Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
D
the unreliable performance to inconsistent bulk prop-
great promise for use in flat-panel displays, erties of the diamond cathode material, which is be-
fluorescent lighting, and power vacuum lieved to cause electron emission from only a small
tubes that switch thousands of amperes. Unlike number of spatially localized sites.
metal-emission cathodes, diamond surface-emission We have found a surface-emission mechanism that
cathodes can operate at low voltages and would be may help explain nonuniform emission in diamond:
easy and inexpensive to fabricate. Although many re- enhanced electron emission at the triple-junction in-
search groups have reported emission from diamond terface of a diamond surface, a conductive region, and
and amorphous diamond-like films at electric fields a vacuum. Our research suggests that a discontinuous
on the order of a megavolt per meter, the use of these diamond film with an abundance of these interfaces
materials as cathodes is limited by their unreliable could be a better electron emitter than the conven-
performance [1, 2]. Researchers generally attribute tional approach of a continuous diamond film.
In this article, we compare our surface-emission where Φ is the work function of the cone material in
mechanism with two common field-emission mecha- eV, e is the charge of an electron (1.602 × 10–19 C),
nisms—geometric electric-field enhancement and h is Planck’s constant (4.136 × 10–15 eV-sec), m is the
Schottky-diode electric-field enhancement with a mass of an electron (9.109 × 10–31 kg), and V (E, Φ)
negative electron affinity (NEA) semiconductor [2]. is Nordheim’s elliptic function [6]. The elliptic func-
In an NEA semiconductor, by definition, the mini- tion allows for barrier lowering by the image charge of
mum energy of electrons in the conduction band is the tunneling electron in the metal cone, and varies
greater than the minimum energy of electrons in a from zero to one. Accurate current-density calcula-
vacuum. The surface-emission mechanism combines tions using Equation 1 are nearly impossible, how-
the high electric fields that can be obtained at a triple ever, because the local geometrically enhanced electric
junction [3, 4] with the high-mobility surface states field at the emitting surface is difficult to determine
known to form on NEA-semiconductor surfaces [5]. and the work function Φ can vary significantly over
The surface-emission mechanism explains many ob- an atomic scale. Consequently, researchers approxi-
served diamond-cathode emission properties, and has mate the current density J with the equation
brought about changes in diamond-cathode design
and fabrication, resulting in considerable improve- −b
J ≅ E avg
2
a exp , (2)
ment in performance. Gated cathodes fabricated to E avg
maximize the triple-junction NEA-surface-emission
mechanism, referred to as surface-emission cathodes, where a and b are variables that can be adjusted to fit
emit measurable current densities equal to and above the experimental data and are used to characterize
10–6 A m –2 at gate voltages of 3 to 4 V, and useful cur- cathode performance.
rent densities greater than 10 A m–2 at 6 to 10 V. In Geometric electric-field enhancement explains
some cases, as shown later in the article, these elec- why the electric field required to produce an emission
trons are emitted as a collimated beam of nearly current is lower for burnished stainless steel than for
monoenergetic electrons. With our present designs, polished stainless steel. The polished surface emits
some surface-emission cathodes suffer from excessive measurable currents greater than 10–10 A to a 1-mm-
gate current in the range of 0.2 to 105 times the emit- diameter anode spaced 100 µm away at an applied
ted current, which limits their potential applications. field of 108 V m–1. When the surface is burnished
with 600-grit emery cloth to create thousands of tiny
Three Electron-Emission Mechanisms cones, the same currents are obtained at an applied
The most commonly used field-emission mechanism, field of 107 V m–1. For practical applications, arrays of
illustrated in Figure 1, is geometric electric-field en- cathodes consisting of metal cones and a metal grid
hancement. This technique applies an electric field to structure spaced 100 nm to 10 µ m apart [7, 8] require
a sharpened conductive cone with a high aspect ratio 20 to 200 V between the cones and the grid to obtain
of height to base diameter. According to theory, no average current densities greater than 10 A m–2.
