Investigation of the Sensitivity of Ionization-Type Vacuum Gauges
Abstract
A quantitative analysis of a large and representative sample of available data has been made to determine the best criteria for predicting the relative sensitivities of ionization-type vacuum gauges to different gases. The molecular property of the gas that correlates best with relative sensitivity is the ionization cross section σ (eV). The best σ value to choose according to gauge type is as follows: 1. For high-pressure ionization gauges, a σ evaluated at 23 of the accelerating potential of the gauge is the best choice. 2. For Bayard-Alpert and triode gauges, any of three choices are of approximately equal value. These are 100 eV σ values, maximum σ value for each gas, and a σ evaluated at 23 of the accelerating potential for each gauge. 3. For the Alphatron gauge, σ values in the range 5000–10 000 eV provide the best correlation. 4. For cold cathode ionization gauges, insufficient data were available to come to any conclusions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The gauge sensitivity strongly depends on the ionization probability of the calibration gas.
“The gauge sensitivity strongly depends on the ionization probability of the calibration gas.”
From Review Article: Recommended practice for calibrating vacuum gauges of the ionization type (2018) · cites this paper as [13]
The ionisation cross-section near 100 eV is the most suitable parameter to predict relative gauge sensitivity.
“It is evident that the ionisation cross-section (near 100 eV) is the most suitable parameter to predict the relative gauge sensitivity [141].”
From A review on hot cathode ionisation gauges with focus on a suitable design for measurement accuracy and stability (2020) · cites this paper as [141]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jousten, K., Boineau, F., Bundaleski, N., Illgen, C., Setina, J., Teodoro, O. M. N. D., Vicar, M., & Wüest, M. (2020) · Vacuum · doi:10.1016/j.vacuum.2020.109545 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Review Article: Recommended practice for calibrating vacuum gauges of the ionization type
Fedchak, J. A., Abbott, P. J., Hendricks, J. H., Arnold, P. C., & Peacock, N. T. (2018) · Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films · doi:10.1116/1.5025060 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Holanda, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology
- Publisher
- American Vacuum Society
- Published
- 1973-11-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1133-1139
- ISSN
- 0022-5355
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
