Cited by 26Low-Pressure Plasma Processing and DiagnosticsAtomic and Molecular PhysicsElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of angular scattering models for electron-neutral collisions in Monte Carlo simulations

Open access
Janssen, J F J, Pitchford, L C, Hagelaar, G J M, van Dijk, J·2016·Plasma Sources Science and Technology

Abstract

In Monte Carlo simulations of electron transport through a neutral background gas, simplifying assumptions related to the shape of the angular distribution of electron-neutral scattering cross sections are usually made. This is mainly because full sets of differential scattering cross sections are rarely available. In this work simple models for angular scattering are compared to results from the recent quantum calculations of Zatsarinny and Bartschat for differential scattering cross sections (DCS's) from zero to 200 eV in argon. These simple models represent in various ways an approach to forward scattering with increasing electron energy. The simple models are then used in Monte Carlo simulations of range, straggling, and backscatter of electrons emitted from a surface into a volume filled with a neutral gas. It is shown that the assumptions of isotropic elastic scattering and of forward scattering for the inelastic collision process yield results within a few percent of those calculated using the DCS's of Zatsarinny and Bartschat. The quantities which were held constant in these comparisons are the elastic momentum transfer and total inelastic cross sections.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0963-0252/25/5/055026

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Boeuf J P, 1982, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 15, 2169, 10.1088/0022-3727/15/11/012 · DOI
  2. 10.1063/1.337868 · DOI
  3. 10.1103/PhysRevA.41.1112 · DOI
  4. 10.1063/1.371443 · DOI
  5. Petrović Z L, 2009, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 42
  6. 10.1071/PH810243 · DOI
  7. 10.1103/PhysRevA.31.2932 · DOI
  8. Thomas R W L, 1969, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys., 2, 562, 10.1088/0022-3700/2/5/309 · DOI
  9. 10.1071/PH790255 · DOI
  10. 10.1103/PhysRevA.34.2158 · DOI
  11. Stojanović V D, 1998, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 31, 834, 10.1088/0022-3727/31/7/013 · DOI
  12. Hagelaar G J M, 2005, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol., 14, 722, 10.1088/0963-0252/14/4/011 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1103/PhysRevA.27.2858 · DOI
  14. Zatsarinny O, 2004, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 37, 4693, 10.1088/0953-4075/37/23/010 · DOI
  15. 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.030701 · DOI
  16. 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.037402 · DOI
  17. 10.1063/1.4751865 · DOI
  18. 10.1029/JA081i016p02755 · DOI
  19. Mott N F, 1965, The Theory of Atomic Collisions
  20. 10.1103/PhysRevA.8.226 · DOI
  21. 10.1140/epjd/e2009-00192-7 · DOI
  22. Massey H, 1969, Electronic and Ionic Impact Phenomena
  23. Hagelaar G J M, 2000, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol., 9, 605, 10.1088/0963-0252/9/4/318 · DOI
  24. White M D, 1979, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys., 12, 811, 10.1088/0022-3700/12/5/025 · DOI
  25. 10.1007/BF01448734 · DOI
  26. van Dijk J, 2009, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 42
  27. 10.1103/PhysRevA.22.940 · DOI
  28. 10.1063/1.362931 · DOI
  29. 10.1063/1.1676707 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Janssen, J. F. J., Pitchford, L. C., Hagelaar, G. J. M., & van Dijk, J.
Affiliations
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • Laboratoire Plasma et Conversion d'Energie (FR)
  • Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NO)
Corresponding author
Janssen, J F J
Venue
Plasma Sources Science and Technology
Published
2016-09-22
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
055026
ISSN
  • 0963-0252 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6595
OpenAlex
W2521796723
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Plasma Sources Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • PHC van Gogh (28979ZE)
  • Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen (10744)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Low-Pressure Plasma Processing and Diagnostics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Atomic and Molecular Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Surfaces, Coatings and Films › Electron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Keywords
electron-neutral collisions, differential cross section, argon, electron transport, forward scattering, electron range, electron backscattering, inelastic collisions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review