See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225881622

Thermionic Field Emission of Electrons from Metals and Explosive Electron

Emission from Micropoints

Article  in  Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics · August 2009

DOI: 10.1134/S1063776109080184

CITATIONS READS

16 2,345

1 author:

Andrey Petrin
Joint Institute for High Temperatures
97 PUBLICATIONS   376 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrey Petrin on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 10637761, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 2009, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 314–321. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2009.
Original Russian Text © A.B. Petrin, 2009, published in Zhurnal Éksperimental’noі i Teoreticheskoі Fiziki, 2009, Vol. 136, No. 2, pp. 369–376.

ELECTRONIC PROPERTIES
OF SOLID

Thermionic Field Emission of Electrons from Metals

and Explosive Electron Emission from Micropoints
A.B. Petrin*
Joint Institute for High Temperatures, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Izhorskaya 13/19, Moscow, 127412 Russia
*Email: a_petrin@mail.ru
Received February 24, 2009

Abstract—We suggest a general approach to considering the thermionic, field, and thermionic field emis
sions of electrons from metals. For this purpose, based on the standard model of free electrons in a metal, we
suggest a numerical method for determining the transmission coefficient through the potential barrier at the
metal–vacuum interface suitable for an arbitrary barrier. This method is free both from the approximations
based on the saddlepoint method and characteristic of the analytical models for thermionic emission and
from the approximations for the tunneling coefficient through the potential barrier characteristic of the mod
els for field emission. Based on numerical simulations, we determine the thermal effect of the emission and
ascertain that a very sharp transition from surface cooling by electron emission to heating occurs at certain
electric field and temperature. We explain the triggering mechanism of the explosive electron emission
observed during micropoint explosions by this phenomenon. The explosive emission is shown to begin when
the level of the potential barrier at the micropoint tip drops below the Fermi level in the metal.
PACS numbers: 79.40.+z, 79.70.+q, 73.40.Gk, 73.30.+y
DOI: 10.1134/S1063776109080184

1. INTRODUCTION than W + EF, where W is the work functions and EF is

The thermionic and field emissions of electrons
from metals have long been known and studied com
prehensively [1–4]. The approximate analytical for
mulas that relate the electric current density of the
emission and the applied external electric field in wide
ranges of these parameters are known widely [5–7]. It
is also well known that during the emission of elec
trons, the heat on the surface of a metal can be both
released and absorbed (the direct and inverse Notting
ham effects [8, 9]). The Nottingham effect was
detected during the field emission of electrons at low
temperatures and consists in cathode heating during
the emission of electrons. This phenomenon can be
explained by the predominant tunneling of electrons
with energies below the Fermi energy through the bar
rier at the metal boundary. The cathode heating
changes into its cooling as the temperature rises, since
faster electrons with energies from the tail of the distri
bution function mostly begin to tunnel. As a rule, the
Nottingham effect is negligible due to the low field
emission currents. However, at a low work function or
an anomalously high temperature of the metal, the
emission is a thermionic field one and the thermal
effect that accompanies the emission of electrons from
the metal can be significant.
To look into the heat exchange during the emission
of electrons, let us first consider the thermionic emis
sion of electrons. Only fast electrons with energies
(relative to the bottom of the conduction band) higher
the Fermi energy, can overcome the potential barrier at
the metal boundary. Electrons that, on average, have
the Fermi energy will come to the boundary from deep
within the metal. Therefore, the metal loses energy
during the thermionic emission. This phenomenon is
similar to the cooling of a liquid as it evaporates, but
the emitted electrons act as the evaporating molecules
during the thermionic emission. When one electron
escapes from the metal, an energy approximately
equal to W will be lost. According to the Richardson–
Dushman formula for the current density of the ther
mionic emission, we have
A  ≈ 120T 2 exp ⎛ – 
J  W ⎞ .
cm
2 ⎝ kT [ K ]⎠
It is easy to verify that a high surface cooling power
density can be achieved only at a low work function or
a high temperature. However, it is well known that the
height of the barrier at the boundary can be reduced by
an external electric field due to the presence of an
image force acting on the electron near the metal
boundary. The height of the potential barrier near the
metal boundary (Schottky barrier [10, 11]) will
decrease with increasing electric field strength E as
ΔU = – e E/4πε 0 , where e is the elementary charge
3

