Causes of nonstability and nonreproducibility in widely used Bayard–Alpert ionization gauges
Abstract
This is the second in a set of related reports on (1) nonstable behavior of widely used ionization gauges, (2) causes of nonstability and nonreproducibility in widely used Bayard–Alpert (BA) gauges, and (3) a stable and reproducible BA gauge design with approximately a tenfold improvement in both stability of gauge calibration and reproducibility gauge-to-gauge compared to older ionization gauge designs. Computer simulations of electron and ion trajectories are utilized to illustrate a variety of causes of changes in BA gauge sensitivity with time of operation and in reproducibility gauge-to-gauge. Both computer simulation and experiment confirm that the ion production and collection rates in a BA gauge are far more sensitive to small changes in electrode geometry and potentials than has been commonly realized. Any change in geometry or potential of any electrode or insulator in the vicinity of electron or ion trajectories will affect gauge sensitivity as will any change in electron or ion space charge. Changes in the distribution of emission along the cathode will affect sensitivity if large axial field components are present in the anode volume. If these physical changes occur from gauge to gauge, the sensitivity of the gauges will differ, and this will cause them to give different pressure indications when exposed to the same actual gas density. If the changes occur with time of operation in a given gauge, the gauge sensitivity will change with use and the pressure indication will be in error even if the gauge has been carefully calibrated. This new understanding has been used to develop a significantly more stable and reproducible BA gauge.
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?
Bills stated that the cause of sensitivity reduction at higher pressure is due to the ion space charge around the collector.
“Bills also stated that the cause of sensitivity reduction at higher pressure is due to the ion space charge around the collector.”
From A review on hot cathode ionisation gauges with focus on a suitable design for measurement accuracy and stability (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
Bills investigated causes of instabilities of ion collector current in glass tube BAGs by simulations using SIMION; he did not publish quantitative results but showed examples of electron trajectories.
“Ten years later, Bills [24] investigated the causes of instabilities of ion collector current in glass tube BAGs by means of simulations using the software SIMION.He did not publish quantitative results but showed examples of electron trajectories.”
From A review on hot cathode ionisation gauges with focus on a suitable design for measurement accuracy and stability (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
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
- Authors
- Bills, D. G.
- Affiliations
- Granville-Phillips Company, Boulder, Colorado 80303-1398
- Venue
- Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films
- Publisher
- American Vacuum Society
- Published
- 1994-03-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 574-579
- ISSN
- 0734-2101
- 1520-8559
- Cited by
- 14
- 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