Comparison of the stability of hot and cold cathode ionization gauges
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
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?
Ionization gauge outgassing rates have been measured to be in the range of 1 × 10−6 Pa L s−1 to 1 × 10−8 Pa L s−1.
“Ionization gauge outgassing rates have been measured to be in the range of 1 × 10−6 Pa L s−1 to 1 × 10−8 Pa L s−1.39,46,47”
From Review Article: Recommended practice for calibrating vacuum gauges of the ionization type (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
The project pursues only HCIG because nonlinearities present in crossed field ionisation gauges make it complicated and expensive to calibrate them.
“In the mentioned project we pursue only HCIG because of the nonlinearities present in crossed field ionisation gauges [5], which make it rather complicated and expensive to calibrate them.”
From A review on hot cathode ionisation gauges with focus on a suitable design for measurement accuracy and stability (2020) · cites this paper as [5]
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
Self-citationReview 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
- Li, D., & Jousten, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films
- Publisher
- American Vacuum Society
- 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