314
 THERMIONIC FIELD EMISSION OF ELECTRONS FROM METALS 315

and ε0 is the dielectric constant, ΔU [eV] ≈ – E

V
1.2 E  .
nm
–1 ΔU

As the electric field increases, the emission current W + EF

over the barrier will increase, along with the thermal
surface cooling power. When the electric field reaches U(x)
~1 V nm–1, the barrier thickness becomes so small that
the electrons begin to tunnel through the barrier; at
high fields and high work functions, the electrons will
flow mainly from the conduction band (see Fig. 1). In EF
contrast to the emission over the barrier, this phenom
enon will lead to boundary heating. As the field b
increases further, the barrier thickness will decrease, a 0 x
while the number of tunneling electrons from the con
duction band will increase exponentially. As a result,
the cooling of the metal during the emission of elec
trons will change into its heating at some critical field. Fig. 1. Geometry of the potential barrier for electrons at
Obviously, the strength of this critical field is deter the metal boundary.
mined by W, EF, and T. Note that a significant surface
cooling power can be achieved in principle at low work
functions and high temperatures. tron mass. The x axis is directed along the normal to
This paper is devoted to a quantitative analysis of the metal boundary.
the thermionic field emission from a metal in all emis To escape from the metal, the electron must either
sion regimes and to a study of the accompanying ther 2 2
mal effects. Unfortunately, the domain of applicability have an energy p x /2m > p p x0 /2m = EF + W sufficient
of the approximate analytical formulas for the electron to overcome the potential barrier while moving toward
emission from metals is limited. The problem of find the metal boundary (px > 0) or tunnel through the bar
ing the emission current in the entire range of applied rier. Consequently, in any case, the probability that the
electric fields is still topical and can be solved using two
main approaches: by creating new analytical approxi electron incident on the barrier will escape from the
mations covering the necessary range of parameters metal is equal to the quantummechanical transmis
[12, 13] and through numerical methods. To numeri sion coefficient D(px) through the potential barrier.
cally solve the problem of electron passage through a If the number of electrons in the momentum inter
potential barrier and the onedimensional
Schrödinger equation corresponding to this problem, val [px, px + dpx] is N(px)dpx, then the flux density of the
Semet et. al. [14] used a numerical solution based on electrons moving toward the metal surface with veloc
the Lippmann–Schwinger integral formulation [15] ity vx is
using the Greenfunction technique [16].
px
Here, we numerically solve the quantummechan v x N ( p x )dp x = N ( p x )dp x
ical problem of electron passage through a potential m
barrier in the formulation of a differential Schrödinger
equation by a simple but very efficient and method and the number of electrons escaping from a unit sur
ologically transparent method. The computational face per unit time is
efficiency of the method is so high that it can be com
pared to the calculations based on analytical formulas. px
D ( p x ) N ( p x )dp x .
m
2. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM The emission current density can then be expressed as
We will measure the potential energy of an electron ∞
relative to the bottom of the conduction band. In the e
model of free electrons, the energy of the electron in m ∫
J =  D ( p x )p x N ( p x ) dp x . (1)
the metal is equal to its kinetic energy, 0

E e = ( p x + p y + p z )/2m,
2 2 2 The density of states per unit volume of a metal is
known to be Z(px, py, pz) = 2/h3, where h is the Planck
where px, py, and pz are the electron momentum com constant. Since the electrons in a metal obey the
ponents along the coordinate axes and m is the elec Fermi–Dirac distribution, the number of electrons

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL PHYSICS Vol. 109 No. 2 2009

316 PETRIN

whose momenta fall within the intervals [px, px + dpx], The surface power density of the heat being
[py, py + dpy], and [pz, pz + dpz] is released on the metal surface during the emission of
electrons is
2 dp dp dp
N ( p x, p y, p z )dp x dp y dp z =  x y z
3 ∞
h EF – Ex
Q s = 4πemkT
⎧ 2 2
px + py + pz
2
⎫
–1
h
3 ∫
 D ( E x )
 
