Electron energy-loss spectroscopy in transmission of undoped and doped diamond films

Carbon

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 823-827

  Waidmann, S ^a   Bartsch, K ^a   Endler, I ^a   Fontaine, F ^b   Arnold, B ^a   Knupfer, M ^a   Leonhardt, A ^a   Fink, J ^a  

^a IFW DRESDEN   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTE OF ION BEAM PHYSICS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRYSTAL MICROSTRUCTURE; ELECTRON ENERGY LOSS SPECTROSCOPY; ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE; MORPHOLOGY; NUCLEATION; PLASMA ENHANCED CHEMICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION; SEMICONDUCTING DIAMONDS; SEMICONDUCTING FILMS; SEMICONDUCTOR DOPING; SILICON WAFERS; SYNTHETIC DIAMONDS; THIN FILMS;

HOT FILAMENT CHEMICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION (HFCVD); MICROWAVE ASSISTED PLASMA CHEMICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION (MWCVD);

DIAMOND FILMS;

EID: 0032682364     PISSN: 00086223     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0008-6223(98)00278-4     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Jiang X, Schiffmann K, Klages C-P, Wittorf D, Jia CL, Urban K, Jäger W J Appl Phys. 83:1998;2511.
2. Kajihara SA, Antonelli A, Bernholc J, Car R Phys Rev Lett. 66:1991;2010.
3. Pang LYS, Chan SSM, Jackman RB, Johnston C, Chalker PR Appl Phys Lett. 70:1997;339.
4. Locher R, Wagner J, Fuchs F, Maier M, Gonon P, Koidl P Diamond Relat Mater. 4:1995;678.
5. Prawer S, Uzan-Saguy C, Braunstein G, Kalish R Appl Phys Lett. 63:1993;2502.
6. Stoner BR, Glass JT Appl Phys Lett. 60:1992;698.
7. Jiang X, Klages C-P Diamond Relat Mater. 2:1993;1112.
8. Kalish R, Prawer S Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res. B106:1995;492.
9. Fink J Adv Electron Electron Phys. 75:1989;121.
10. Liu K, Zhang B, Wan M, Chu JH, Johnston C, Roth S Appl Phys Lett. 70:1997;2891.
11. Egerton RF. Electron energy-loss spectroscopy in the electron microscope, 2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press, 1996.
12. Berger SD, McKenzie DR, Martin PJ Phil Mag Lett. 57:1988;285.
13. Polo MC, Cifre J, Esteve J Vacuum. 45:1994;1013.
14. The σ* core exciton in the spectrum of the ion-doped film ( b) is reduced in intensity in comparison to the undoped case. This results from the use of a lower energy resolution (ΔE=300 meV, compared to 160 meV) for the measurement of the doped sample.
15. Bernholc J, Antonelli A, Del Sole TM, Bar-Yam Y, Pantelides ST Phys Rev Lett. 61:1988;2689.