Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 22 – uploaded by Ethan Peterson

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
11. Present in fig. 6-14 are sample RBS spectra collected from target 18. Figure 6-14: Sample energy spectra taken from target 18 during exposure at 90 second intervals and a target bias of -32 V why the copper signal disappeared even quicker than the -35 V experiment with target target temperature even prior to plasma bombardment. This would help to explain

Figure 6 11. Present in fig. 6-14 are sample RBS spectra collected from target 18. Figure 6-14: Sample energy spectra taken from target 18 during exposure at 90 second intervals and a target bias of -32 V why the copper signal disappeared even quicker than the -35 V experiment with target target temperature even prior to plasma bombardment. This would help to explain

Related Figures (29)

Figure 3-1: Helium on copper physical sputtering yield curve as a function of incident helium energy.
Figure 3-1: Helium on copper physical sputtering yield curve as a function of incident helium energy.
this process can be seen in fig. 3-2. Figure 3-2: Schematic view of RBS analysis with cross-sectional view of a copper coated target. energy and momentum to the backscattering process, one will find that the angle of An energy spectrum collected at a given scattering angle will describe ions that penetrated the target to different depths and will give a depth profile of the material.
this process can be seen in fig. 3-2. Figure 3-2: Schematic view of RBS analysis with cross-sectional view of a copper coated target. energy and momentum to the backscattering process, one will find that the angle of An energy spectrum collected at a given scattering angle will describe ions that penetrated the target to different depths and will give a depth profile of the material.
Figure 3-3: Energy spectrum differentiating the Al and Cu signals from a target with a 1.47 micron copper coating on aluminum substrate sampled with 1400 keV protons. off copper is 1356 keV, whereas off aluminum the energy is 1299 keV.
Figure 3-3: Energy spectrum differentiating the Al and Cu signals from a target with a 1.47 micron copper coating on aluminum substrate sampled with 1400 keV protons. off copper is 1356 keV, whereas off aluminum the energy is 1299 keV.
Figure 5-1: Top-down view of DIONISOS experimental apparatus and SIMNRA fit from this investigation can be seen in fig. 5-3.
Figure 5-1: Top-down view of DIONISOS experimental apparatus and SIMNRA fit from this investigation can be seen in fig. 5-3.
Figure 5-2: Double probe trace of plasma 3 showing I-V characteristics, where the two data series “Up” and “Down” represent sweeping the voltage in the positive and negative directions respectively to show consistency 3 Data Acquisition and Analysis
Figure 5-2: Double probe trace of plasma 3 showing I-V characteristics, where the two data series “Up” and “Down” represent sweeping the voltage in the positive and negative directions respectively to show consistency 3 Data Acquisition and Analysis
Figure 5-3: Sample RBS spectra (red points) of copper coated aluminum target taken with 1400 keV protons, using a 2 micron aluminum foil in front of the solid state de- tector, and subjected to helium plasma for 1530 seconds accompanied by a theoretical fit line produced by SIMNRA (blue line)
Figure 5-3: Sample RBS spectra (red points) of copper coated aluminum target taken with 1400 keV protons, using a 2 micron aluminum foil in front of the solid state de- tector, and subjected to helium plasma for 1530 seconds accompanied by a theoretical fit line produced by SIMNRA (blue line)
Table 5.2: Experiment Parameters
Table 5.2: Experiment Parameters
Figure 5-4: Front (L) and back (R) view of a sample target prior to plasma exposure. The front side of the target shown on the left shows the reflection of the camera used to take the picture because the polished aluminum substrate made the copper coating smooth enough to act as a mirror.
Figure 5-4: Front (L) and back (R) view of a sample target prior to plasma exposure. The front side of the target shown on the left shows the reflection of the camera used to take the picture because the polished aluminum substrate made the copper coating smooth enough to act as a mirror.
erosion for target biases less than -35 V. Figure 6-1: Sample energy spectra taken from target 2 during exposure taken at 360 second intervals 720 seconds there was essentially no change in the copper peak width, indicating no
erosion for target biases less than -35 V. Figure 6-1: Sample energy spectra taken from target 2 during exposure taken at 360 second intervals 720 seconds there was essentially no change in the copper peak width, indicating no