e
× ⎨ 1 + exp   – E F⎞ ⎬ .
1 ⎛ 0
kT ⎝ 2m ⎠
⎩ ⎭
E x – E F⎞
× ln 1 + exp ⎛ – 
 dE x
Integrating this expression over py and pz yields the ⎝ kT ⎠
number of electrons with momenta in the interval [px, ∞ (3)
px + dpx]: 4πmkT
∞ ∞ h
3 ∫
 D ( Ex ) ( EF – Ex )
= 
0
2
N ( p x )dp x = 3 dp x
∫∫ dp y dp z
E x – E F⎞
× ln 1 + exp ⎛ – 
h –∞ –∞  dE x .
–1
⎝ kT ⎠
⎧ 2
1 px + py + pz
2 2
⎫
× ⎨ 1 + exp  ⎛ 
 – E F⎞ ⎬ .
⎩ kT ⎝ 2m ⎠
⎭
Qs is negative when the surface is cooled by the elec
tron emission and positive when the surface is heated.
Passing to the polar coordinates py = p⊥ cosγ and If W Ⰷ kT in Eq. (2), then the unity in the denom
pz = p⊥ sinγ, we then obtain inator of the integrand may be neglected and the inte
∞ gral will be simplified greatly. Integration yields
2 dp 2πp dp
N ( 0p x )dp x = 
3 x ⊥ ∫ ⊥ 2
 exp ⎛ F⎞ exp ⎛ – 
E px ⎞
h N ( p x )dp x = 4πmkT
  dp x .
0
h
3 ⎝ kT ⎠ ⎝ 2mkT⎠
–1
⎧ 2
1 px + p⊥
2
⎫
× ⎨ 1 + exp  ⎛ 
 – E F⎞ ⎬ If we assume that D(px) = D does not depend on px
⎩ kT ⎝ 2m ⎠
⎭ (which, in general, is wrong but is quite an acceptable
approximation), then we will obtain the above Rich
∞ 2 ardson–Dushman formula for the current density of
 dp x d⎛ 
4πmkT p⊥ ⎞
= 
h
3 ∫ ⎝ 2mkT⎠
 the thermionic emission instead of Eq. (2):
0
2
exp ⎛ – ⎞ = ADT exp ⎛ – ⎞ ,
4πemk 2 W 2 W
J = DT
–1 3 ⎝ kT ⎠ ⎝ kT ⎠
⎧ 2 2
⎫ h
× ⎨ 1 + exp ⎛ 
p⊥ ⎞
 exp  ⎛ x – E F⎞ ⎬
1 p
⎝ 2mkT⎠ kT ⎝ 2m ⎠
⎩ ⎭ where A = 4πemk2/h3 = 1.2 × 106 A m–2 K2.
2
= 4πmkT
 1 ⎛ p x – ⎞ ⎞
 ln ⎛ 1 + exp –   E F dp x .
h
3 ⎝ kT ⎝ 2m ⎠ ⎠ 3. THE PASSAGE OF AN ELECTRON
THROUGH A POTENTIAL BARRIER
Substituting this expression into Eq. (1) yields the cur Consider the passage of electrons through a Schot
rent density
tky barrier (see Fig. 1). This barrier is described by the
J = 4πemkT

3
 potential energy
h
(2) ⎧ W + E F – e 2 /16πε 0 x – eE ext x, x > 0,
∞
E x – E F⎞ U(x) = ⎨ (4)
× D ( E x ) ln 1 + exp ⎛ –  x ≤ xl ,
∫ ⎝ kT ⎠
 dE z , ⎩ 0,
0
where Eext is the strength of the external electric field
2
where Ex = p x /2m
is the energy of the directed elec and xl is the smaller root of the equation W + EF –
tron motion along the x axis. e2/16πε0x – eEextx = 0.

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL PHYSICS Vol. 109 No. 2 2009