measurable emission occurs from a perfectly smooth Figure 2 illustrates the second electron-emission
metal surface at fields less than 109 V m–1. But emis- mechanism, known as Schottky-diode electric-field
sion occurs with the sharpened conductive cone at av- enhancement. This mechanism requires a semicon-
erage applied fields of 107 to 108 V m–1. ductor that is doped with an electron donor impurity
The emission-current density J (in A m–2 ) is re- and has an NEA-semiconductor surface-vacuum in-
lated to the local electric field E (in V m–1 ) at the terface. The semiconductor forms a Schottky diode
emitting surface by the Fowler-Nordheim equation, with the metal substrate. The magnitude of the emit-
ted current is limited by electrons tunneling through
−4 8π 2m
eE 2 3/ 2 V ( E , Φ ) the metal-semiconductor Schottky diode and not by
J = exp Φ , (1)
8π h Φ 3 h 2
( e 3/ 2
E ) electron emission from the semiconductor into
vacuum. When an electric field is applied across the
Vacuum
e–
Vacuum x
Distance
Φ
Metal
Metal
EF
Potential
(a) (b)
FIGURE 1. Geometric electric-field enhancement at the top of a sharpened conductive cone. (a) An electric
field applied to a sharpened conductive cone produces electron emission at the top of the cone. This emission
occurs at average electric-field values that are lower than those needed for emission from a smooth metal sur-
face. (b) The plot of potential energy as a function of distance from the cone tip into vacuum, where EF is the
Fermi energy in the metal, illustrates the magnitude of the potential-energy barrier Φ at the metal-vacuum inter-
face. To be emitted from the conductive cone, electrons must tunnel a distance x through the potential barrier.
semiconductor, the dopants become positively ion- nel from the metal into the semiconductor. Electrons
ized and form a depletion region at the metal-semi- in the semiconductor can be easily injected into the
conductor junction. If diamond is used as the semi- vacuum. Geometric electric-field enhancement cre-
conductor, the electric field at this junction is often ated by roughening the metal-semiconductor inter-
greater than 109 V m–1, causing the electrons to tun- face can boost electron emission further.
NEA-semiconductor
Vacuum surface-vacuum interface Vacuum
Distance
+
Depletion region
+
y
+
Semiconductor
+
+
Ψ
+
+
+
+
+
Metal
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
EF
e– Metal-semiconductor
Potential
Metal interface
(a) (b)
FIGURE 2. Cross section of metal-semiconductor and NEA-semiconductor surface-vacuum interfaces for Schottky-di-
ode electric-field enhancement with a semiconductor doped with an electron donor impurity. (a) When an electric field is
applied across the semiconductor, the dopants become positively ionized and form a depletion region at the metal-semi-
conductor interface. Electrons tunnel from the metal into the semiconductor, and are emitted at the NEA-semiconductor
surface-vacuum interface. (b) The plot of potential energy as a function of distance, where EF is the Fermi energy in the
metal, illustrates the potential-energy barrier Ψ at the metal-semiconductor interface. To be emitted from the metal sub-
strate, electrons must tunnel a distance y through the potential barrier.
Schottky-diode electric-field enhancement has to sufficient accuracy [14]. Arrays of these cathodes
been discussed in more detail elsewhere [2], and emit current densities above 10 A m–2 when poten-
variations of this mechanism have been used to ex- tials of 10 to 20 V are applied between the metal sub-
plain many experimental results [9–12]. The current strate contacting the semiconductor and a metal gate
density J is related to the semiconductor doping den- structure spaced about 1 µm away [2, 15].
sity n (in m–3), the potential-energy barrier height Ψ Figure 3 illustrates the third electron-emission
(in eV) at the metal-semiconductor interface, and the mechanism, known as triple-junction electric-field
potential drop V across the semiconductor by enhancement, or surface emission. Surface emission
combines two physical phenomena—electric-field
en 1 πV ε ε 0me enhancement at a triple junction [3, 4, 16] and high
J = exp − T electron mobility at an NEA-semiconductor surface-
π hε ε0 P 2 h en
vacuum interface [5]. In this mechanism, an impu-
−b (3) rity-donor-doped NEA semiconductor is used in the
≈ a1V 2 exp 1 for V >> Ψ ,
V triple-junction geometry. When a negative bias on
the metal substrate produces an electric field along
where the semiconductor surface, a substantial positive
charge can form on the surface and in the bulk of the
T =D+
(1 − D ) ln (1 − D) ≈ 2D
2 3
+
2D 5
,
semiconductor near the triple junction. Part of this
(1 + D )
charge comes from the Schottky diode, and is formed
2 3 15
by the semiconductor and the metal substrate. If the
(1 − D ) 2D 4 field is large enough, electrons tunnel from the metal
P = − D ln ≈ 2D +
2
,
(1 + D ) 3 substrate onto the semiconducting surface with suffi-
cient energy to cause secondary electron emission,
Ψ
D2 = , which further increases positive charge at the surface.
