70 likes | 84 Views
Sample Update (Al 2 O 3 & MgO). S. Jokela, I. Veryovkin, A. Zinovev. Al 2 O 3. S1 – 5.5nm, S3 – 11.3nm. Al 2 O 3. Selected Data Averaged However, long-term monitoring or high-fluence electron exposure will determine the final values of these curves. S1 – 5.5nm, S3 – 11.3nm. MgO.
E N D
Sample Update (Al2O3 & MgO) S. Jokela, I. Veryovkin, A. Zinovev
Al2O3 S1 – 5.5nm, S3 – 11.3nm
Al2O3 • Selected Data Averaged • However, long-term monitoring or high-fluence electron exposure will determine the final values of these curves. S1 – 5.5nm, S3 – 11.3nm
MgO S5 (left) – 7.2nm, S9 (right) – 14.4nm
MgO • Selected Data Averaged • Not nearly as large of a difference between samples as was seen in the Al2O3 samples. S5 – 7.2nm, S9 – 14.4nm
Overall Comparison • Tungsten coating doesn’t seem to affect results in a significantly helpful way • MgO is clearly a better emitter, especially for higher primary electron energies. • With the amount of variation seen in prior samples, MgO is comparable to Al2O3 for lower primary electron energies.
Future Work • MCP Godparent Review • I have 4 more samples to test (2×Al2O3 and 2×MgO) • Will continue working on system to get electron gun working for large-area, high-fluence, electron exposure. • May have access to thin-film diamond samples