 THERMIONIC FIELD EMISSION OF ELECTRONS FROM METALS 317

For simplicity, let us substitute the potential E

(Fig. 2) described by the formula
⎧ e
2
⎪ W + E F – 
 – eE ext x, W + EF
⎪ 16πε 0 x
U(x) = ⎨ (5)
⎪ x > 0 ∩ U ( x ) > 0, U(x)
⎪
⎩ 0, x ≤ 0 ∪ U ( x ) ≤ 0,
for potential (4). EF
This substitution will have no effect whatsoever on
the spectrum of the transmitted electrons if the poten
tial energy is measured from the bottom of the con a 0 b x
duction band. However, the potential energy U(x) in
Fig. 2 changes in a limited segment. Since the poten Fig. 2. Modified potential barrier that does not change the
tial energy is constant far from the barrier (5), plane spectrum of the escaping electrons and is convenient for
waves are the solution of the onedimensional numerical calculations.
Schrödinger equation in these regions. Therefore, in
this case, we can specify exact boundary conditions.
dψ ψn + 1 – ψn – 1
 ( x n ) ≈ 
 + O ( ( Δx ) ),
This method for the formulation of boundary condi 2
tions was used in [17], where we solved a similar prob dx 2Δx
lem of finding the transmission coefficient for an elec
tromagnetic wave through a magnetized plasma layer dψ
2
ψ n + 1 – 2ψ n + ψ n – 1
2 ( x n ) ≈ 
 + O ( ( Δx ) ).
2
and set boundary conditions for the differential elec
( Δx )
2
tromagnetic wave propagation equation. dx
Let a wave of unit amplitude be incident on the Substituting these approximate finitedifference
potential barrier (5) from the left (from the negative x) expressions into the Schrödinger equation (6) yields
and the particle momentum component along the x
axis corresponding to this wave be p0 (far from the bar 2m ( Δx ) U ( x n )
2
2m ( Δx ) E x
2
rier). The energy of the particle motion along the x axis ψ n + 1 – 
 + 2 – 

ប ប
2 2 (7)
2
corresponding to this wave is Ex = p 0 /2m. Omitting
the time factor, this wave can then be represented as × ψ n + ψ n – 1 = 0.
ψi = exp(ip0x/ប). We will write the reflected and trans
mitted waves (far from the barrier) as ψr = rexp(– Since only the incident and reflected waves exist at
the left boundary in the problem under consideration,
ip0x/ប) and ψt = dexp(ipxx/ប), respectively, where r is
the reflection coefficient, d is the transmission coeffi
ψ 0 = exp ⎛ 
ip 0 x 0⎞
 + r exp ⎛ – 
ip 0 x 0⎞
cient, and px is the particle momentum component  ,
⎝ ប ⎠ ⎝ ប ⎠
along the x axis to the right of the barrier.
In the intermediate range a ≤ x ≤ b, the wave func
ψ 1 = exp ⎛ 
ip 0 x 1⎞
 + r exp ⎛ – 
tion satisfies the Schrödinger equation ip 0 x 1⎞
 .
⎝ ប ⎠ ⎝ ប ⎠
ប dψ
2
–  2 + U ( x )ψ = E x ψ. (6)
2m dx Eliminating r, we will obtain a boundary condition at
Consider a finitedifference representation of this the left boundary:
equation. Let us introduce the discretization xn in the ip 0 Δx⎞
segment [a, b] (see Fig. 2) and the column vector ψn of ψ 0 = ψ 1 exp ⎛ 

⎝ ប ⎠
values for the wave function at the discretization (8)
points: 2ip 0 Δx⎞
+ exp ⎛ 
ip 0 x 0⎞
 1 – exp ⎛ 
 .
b–a ⎝ ប ⎠ ⎝ ប ⎠
x n = a + 
 n, ψ n = ψ ( x n ),
N+1 Similarly, only the transmitted wave exists at the
n = 0, 1, 2, …, N, N + 1. right boundary, far from the barrier. Then,

ψ N = d exp ⎛ 
ip x x N⎞
ψ N + 1 = d exp ⎛ 
The points xn are distributed uniformly between a and ip x x N + 1⎞
 ,  ,
b with the step Δx = (b – a)/(N + 1). ⎝ ប ⎠ ⎝ ប ⎠
We will take a finitedifference approximation of
the derivatives at the points xn in the form with px = p0 for the barrier (5).