V Depending upon the angle θ between the semicon-
ductor-vacuum interface and the metal substrate, as
and where ε0 is the permittivity of vacuum (8.85 × shown in Figure 3, the electric-field enhancement can
10–12 F m–1), ε is the dielectric constant of the semi- be larger than that obtained with the two mechanisms
conductor (5.7 for diamond), me is the effective mass discussed previously [17].
of the electron in the semiconductor (about 0.3 times We use both the electric-field enhancement at a
the mass of an electron for diamond), and a1 and b1 triple junction and the property of high electron mo-
are functions of ε , Ψ, me , and n. This equation was bility on an NEA-semiconductor surface-vacuum in-
derived by using the WKB approximation [13]. terface to explain the electron-emission mechanism.
The electron emission increases as the doping den- The high electron mobility [5] is the result of surface
sity n increases and the dielectric constant ε, the effec- states in which electrons in vacuum are bound to a
tive mass of the electron me , and the barrier height Ψ surface by their image charge in the material, but are
decrease. Although the functional form of Equation 3 not allowed to pass through the surface because of
is substantially different from Equation 1, both func- quantum mechanical considerations. We discuss sur-
tions will usually describe the data when the mea- face states in more detail in the next section. Emission
sured emitted current density from a cathode is plot- from surface cathodes occurs when electrons tunnel
ted against the voltage required for emission. Thus we from the metal substrate through the barrier at the
cannot easily distinguish between the two mecha- triple junction. The barrier height is difficult to deter-
nisms on the basis of the emission parameters of the mine but may be as little as 1 eV or as much as the
cathode. As with Equation 1, accurate emission-cur- work function of the metal less the binding energy of
rent calculations using Equation 3 are almost impos- the surface state. This barrier height for tunneling at
sible because not enough of the parameters are known the triple junction is less than the corresponding bar-
Vacuum
NEA-semiconductor
surface-vacuum interface
Distance
θ
+
Vacuum
+
z
+
Semiconductor
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
Metal
+
+
+
+
+
+
EF
Metal Potential
e–
Metal-semiconductor-vacuum
triple junction
(a) (b)
FIGURE 3. Triple junction (metal-semiconductor-vacuum) electric-field enhancement. (a) The combination of an impu-
rity-donor-doped semiconductor and the high mobility of electrons at the NEA-semiconductor surface-vacuum inter-
face causes electrons to tunnel from the metal substrate onto the surface of the semiconductor. Depending on the angle
θ, the electric-field enhancement can be larger than that obtained with the two mechanisms illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
(b) The plot of potential energy along the semiconductor-vacuum interface, where EF is the Fermi energy in the metal,
illustrates the potential-energy barrier. To be emitted at the semiconductor-vacuum interface, electrons must tunnel a
distance z from the metal substrate into the triple-junction region. This potential barrier, while difficult to determine, is
known to be less than the potential barrier for the geometric electric-field enhancement mechanism.
rier height for geometric electric-field enhancement. and recent room-temperature results were reported
A potential of only 6 to 10 V is all that need be ap- on metals [19] and insulators [20].
plied across an emitting-surface length of 1.5 µm to Figure 4 shows the potential energy produced by
obtain currents equivalent to 10 A m–2. the effective image charge for liquid He4 and dia-
mond. The resulting one-dimensional hydrogenic
Surface States on NEA Semiconductors surface states have binding energies E in eV, which are
Surface states on NEA semiconductors come from approximated by
the semiconductor-vacuum interface. They differ
from the interface states associated with silicon diox- E ≈R
( ε − 1)
2
,
[4n (ε + 1)] (4)
ide on silicon, for example, in which an electron can 2
Conduction
2
band
Minimum-energy quantum state on liquid He4, –0.7 meV
–4
–6
Diamond
valence
band –8 Diamond
Liquid He4
– 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Distance from dielectric (nm)
FIGURE 4. Potential-energy curves as a function of distance from the liquid-He4–vacuum and diamond-
vacuum interfaces. These curves show the minimum-energy quantum states for an electron on liquid-He4
and diamond surfaces. The bar on the left shows the approximate energy positions of the conduction bands
for liquid He4 and diamond, and the valence band for diamond.
