Cited by 23

Comparison of the stability of hot and cold cathode ionization gauges

Li, Detian, Jousten, Karl·2003·Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films

Abstract

When ionization gauges are used as reference or secondary standards, their stabilities are the most important features. Generally, only hot cathode gauges are used as reference or secondary standards in calibration services. Some traditional reasons preventing the use of cold cathode gauges are the presence of discontinuities in the current versus pressure characteristic, the ignition delay at very low pressures, and the poor stability especially under contaminating vacuum environments. Though current inverted magnetron designs are believed to avoid some of these problems, at least under clean conditions, no “hard facts” have been published to support this claim. Here, we present the experimental results of calibrations of three hot cathode gauges and two inverted magnetrons against a primary high-vacuum standard over the range 10−7 to 10−3 Pa with gases of N2, Ar, He, and H2, respectively. During a continuous observation period of 72 h at a constant pressure of about 1×10−4 Pa, hot cathode gauges showed better stabilities than inverted magnetrons in N2, Ar, and He, but all gauges behaved similarly in H2. Repeated calibrations over a period of about 6 months showed that all gauges had similar long-term stabilities in N2, Ar, and He. For H2, however, the stability of inverted magnetrons was better than that of hot cathode gauges. For different gases, the discontinuities of inverted magnetrons occurred at different pressures, making their calibrations more elaborate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1116/1.1578654

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, D., & Jousten, K.
Venue
Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films
Published
2003-05-23
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
937-946
ISSN
  • 0734-2101
  • 1520-8559
Cited by
23
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