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL PHYSICS Vol. 109 No. 2 2009

318 PETRIN

ln(J/E2) [(A/cm2)/V/Å] ln(J/F 2) [(A/cm2)/(V/Å)]

20 30
25 3
1
15 20
4
2 15
10
10 1
3
5 2 4
5
0 I II III IV
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 20 40 60 80
1/E, Å/V 1/E, Å/V

Fig. 3. Dependence of ln(J/E2) on E–1 for the regime of
field emission calculated by our method (curve 1, the
points are marked by crosses), by the numerical method
from [14] (curve 2, open circles), and using the analytical
Murphy–Good dependence [7, 14] (curve 3, filled cir
cles). The work function is W = 5 eV and the temperature
is T = 300 K.
Eliminating the transmission coefficient, we will
obtain a boundary condition at the right boundary:
ψ N + 1 = ψ N exp ( ip x Δx/ប ). (9)
As a result, we have N algebraic equations (7) with
the boundary conditions (8) and (9). The derived
matrix equation
∑M ψ ij j = Bi (10)
J
has a tridiagonal matrix Mij . In addition,
2ip 0 Δx⎞
B 1 = – exp ⎛ 
ip 0 x 0⎞
 1 – exp ⎛ 
 , B 2 = 0,
⎝ ប ⎠ ⎝ ប ⎠
B 3 = 0, …, B N – 1 = 0, B N = 0.
Solving Eq. (10), we will find ψN and, hence, d =
ψN exp(–ipxxN/ប). The transmission probability
through the barrier can be determined from d using the
formula
D ( E x ) = ( p x /p 0 ) d .
2
The width of the barrier (5) shown in Fig. 2 at the
base is equal, with a high accuracy, to bw = (W +
EF)/eEext. After the passage through this barrier, the
energy of the transmitted electrons is exactly equal to
the energy of the electrons incident on the barrier from
the left and does not change during the subsequent
motion to the right. Our calculations were performed
for such a region a ≤ x ≤ b that the potential barrier (5)
was entirely inside this region. For this purpose, we
assumed, for example, that a = –bw/10 and b =
11bw/10.
Fig. 4. Dependence of ln(J/E2) on E–1 in a wide range of
electric field strengths for a cathode with a low work func
tion, W = 1.05 eV. The temperature is T = 300 K. Curves
1, 2, and 3 were obtained, respectively, by our numerical
method (solid curve), the numerical method from [14]
(open circles), and the approximate numerical method for
ballistic emission from [14] (squares). Also shown are the
dependences 4 obtained from the Murphy–Good analyti
cal solution [7, 14] (triangles) and various emission
regimes: ballistic (I), field (II) (0.032 V/Å < E <
0.062 V/Å), thermionic field (III), and Schottky (III) (E <
0.018 V/Å) emissions.
Note that the problem can also be solved numeri
cally for the potential shown in Fig. 1. It is only needed
to approximate well the boundary condition at the
right boundary. Thus, for example, it can be assumed
that
px = p ( xN ) = 2m [ E x – U ( x N ) ] ≈ p ( x N + 1 )
at the right boundary, with all of the remaining formu
las being the same. Our numerical simulations show
that the transmission coefficients change (in relative
terms) by less than 10–6).
4. COMPARISON OF THE NUMERICAL
METHOD WITH KNOWN SOLUTIONS
The numerical method was tested on the problem
of electron passage through a rectangular potential
barrier with a known analytical solution [18]. A rela
tive accuracy of the transmission coefficient ~10–5–
10–4 turned out to be easily achievable.
To compare our numerical method with known
approximate solutions, we investigated the regime of
field emission. The field emission of electrons is
known to be well described by the Fowler–Nordheim
formula [3] and its generalization, the Murphy–Good
formula [7]. According to these formulas, the depen
dence of ln(J/E2) on E–1 is a straight line in the range
of electric fields characteristic of the field emission.
Figure 3 shows this dependence calculated by our
method, by the numerical method from [14], and

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL PHYSICS Vol. 109 No. 2 2009

 THERMIONIC FIELD EMISSION OF ELECTRONS FROM METALS 319

J, A/m2 |Qs|, W/m2

1016 1016
1014 1014
1012 1012
10
10 1010
8
10
108
106
106
10 4 1300 K
104
102
102
100
100
10−2 1000
1300 K 10−2
10−4 1000 300
10−4 9
107 108 109 1010 1011 10 1010 1011
E, V/m E, V/m
Fig. 6. Modulus of the surface thermal power density |Qs |
released on a copper surface versus external electric field
Fig. 5. Current density of the thermionic field electron strength E for surface temperatures of 1000 and 1300 K.
emission versus external electric field strength for various The arrows indicate the places where the function Qs(E)
cathode temperatures. changes its sign.