about 7.5 nm above the surface [21]. Diamond has a emission by exposing it to an oxygen discharge, coat-
calculated minimum surface-state energy 0.42 eV be- ing it with cesium, and reexposing it to oxygen, a sur-
low the vacuum level, with the electron about 0.3 nm face procedure known to enhance diamond’s NEA
above the surface. property [24, 25]. Next, the molybdenum anode was
positively biased to obtain stable electron emission
Experiments from the diamond. During emission, a greenish-yel-
A variety of experimental results led us to consider low fluorescence originated from the ion-implanted
NEA-semiconductor surface emission for electron region and progressed up the side of the diamond,
emission from diamond. Figure 5 depicts a type-Ib around the top edge, and across the top surface. We
cubo-octohedron diamond, about 3 mm across, con- believe the fluorescence originated from electrons
taining a deep donor of substitutional nitrogen. The traveling across the diamond surface rather than
diamond has been implanted with 34 keV lithium through its bulk. The path of the electrons depended
ions at 200°C to a dose of 4 × 1016 cm–2 to enhance on the surface irregularities of the diamond. Once on
the electrical contact between the metal support and the top surface, the electrons jumped the 0.0-to-0.8-
the diamond [22, 23]. The anode, which can be mm gap between the top diamond surface and the
moved from a point touching the diamond to several positively charged movable anode.
centimeters above the diamond, was at first a molyb- When the molybdenum anode was moved from a
denum rod 0.5 mm in diameter. In later experiments point touching the diamond to a point 0.5 mm above
we used a square phosphor screen approximately one the diamond, the anode voltage had to be increased
centimeter on a side. The diamond was prepared for from 7 to 8 kV to maintain a constant emission cur-
rent of 10–5 A. This increase indicates that most of the formed by sputtering the diamond surface with
potential drop, about 7 kV, appears across the dia- 1200-eV xenon ions. The diamond was then cleaved
mond and is not being expended in the vacuum gap to obtain a clean, undamaged surface, as illustrated in
between the diamond and the anode [25]. When a Figure 6. When a potential of a few kilovolts was
square phosphor screen was used as an anode and placed between the nickel and the graphitized layer,
placed on the diamond surface, the screen fluoresced electrons were emitted into vacuum. This emission
where it met the diamond, as shown in Figure 5(b). was further increased with the same oxygen-cesium
The phosphor screen fluoresced only when hit with treatment previously described [26], but no oxygen
electrons of energy greater than 1 keV, implying that discharge was used because that would remove the
these electrons have considerable energy while still on graphite layer. Figure 7 shows typical currents ob-
the diamond surface. tained from these surface-emission cathodes. By using
From our experiments with both of these anodes, a movable phosphor screen, we determined that the
we theorize that these electrons are field emitted from electrons originated from the cleaved surface with
the implanted region into semiconductor-vacuum nearly the same energies, i.e., within 50 eV of the ap-
surface states. Once in these surface states, the elec- plied potential. Because we wanted to measure the
trons can be accelerated to energies above 1 keV. Elec- energies of the electrons, we modified the experiment
trons with similar energies appear to be emitted after to include an energy analyzer, as shown in Figure 8.
traveling through the bulk of diamond and other The mechanism used to explain the surface emis-
semiconductors [26, 27], but often we cannot distin- sion relies upon positive charges at or near the dia-
guish electrons that move across the surface from mond surface to create a large electric field at the
those which are conducted through the bulk of the triple junction. From previous experiments we know
semiconductor. that nitrogen impurities in diamond can be positively
To characterize the emission further, we coated a ionized and remain charged for days, but once the
type-Ib diamond 100-µm plate with electron-beam- diamond is exposed to room light, photogenerated
evaporated nickel on the back side and graphite on electrons in the diamond will neutralize the nitrogen
top to form a conductive layer. The graphite layer was impurities. Figure 9 shows the effect of 100 W m–2 of
7 kV 1 mm
Phosphor screen anode
Region Diamond
implanted
with
lithium ions Approximate outline
of diamond
Metal
(a) (b)
FIGURE 5. (a) Diagram of lithium-ion-implanted diamond with a phosphor screen anode placed
on top of the diamond. (b) Observed fluorescence of the phosphor screen is directly under the
portion of diamond implanted with lithium. The phosphor screen continued to fluoresce when
lifted several hundred microns above the diamond, but the regions of fluorescence moved away
from the edge of the diamond to the center of the diamond and became more diffuse.
10 –5
I Emitted current
10 –6
Emitted current
Current (A)
I Electrode current
10 –7
e–
Graphitized layer
10 –8
Diamond Cleaved surface
Electrode current
10 –9
Nickel
10 –10
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
FIGURE 6. Surface-emission cathode experiment using the FIGURE 7. Plot of emitted and electrode currents as a func-
cleaved surface of diamond to emit electrons. Electrons tun- tion of applied voltage for the surface-emission cathode
nel from the nickel metal substrate onto the diamond surface shown in Figure 6. As the voltage across the diamond in-
from which they are emitted into a vacuum. creases, both currents increase.
