All field emission experiments are noisy, {\ldots} are any meaningful?
arXiv:2301.13578 · doi:10.1116/6.0002338
Abstract
Representing field emission data on a Fowler--Nordheim plot is both very common and strongly not recommended. It leads to a spurious estimation of the emitter parameters despite a very good data fit. There is a lack of a reliable method of analysis and a proper estimation of the uncertainty in the extracted parameters. In this article, we show that the uncertainty in the estimation of the field enhancement factor or the emission area can be as high as [Formula: see text] even for a tungsten single emitter in good ultrahigh vacuum conditions analyzed by the Murphy--Good model. Moreover, the choice of the exact Murphy--Good method can have a noticeable impact. We found that advanced analysis methods, based on the measurement of the differential conductance of the emitter, are so demanding in terms of emitter stability that up to now its requirements are probably out of reach in any field emission laboratory.
References in corpus (6)
- A general computational method for electron emission and thermal effects in field emitting nanotips
- Fractional Fowler-Nordheim Law for Field Emission from Rough Surface with Nonparabolic Energy Dispersion
- Interpretation of field emission current-voltage data: background theory and detailed simulation testing of a user-friendly webtool
- Field emitter electrostatics: a review with special emphasis on modern high-precision finite-element modelling
- Modeling the Field Emission Enhancement Factor for Capped Carbon Nanotubes using the Induced Electron Density
- All field emission models are wrong, but are any of them useful?