using the analytical Murphy–Good dependence (the
results of the calculations by the authors of [14]). We
see that the results of our calculations by the numerical
method suggested above agree excellently with the
Murphy–Good dependence.
To test our numerical method, we also investigated
the regime of electron emission in a wide range of
electric fields. Figure 4 shows the dependence of
ln(J/E2) on E–1 for ballistic, field, and thermionic
emissions. We considered the case of a low work func
tion, W = 1.05 eV (at temperature T = 300 K), where,
according to [14], there exists a wide range of fields at
which the analytical formulas do not give a satisfactory
approximation. We see from Fig. 4 that the calcula
tions by our method describe well the dependence
under consideration in such a wide range of field
strengths and yield more accurate results than the
numerical method from [14].
Thus, we conclude that the emission characteris
tics are described accurately using our method and
that the results of our calculations agree well with the
analytical dependences in the ranges of their applica
bility.
5. RESULTS OF OUR CALCULATIONS
AND THEIR DISCUSSION
Figure 5 shows the calculated dependence of the
emission current density on the electric field strength
on a copper surface (W = 4.5 eV, EF = 7.0 eV) for three
surface temperatures. Four emission regimes can be
arbitrarily identified for the range of electric field
strengths under consideration.
The first regime is the temperaturedependent
emission (E < 2 × 109 V m–1) at which the current
depends on the temperature. In this regime, the elec
trons over the barrier make a significant contribution.
In the limit when E 0, the curves approach the
corresponding values defined by the Richardson–
Dushman formula.
The second regime is the field emission. Here, the
electrons tunneling through the barrier make a major
contribution.
The third regime is the ballistic emission of elec
trons [14], which arises when the barrier height
becomes lower than the Fermi energy. The field corre
sponding to the transition to this regime can be calcu
lated from the equation W = –ΔU. Hence, E =
4πε0W 2/e3; for copper, this field is E ≈ 1.41 × 1010 V m–1.
Finally, the fourth regime is the saturation of the
electron emission, which arises when the barrier
height becomes lower than the bottom of the conduc
tion band. The field corresponding to the transition to
this regime can be calculated from the equation W +
EF = –ΔE. Hence, E = 4πε0(W + EF)2/e3; for copper, this
field is E ≈ 9.2 × 1010 V m–1. The saturation current den
sity for copper is Jsat ≈ 4 × 1015 A m–2 = 4 × 1011 A cm–2.
Figure 6 shows the dependence of the modulus of
the surface thermal power density |Qs(E)| released on a
copper surface (more precisely, inside the metal near
its surface) during the emission of electrons calculated
from Eq. (3) on the electric field strength. As an exam
ple, the |Qs(E)| curves corresponding to surface tem
peratures of 1000 and 1300 K are shown. Here, four
emission regimes are also distinguishable. The satura

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL PHYSICS Vol. 109 No. 2 2009