incandescent illumination on the diamond, where the than 1 kV is applied. If the cathode is first illumi-
emitted current is larger in the dark than with the nated with no applied potential, and then the illumi-
illumination on. In the dark, measurable emission nation is turned off and potentials from 0 to 5 kV (in
occurs for potentials as low as 150 V across the dia- increasing order) are applied to the diamond, the
mond. With the illumination on, the emission de- emission at the start of the experiment nearly matches
creases and is not measurable until a potential greater the emission measured in the light (blue curve). After
1.0
Retarding
90% current at 1917.0 V
potential
V 0.8
55 V
0.6
e–
50% current at 1945 V
Vacuum
0.4
Graphitized layer
0.2
Diamond
10% current at 1962.5 V
0
Nickel 0 –500 –1000 –1500 –2000
Retarding potential (V)
–2000 V
(a) (b)
FIGURE 8. (a) Diagram of a retarding energy analyzer used to estimate the electron’s energy. Electrons with an absolute energy
value less than the retarding potential do not contribute to the transmitted current. (b) Transmitted current as a function of re-
tarding potential. The red band in the figure highlights the results of the experiment. Up to 90% of the electrons have energies
greater than 1917.0 eV, and fewer than 10% of the electrons have energies greater than 1962.5 eV.
10 –5
Emission after exposure to light, no potential applied
10 –6 Emission in dark
Emission in light
10 –7
Emitted current (A)
10 –8
10 –9
10 –10
10 –11
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Voltage across diamond (V)
(a)
Graphitized Graphitized
layer layer
Diamond Exposure Diamond
+ Ionized to light Neutral
+ + + + + impurities impurities
Metal Metal
(b)
FIGURE 9. Emission current from diamond showing the effect of 100 W m–2 of incandes-
cent illumination. (a) In the dark, emission occurs for potentials as low as 150 V. With the
illumination on, emission is not measurable until the potential is greater than 1 kV. The red
curve shows the emission after the cathode has been illuminated for one minute with no
applied potential, and then a range of potentials are applied in the dark. (b) To explain the
reduced electron emission caused by incandescent illumination, we believe the light neu-
tralizes positive charges near the triple junction, which reduces the electric field at the
triple junction and decreases the electron-tunneling current from the metal substrate.
the emission current exceeds about 10–7 A, the emis- ficient to cause emission. At voltages above 2.5 kV,
sion changes and the characteristics of the emitted significant emission occurs, which can reionize these
current are nearly identical with emission in the dark dopants faster than they can be photoneutralized. At
(black curve). these larger voltages, sufficient electric field develops
We theorize that when the diamond is illuminated to enhance emission. Once the dopants are neutral-
at low applied voltages, the dopants near the diamond ized, emission even in the dark is poor until sufficient
surface are photoneutralized, so the electric field at potential is applied across the diamond to reionize
the metal-diamond-vacuum triple junction is not suf- them.
Current (A)
m
0µ 10–7
10
Step of 1 to 20 µm 100 µm 10–9 Emitted current
10–11
FIGURE 10. (a) Diagram of the cross section of a diamond surface-emission cathode consisting of type-Ib diamond in which
100 × 100-µm raised surfaces were formed by ion-beam-assisted etching. The gate and grounded electrodes consist of 50 nm of
nickel. (b) Emitted current and gate current as a function of gate voltage for a diamond surface-emission device with a surface
step height of 1.5 µm. Currents required for flat-panel displays—greater than 10–7 A—are obtained at gate voltages less than 10 V.
10 –5
10 –9
including metals (cesiated gold), semimetals (carbon) diffraction of energetic electrons out of the film by
[32], and semiconductors (indium tin oxide) [33, the metal islands [32].
