FEA) devices were constructed using thin-film fabrication techniques based on in situ eutectic composites containing either TaC or NbC fibers in a NiCr alloy matrix. The emission characteristics of the TaC devices were measured and compared to those of W–ZrO2 FEA's. Both devices produced the linear Fowler-Nordheim plots common to all field emission devices; however, the array current density of the TaC FEA's was more than two orders of magnitude lower than that of the W–ZrO2 FEA's. This was primarily due to the lower fiber density and lower field enhancement of the carbide fiber devices. If it were possible to produce cathode geometries comparable to those of the W–ZrO2 FEA's, a theoretical analysis indicates that emission performance of the TaC devices would be superior because of the lower work function of TaC. However, post-emission observations indicated that the carbide fiber emitters failed more readily than the tungsten emitters under comparable operating conditions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , February 1988 , pp. 67 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Lee, J. D.Cochran, J. K.Hill, D. N.Chapman, A. T. and Feeney, R. K. in Proceedings of Conference on In Situ Composites III (Grin, Lexington, MA, 1979), p. 204.Google Scholar
2Hill, D. N. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Ceramic Engineering, August 1979.Google Scholar
3Cochran, J. K.Chapman, A. T.Feeney, R. K.Hill, D. N.Lee, K. J.Jones, R. D.Kolarik, R. V.Moh, K. H. and Price, J. P.Air, U. S.Force Systems Command Report No. AFWAL-TR-82-1089, Georgia Institute of Technology, Schools of Ceramic and Electrical Engineering, July 1982.Google Scholar
4Holder, J. D.Clark, G. W.Cochran, J. K.Hill, D. N. and Chapman, A. T.Proceedings ofVerbund Werkstoffe, 1980 (Deutsche Ge-sellschaft fur Metallkunde, Konstanz, Germany, 1981), pp. 465–484.Google Scholar
5Lee, J. D. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Ceramic Engineering, December 1978.Google Scholar
6Spindt, C. A.Brodie, I.Humphrey, L. and Westerberg, E. R.J. Appl. Phys. 47, 5248 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Cochran, J. K.Chapman, A. T.Feeney, R. K. and Hill, D. N. “Review of Field Emitter Array Cathodes,” in the Technical Digest of the IEEE International Electron Device Meeting, December 1980, pp. 462–466.Google Scholar
8Cochran, J. K.Chapman, A. T.Hill, D. N. and Lee, K. J.J. Mater. Res. 2, 322 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Steward, D. and Wilson, P. D.Vacuum 30, 527 (1978).Google Scholar
10Plomp, F. H. in the Proceedings of the Fifth European Congress on Electron Microscopy, September 1972, Manchester (Institute of Physics, Bristol, 1973), pp. 2–7.Google Scholar
13Fowler, R. H. and Nordheim, L.Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A119, 173 (1928).Google Scholar
12Good, R. H. and Miiller, E. W.Handbuch der Physik (Springer, Berlin, 1956), Vol. 21.Google Scholar
13Oostrom, A. G. J. van, Philips Res. Rep. Suppl. 1, 1 (1966).Google Scholar