320
Ec, V/m
1011
∝ T
∝T
1010
109 2
10 103 104 105 106
T, K
Fig. 7. Critical electric field strength at which the heating
regime changes (from cooling to heating and back) versus
cathode temperature.
tion power density is Qsat ≈ 1.85 × 1016 W m–2 = 1.85 ×
1012 W cm–2. The arrows in Fig. 6 indicate the critical
fields at which the transition from surface cooling at
lower fields to rapid heating at higher fields occurs. At
the points indicated by the arrows, the transition from
cooling to heating is so sharp that even the small step
in field E for the points of the curve does not allow this
transition to be completely “resolved”. It is easy to
understand that this important circumstance is a key
in considering the explosive emission of micropoints if
a highvoltage pulse with a rise time of ~1 ns is applied
to them, as in the experiments described in [19, 20]. It
unequivocally follows from Fig. 6 and similar calcula
tions for other temperatures that it is the sharp transi
tion from emission cooling to sharp heating that is the
triggering mechanism of the explosive heating of
micropoint tips.
Based on the dependences in Fig. 6 found in a wide
temperature range, we determined the critical field Ec
of the transition from cooling to heating as a function
of the copper surface temperature (Fig. 7). Two seg
ments with powerlaw dependences on temperature T
can be distinguished in Fig. 7: a linear segment and a
segment with a T dependence. The metal is cooled
and heated by the emission if the point (T, E) is below
and above the curve, respectively.
In the abovementioned papers [19, 20] on the
explosive electron emission, it was pointed out that the
emission explosion begins at a temperature T ~ 104 K
and a current density J ~ 1012 A m–2 from the
micropoint surface. Such currents (see Fig. 5) corre
spond to fields E ~ 1010 V m–1. In Fig. 7, this point (J,
E) corresponds to the transition through the critical
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL PHYSICS
PETRIN
curve. Thus, our calculations provide an insight into
the following experimental result: a field E ~ 1010 V m–
1
corresponds in order of magnitude to the beginning
of the ballistic regime, when the barrier drops below
the Fermi level. Thus, the explosive pattern of emis
sion is observed when the ballistic regime of electron
emission is reached. In this emission regime, the elec
trons from the Fermi reservoir begin to escape over the
barrier that dropped below the Fermi level at the
micropoint tip. The explosive emission is not only the
thermal effect (the thermal effect leads to irreversible
destruction of the micropoint) but is determined by
the critical lowering of the potential barrier under the
effect of a strong electric field at the micropoint tip.
In conclusion, note that when the ballistic explo
sive emission of electrons from the metal is reached,
the electron distribution function near the metal
boundary will change. As a result of the change in the
distribution function, the saturation current and the
heat release power will reach slightly lower values than
those in the above calculations. The nonequilibrium
processes so far remain mainly unstudied. Thus, for
example, during the explosive emission, we assumed
in the above estimates that the ion core of the metal
has no time to melt, while the work function and the
Fermi energy change only slightly. The ion core of the
metal will be heated during collisional transitions to
the freed (during the emission) levels of the electrons
coming to the micropoint with the mean Fermi energy
located below the Fermi level. Some of these transi
tions will occur with emission. In principle, the elec
tron energy relaxation dynamics and the ion core
heating dynamics can be judged from this emission.
Thus, we theoretically analyzed the thermionic
field emission of electrons from a metal. Our study of
the thermal effect of the emission revealed the trigger
ing mechanism of the explosive heating of micropoints
when a highvoltage pulse was applied to them. The
explosive emission was shown to begin when the level
of the potential barrier at the micropoint tip drops
below the Fermi level in the metal.
REFEENCES
1. O. W. Richardson and A. F. A. Young, Proc. R. Soc.
London, Ser. A 107, 377 (1925).
2. S. Dushman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 2, 381 (1930).
3. R. H. Fowler and L. Nordheim, Proc. R. Soc. London,
Ser. A 119, 173 (1928).
4. R. H. Fowler, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 117, 549
(1928).
5. C. Herring and M. H. Nichols, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 185
(1949).
6. W. W. Dolan and W. P. Dyke, Phys. Rev. 95, 327 (1954).
7. E. L. Murphy and R. H. Good, Phys. Rev. 102, 1464
(1956).
Vol. 109 No. 2 2009
 THERMIONIC FIELD EMISSION OF ELECTRONS FROM METALS
8. W. B. Nottingham, Phys. Rev. 59, 907 (1941).
9. F. M. Charbonnier, R. W. Strayer, L. W. Swanson, and
E. E. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 397 (1964).
10. W. Schottky, [!]Phys. [!]Z. 15, 872 (1914).
11. L. W. Nordheim, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 121, 626
(1928).
12. K. L. Jensen and M. Cahay, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 154
105 (2006).
13. K. L. Jensen, J. Appl. Phys. 102, 024911 (2007).
14. V. Semet, Ch. Adessi, T. Capron, R. Mouton, and Vu
Thien Binh, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter 75, 045430
(2007).
15. B. Lippmann and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 79, 469
(1950).
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL PHYSICS
View publication stats
321
16. N. D. Lang and A. R. Williams, Phys. Rev. B: Condens.
Matter 18, 616 (1978).
17. A. B. Petrin, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 28, 1763 (2000).
18. Z. Flügge, Practical Quantum Mechanics (Springer,
Heidelberg, 1971; LKI, Moscow, 2008), Vol. 1.
19. G. A. Mesyats and D. I. [!]Proskurovskii, Pis’ma Zh.
Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 13 [!](1), 7 (1971) [JETP Lett. 13 (1),
4 (1971)].
20. G. A. Mesyats, Pis’ma Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 57 [!](2), 88
(1993) [JETP Lett. 57 (2), 95 (1993)].
Translated by V. Astakhov
Vol. 109 No. 2 2009