34]. Recently, researchers at Canon have investigated Because the emission is related to the voltage across
palladium-oxide surface cathodes for use in flat-panel the film by the Fowler-Nordheim equation, Dittmer
displays [35–37]. has argued that the emission mechanism is the result
Non-diamond and diamond surface-emitting of electron tunneling. However, Y.A. Kulyupin dis-
cathodes have much in common. Their geometries cussed that the Fowler-Nordheim emission could also
consist of metal electrodes separated by an insulating be the result of thermal emission [39]. R. Blessing et
surface. Both cathodes exhibit the same electrical al. proposed that thermal and tunneling mechanisms
properties: (1) electrons are emitted with a narrow en- both play a role in emission [40]. According to Bless-
ergy spread [30, 32, 37]; (2) emission increases with ing, thermal emission occurs primarily at voltages be-
the addition of cesium or cesium salts [30]; (3) often low 8 V, and electron tunneling dominates at higher
a small fraction of the current flowing across the sur- voltages. A. Asai believes a large fraction of the elec-
face is emitted into vacuum; and (4) the emission cur- trons emitted into vacuum are pulled back to the
rent depends on the voltage across the cathode by the cathode by the local electric fields, where they may be
Fowler-Nordheim equation. The similarities between again elastically scattered back into vacuum [36]. He
non-diamond and diamond cathodes suggest that uses this model to explain the dependence of emission
both types of cathodes operate with the same emis- current on the anode voltage for his palladium-oxide
sion mechanism. Three models for this emission cathodes. None of these models addresses the narrow
mechanism have been proposed: (1) electron tunnel- energy spread of the emitted electrons. Voltages across
ing into vacuum at the enhanced electric field of the the film vary from 6 to 50 V; if the entire film emits
small (less than 10-nm-diameter) metal islands [30]; electrons, then the electron energy spread is expected
(2) thermal emission of hot electrons produced by to exceed the approximate number of 2 eV reported
electron conduction in the high electric fields be- by several researchers [30, 32, 37]. Dittmer found
tween the metal islands [38]; and (3) scattering and that the size of metal islands for his films was smaller
near the negative electrode than in the rest of the film tric-field enhancement, but from between the crystal-
and suggested that the small energy spread results lites in the film where either the metal substrate or
from emission occurring only from these small is- graphite layer separating the crystallites can serve as
lands near the negative electrode. the conductive region of a triple junction. This obser-
The model we propose to explain diamond sur- vation suggests that many of the reported emission
face-emission cathodes—a triple junction composed properties of diamond and diamond-like films result
of a doped semiconductor (diamond), metal, and from the surface emission of triple junctions rather
vacuum—is an extension of the electron-tunneling than from field emission from the bulk of the dia-
model for surface-film cathodes. Field enhancement mond into the vacuum. Kumar independently used
is primarily caused by the positive space charge in the the triple-junction model to explain diamond and
semiconductor at the triple junction. As discussed by diamond-like field emission [44].
Asai, the electric field in the vacuum causes the elec- We propose a new diamond electron-emission
trons tunneling into the vacuum to fall onto the cath- mechanism that relies on electric-field emission of
ode surface. However, instead of relying on elastic electrons at a triple junction onto the NEA surface of
scattering to reemit these electrons, we theorize that a diamond. Once on this surface, the electrons are ac-
barrier exists at the diamond-vacuum interface that celerated to sufficient energies to be emitted into the
prevents the electrons from entering the diamond. vacuum. This electron-emission mechanism requires
The electrons are then accelerated along the diamond the diamond surface to intersect the conducting sub-
surface away from the triple junction, gaining suffi- strate at a triple junction.
cient energy to be emitted into the vacuum. The cathodes designed to maximize the new emis-
Two other models might explain emission from sion mechanism have more consistent emission than
the diamond cathodes. A surface discharge on the our previous grit-based cathodes [2]. They have some
diamond could generate a plasma and hot electrons, of the lowest reported operational voltages, they can
which may be thermally emitted into the vacuum. emit a nearly monoenergetic, collimated beam of
The exceptionally high secondary electron yield of ce- electrons with energies up to 6 keV, and they can op-
sium-coated diamond [41, 42] could enhance elec- erate in pressures of 1 Torr of nitrogen. This new
tron secondary generation, making a surface dis- emission mechanism also explains the previously re-
charge more likely to form. If the discharge is ported reduction of emission with light [26]. In addi-
responsible for emission, then the energy spread of tion to diamond, several other materials such as or-
the emitted electrons will approach that of the poten- ganic salts formed with alkali metals and crown ethers
tial applied across the diamond. As shown in Figure [45], lithium fluoride [46], aluminum nitride [47],
8(b), the energy spread is orders of magnitude smaller calcium fluoride [48], boron nitride [49], and ce-
than the applied potential. Alternatively, emission sium-doped glass surfaces may be useful for surface-
could occur not from the triple junction, but from emission cathodes.
some asperity on the negative electrode independent
of the diamond substrate. In that case the incandes- Acknowledgments
cent light would not affect emission, contradicting We are grateful to those who made the following con-
the experimental data shown in Figure 9. tributions: King Walters suggested the possibility of
surface states on NEA semiconductors; Robert Parker
Conclusion suggested the triple-junction mechanism for electron
In the first publication that demonstrated low-field injection; Henry Gray and Jerry Cuomo provided
emission from diamond, M.E. Kordesch wrote, “The helpful discussions; and Donna Lennon supplied ex-
area between the crystallites (which are easily identi- pert technical assistance. This work was supported by
fied as depressions or crevices . . .) are strongly emit- the Ballistic Missile Defense Office through the Of-
ting areas” [43]. That is, the emission does not occur fice of Naval Research and the Defense Advanced Re-
from the tips of the diamond facets by geometric elec- search Projects Agency.
REFERENCES
21. C.C. Grimes and T.R. Brown, “Direct Spectroscopic Observa-
tion of Electrons in Image-Potential States outside Liquid
Helium,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (6), 1974, pp. 280–283.
1. M.E. Kordesch, private communication. 22. S. Prawer, C. Uzan-Spaguy, G. Braunstein, and R. Kalish,
2. M.W. Geis, J.C. Twichell, and T.M. Lyszczarz, “Fabrication “Can n-type Doping of Diamond Be Achieved by Li or Na Ion
and Theory of Diamond Emitters,” Linc. Lab. J. 8 (2), 1995, Implantation?” Appl. Phys Lett. 63 (18), 1993, pp. 2502–2504.
pp. 161–171; M.W. Geis, J.C. Twichell, and T.M. Lyszczarz, 23. S. Prawer and R. Kalish, “Ion-Beam-Induced Transformation
“Diamond Emitters Fabrication and Theory,” J. Vac. Technol. of Diamond,” Phys. Rev. B 51 (12), 1995, pp. 15 711–15 722.
B 14 (3), 1996, pp. 2060–2067. 24. M.W. Geis, J.C. Twichell, J. Macaulay, and K. Okano, “Elec-
3. C.H. de Tourreil and K.D. Srivastava, “Mechanism of Surface tron Field Emission from Diamond and Other Carbon Mate-
Charging of High-Voltage Insulators in Vacuum,” IEEE Trans. rials after H2, O2 and Cs Treatment,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 67 (9),
Electr. Insul. 8 (1), 1973, pp. 17–21. 1995, pp. 1328–1330.
4. R.V. Latham, “Appendix: Flashover across Solid Insulators in 25. T.W. Mercer and P.E. Pehrsson, “Cs on Diamond,” to be pub-
a Vacuum Environment,” in High Voltage Insulation: The Physi- lished.
cal Basis (Academic, London, 1981), pp. 229–240. 26. M.W. Geis, J.C. Twichell, N.N. Efremow, K. Krohn, and
5. C.C. Grimes, “Electron in Surface States on Liquid Helium,” T.M. Lyszczarz, “Comparison of Electric Field Emission from
Surf. Sci. 73 (1), 1978, pp. 379–395. Nitrogen-Doped, Type Ib Diamond, and Boron-Doped Dia-
6. W.D. Dyke and W.W. Dolan, “Field Emission,” in Advances in mond,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 68 (16), 1996, pp. 2294–2296.
Electronics and Electron Physics 8, L. Marton, ed. (Academic, 27. H.-J. Fitting, G.O. Müller, R. Mach, G.U. Reinsperger, T.
New York, 1956), pp. 89–185. Hingst, and E. Schreiber, “Vacuum Emission of Hot Electrons
7. C.A. Spindt, I. Brodie, L. Humphrey, and E.R. Westerberg, from ZnS,” Phys. Stat. Sol. A 121 (1), 1990, pp. 305–313.
“Physical Properties of Thin-Film Field Emission Cathodes 28. N.N. Efremow, M.W. Geis, D.C. Flanders, G.A. Lincoln, and
with Molybdenum Cones,” J. Appl. Phys. 47 (12), 1976, pp. N.P. Economou, “Ion-Beam-Assisted Etching of Diamond,”
5248–5263. J. Vac. Technol. B 3 (1), 1985, pp. 416–418.
8. C.O. Bolzler, C.T. Harris, S. Rabe, D.D. Rathman, M.A. 29. K. Shoulders, private communication.
Hollis, and H.I. Smith, “Arrays of Gated Field-Emitter Cones 30. G. Dittmer, “Electrical Conduction and Electron Emission of
Having 0.32 µm Tip-to-Tip Spacing,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 12 Discontinuous Thin Films,” Thin Solid Films 9 (3), 1972, pp.
(2), 1994, pp. 629–632. 317–328.
9. A.F. Myers, S.M. Camphausen, J.J. Cuomo, J.J. Hren, J. Liu, 31. P.G. Borziak, Y.A. Kulyupin, S.A. Nepijko, and V.G.
and J. Bruley, “Characterization of Amorphous Carbon Shamonya, “Electrical Conductivity and Electron Emission
Coated Silicon Field Emitters,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 14 (3), from Discontinuous Metal Films of Homogeneous Structure,”
1996, pp. 2024–2029. Thin Solid Films 76 (4), 1981, pp. 359–378.