Figure 6-2: Copper erosion characteristics calculated from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 2 It is clear from fig. 6-3 that there is no distinct separation between the copper
Figure 6-2: Copper erosion characteristics calculated from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 2 It is clear from fig. 6-3 that there is no distinct separation between the copper
Figure 6-3: Sample energy spectra taken from target 3 during exposure at 360 second intervals and -37 V bias
Figure 6-3: Sample energy spectra taken from target 3 during exposure at 360 second intervals and -37 V bias
Figure 6-4: Copper erosion characteristics calculated from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 3 and 18 will include more detailed plasma characteristics if they differed substantially
Figure 6-4: Copper erosion characteristics calculated from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 3 and 18 will include more detailed plasma characteristics if they differed substantially
Figure 6-5: Sample energy spectra taken from target 9 during exposure at 270 second intervals and a target bias of -35 V
Figure 6-5: Sample energy spectra taken from target 9 during exposure at 270 second intervals and a target bias of -35 V
Figure 6-6: Copper erosion characteristics from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 9
Figure 6-6: Copper erosion characteristics from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 9
Figure 6-7: Front (L) and back (R) view of target 9 after exposure. Target 11 was eroded using plasma regime 3 and took approximately 5 minutes to
Figure 6-7: Front (L) and back (R) view of target 9 after exposure. Target 11 was eroded using plasma regime 3 and took approximately 5 minutes to
energy spectra representative of the erosion of target 11. Figure 6-8: Sample energy spectra taken from target 11 during exposure at 150 second intervals and a target bias of -35 V
energy spectra representative of the erosion of target 11. Figure 6-8: Sample energy spectra taken from target 11 during exposure at 150 second intervals and a target bias of -35 V
Figure 6-9: Copper erosion characteristics from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 11
Figure 6-9: Copper erosion characteristics from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 11
prior to the experiment is greatly changed as well. Figure 6-10: Front (L) and back (R) view of target 11 after exposure.
prior to the experiment is greatly changed as well. Figure 6-10: Front (L) and back (R) view of target 11 after exposure.
spectra collected are presented in fig. 6-11. Figure 6-11: Sample energy spectra taken from target 15 during exposure at 60 second intervals with a target bias of -32 V
spectra collected are presented in fig. 6-11. Figure 6-11: Sample energy spectra taken from target 15 during exposure at 60 second intervals with a target bias of -32 V
Figure 6-12: Erosion characteristics from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 15
Figure 6-12: Erosion characteristics from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 15
likely due to the plasma mode change rather than significant temperature increase.
likely due to the plasma mode change rather than significant temperature increase.
Figure 6-13: Front (L) and back (R) view of target 15 after exposure.
Figure 6-13: Front (L) and back (R) view of target 15 after exposure.
the erosion process after a few minutes of exposure rather than the target bias. Figure 6-15: Copper erosion characteristics from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 18 adds support to the hypothesis that the target temperature is beginning to dominate
the erosion process after a few minutes of exposure rather than the target bias. Figure 6-15: Copper erosion characteristics from SIMNRA analysis of energy spectra taken from target 18 adds support to the hypothesis that the target temperature is beginning to dominate
front side, which is in agreement with previously mentioned hypotheses. Figure 6-16: Front (L) and back (R) view of target 18 after exposure. In fig. 6-16 one can see that the backside of the target is eroded as well as the
front side, which is in agreement with previously mentioned hypotheses. Figure 6-16: Front (L) and back (R) view of target 18 after exposure. In fig. 6-16 one can see that the backside of the target is eroded as well as the
Table 6.1: Average Erosion Rates
Table 6.1: Average Erosion Rates
Figure 6-17: Sample energy spectra taken from target 17 during exposure at 60 second intervals and a target bias of -40 V
Figure 6-17: Sample energy spectra taken from target 17 during exposure at 60 second intervals and a target bias of -40 V
Related topics:
Engineering
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved