The sensitivity of bayard—alpert gauges
Abstract
The sensitivity of Bayard–Alpert gauges has been measured as a function of the grid-filament spacing and found to vary by as much as a factor of 2.5. It is suggested that the large variation of sensitivity from one gauge to another results from variability of filament positioning. An hypothesis is proposed, and substantiated by test, which relates the sensitivity to the angular momentum, about the axis of the grid, with which electrons are launched into the grid. It is shown that electrons with small initial angular momentum have the longest orbits in the useful ionizing volume. A new type of Bayard–Alpert gauge has been developed, based on this hypothesis, whose sensitivity is independent of filament position and of the potential of the envelope. The sensitivity factor of this new design is about 55 Torr−1 for nitrogen.
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?
Groszkowski found a weak increase of 20% in sensitivity when cathode-anode distance was varied from 1 mm to 15 mm, different from Schütze and in contradiction of Redhead.
“For the cathodeanode distance Groszkowski found a weak increase of 20% in sensitivity, when this distance was varied from 1 mm to 15 mm, which is somewhat different from the results of Schütze (he used a longitudinal wire, not hairpin as cathode) described above and in contradiction of a finding by Redhead [21], see below.”
From A review on hot cathode ionisation gauges with focus on a suitable design for measurement accuracy and stability (2020) · cites this paper as [21]
Redhead found an increase in sensitivity by a factor of 2.5 when the hairpin cathode was moved radially away from the anode grid of a BAG from 0.5 mm to 6 mm.
“Redhead [21] found an increase in sensitivity by a factor of 2.5, when the hairpin cathode was moved radially away from the anode grid of a BAG from 0.5 mm to 6 mm distance.”
From A review on hot cathode ionisation gauges with focus on a suitable design for measurement accuracy and stability (2020) · cites this paper as [21]
A shield around the cathode opposite to the anode reduced the dependence on grid-cathode distance significantly for Lgf > 3 mm.
“A shield around the cathode opposite to the anode reduced this dependence on grid-cathode distance L gf significantly for L gf > 3 mm [21].”
From A review on hot cathode ionisation gauges with focus on a suitable design for measurement accuracy and stability (2020) · cites this paper as [21]
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
- Redhead, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Radio & Electrical Engineering Division, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada
- Venue
- Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology
- Publisher
- American Vacuum Society
- Published
- 1969-09-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 848-854
- ISSN
- 0022-5355
- Cited by
- 22
- 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