10. E.I. Givargizov, V.V. Zhirnov, A.V. Kuznetsov, and P.S. 32. H. Araki and T. Hanawa, “The Temperature Dependence of
Plekhanov, “Cold Emission from the Single-Crystalline Electron Emission from a Discontinuous Carbon Film Device
Microparticle of Diamond on a Si Tip,” J. Vac Sci. Technol. B between Silver Film Electrodes,” Thin Solid Films 158 (12),
14 (3), 1996, pp. 2030–2033. 1988, pp. 207–216.
11. V.V. Zhirnov, G.J. Wojak, W.B. Choi, J.J. Cuomo, and J.J. 33. M.I. Elinson, A.G. Zhdan, G.A. Kudintseva, and M.E.
Hren, “Wide Band Gap Materials for Field Emission Devices,” Chugunova, “The Emission of Hot Electrons and the Field
to be published in J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B. Emission of Electrons from Tin Oxide,” Radio Eng. Electron.
12. R.V. Latham, “Recent Advances in the Understanding of Phys. 10 (8), 1965, pp. 1290–1296.
Prebreakdown Electron Emission,” in High Voltage Insulation: 34. M. Hartwell and C.G. Fonstad, “Strong Electron Emission
The Physical Basis (Academic, London, 1981), pp. 211–227. from Patterned Tin-Indium Oxide Tin Films,” Int. Electron
13. A. van der Zeil, Solid State Physical Electronic (Prentice-Hall, Devices Mtg., Washington, 1–3 Dec. 1975, pp. 519–521.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968), pp. 144–146. 35. M. Yamanobe, Y. Osada, I. Nomura, H. Suzuki, T. Kaneko, H.
14. P. Lerner, P.H. Cutler, and N.M. Miskovsky, “Theoretical Kawade, Y. Sato, Y. Kasanuki, T. Takeda, S. Mishina, N.
Analysis of Field Emission from a Metal Diamond Cold Cath- Nakamura, H. Toshima, A. Isono, N. Suzuki, Y. Todokoro,
ode Emitter,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 15 (2), 1997, pp. 337–342. and E. Tamaguchi, European Patent No. EP 0 605 881 A1, 28
15. K. Okano, S. Koizumi, S.R.P. Silva, and G.A.J. Amaratunga, Dec. 1993.
“Low-Threshold Cold Cathodes Made of Nitrogen-Doped 36. A. Asai, M. Okuda, S. Matsutani, K. Shinjo, N. Nakamura, K.
Chemical-Vapour-Deposited Diamond,” Nature 381, 9 May Hatanaka, Y. Osada, and T. Nakagiri, “Multiple-Scattering
1996, pp. 140–141. Model of Surface-Conduction Electron Emitters,” Society for
16. T.S. Sudarshan, J.D. Cross, and K.D. Srivastava, “Prebreak- Information Display Int. Symp. Digest of Technical Papers 28,
down Processes Associated with Surface Flashover of Solid Boston, 12–17 May 1997, pp. 127–130.
Insulators in Vacuum,” IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul. 12 (3), 1977, 37. E. Yamaguchi, K. Sakai, I. Nomura, T. Ono, M. Yamanobe, N.
pp. 200–208. Abe, T. Hara, K. Hatanaka, Y. Osada, H. Yamamoto, and T.
17. A. Watson, “Pulse Flashover in Vacuum,” J. Appl. Phys. 38 (5), Nakagiri, “A 10-in. Surface-Conduction Electron-Emitter
1967, pp. 2019–2023. Display,” Society for Information Display Int. Symp. Digest of
18. M.W. Cole, “Properties of Image-Potential-Induced Surface Technical Papers 28, Boston, 12–17 May 1997, pp. 52–55.
States of Insulators,” Phys. Rev. B 2 (10), 1970, pp. 4239–4252. 38. P. Borziak, Y. Kulyupin, and P. Tomchuk, “Electron Processes
19. R.M. Osgood and X. Wang, “Image States on Single-Crystal in Discontinuous Metal Films,” Thin Solid Films 30 (1), 1975,
Metal Surface,” to be published in Solid State Physics (Aca- pp. 47–53.
demic, New York). 39. Y.A. Kulyupin and S.A. Nepiiko, “Effect of Substrate Defor-
20. E.G. McRae, “Electronic Surface Resonances of Crystals,” mation on Electron Emission from Dispersed Metal Films,”