Bunker probe: A plasma potential probe almost insensitive to its orientation with the magnetic field

Costea, S.; Fonda, B.; Kovačič, J.; Gyergyek, T.; Schneider, B. S.; Schrittwieser, R.; Ioniţă, C.

doi:10.1063/1.4951688

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Method (ii): This can in principle only be attained in strong magnetic fields in Maxwellian plasmas with ESPs such as Ball-Pen Probes (BPP) [25][26][27] or the new BUnker Probe (BUP) by Costea et al [28]. ESPs are all based on the principle of the probe developed by Katsumata and Okazaki [29,30].…”

Section: Here T *mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6. BUnker Probe (BUP) of graphite (from Costea et al [28]). The cylindrical piece has an outer diameter of 12 mm and an inner diameter of 8 mm.…”

Section: The Ball-pen Probe (Bpp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One problem with a BPP is that it has to be aligned quite precisely perpendicularly to the magnetic field B to work properly. To avoid this drawback, Costea et al [28], developed the so-called BUnker Probe (BUP), whose collector floats on the plasma potential for a large range of angles with respect to B (see Fig. 6).…”

Section: Bunker Probe Type 1 Bup1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The slit in the BUP and the slant of the collector inside the cylindrical graphite case with respect to the axis of the cylinder make it possible that in principle for a range from β = 0 • to 90 • between the cylinder axis and B, electrons are prevented from reaching the collector whereas ions can reach it. This is shown schematically in Figure 7 [28].…”

Section: Bunker Probe Type 1 Bup1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a comprehensive comparison with a BPP, carried out in the Linear Magnetic Plasma Device (LMPD) at the Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia, [28], it could be shown that the floating potential V fl,sp,BUP of the BUP remains constant at least for an angular range of 30 • ≤ β ≤ 90 • with respect to B whereas the floating potential V fl,sp,BPP of the BPP started to become more positive for angles below 60 • , approaching the normal floating potential V fl,cp of a CLP as the opening of the BPP became directly accessible for electrons. The magnetic field of the LMPD was varied between 0.1 and 0.3 T.…”

Section: Bunker Probe Type 1 Bup1mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Plasma potential probes for hot plasmas

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plasma probes are well established diagnostic tools. They are not complicated, relatively easy to construct and to handle. The easiest and fastest accessible parameter is their floating potential. However, the floating potential of a cold probe is not very significant. Much more important and relevant is the plasma potential. But in most types of plasmas, consisting mainly of electrons and only positive ions, the floating potential is more negative than the plasma potential by a factor proportional to the electron temperature. Obviously this is due to the much higher mobility of the electrons. We present a review on probes whose floating potential is close to or ideally equal to the plasma potential. Such probes we name Plasma Potential Probes (PPP) and they can either be Electron Emissive Probes (EEP) or so-called Electron Screening Probes (EPS). These probes make it possible to measure the plasma potential directly and thus with high temporal resolution. An EEP compensates the plasma electron current by an electron emission current from the probe into the plasma, thereby rendering the current-voltage characteristic symmetric with respect to the plasma potential and shifting the floating potential towards the plasma potential. Only the simplest case of an EEP floating exactly on the plasma potential is discussed here in which case no sheath is present around the probe. An ESP, principally operable only in strong magnetic fields, screens off most of the plasma electron current from the probe collector, taking advantage of the fact that the gyro radius of electrons is usually much smaller than that of the ions. Also in this case we obtain a symmetric current-voltage characteristic and a shift of the probe's floating potential towards the plasma potential. We have developed strong and robust EEPs and two types of ESPs, called BUnker Probes (BUP), for the use in the Scrape-Off Layer (SOL) of Medium-Size Tokamaks (MST), and other types of strongly magnetized hot plasmas. These probes are presented in detail.

show abstract

Section: Here T *mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6. BUnker Probe (BUP) of graphite (from Costea et al [28]). The cylindrical piece has an outer diameter of 12 mm and an inner diameter of 8 mm.…”

Section: The Ball-pen Probe (Bpp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bunker Probe Type 1 Bup1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bunker Probe Type 1 Bup1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bunker Probe Type 1 Bup1mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Plasma potential probes for hot plasmas

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

TiN deposition and morphology control by scalable plasma-assisted surface treatments

Baranov

Fang

Ostrikov

et al. 2017

Materials Chemistry and Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plasma under control: Advanced solutions and perspectives for plasma flux management in material treatment and nanosynthesis

Baranov

Bazaka

Kersten

et al. 2017

Applied Physics Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the vast number of strategies used to control the behavior of laboratory and industrially relevant plasmas for material processing and other state-of-the-art applications, a potential user may find themselves overwhelmed with the diversity of physical configurations used to generate and control plasmas. Apparently, a need for clearly defined, physics-based classification of the presently available spectrum of plasma technologies is pressing, and the critically summary of the individual advantages, unique benefits, and challenges against key application criteria is a vital prerequisite for the further progress. To facilitate selection of the technological solutions that provide the best match to the needs of the end user, this work systematically explores plasma setups, focusing on the most significant family of the processes—control of plasma fluxes—which determine the distribution and delivery of mass and energy to the surfaces of materials being processed and synthesized. A novel classification based on the incorporation of substrates into plasma-generating circuitry is also proposed and illustrated by its application to a wide variety of plasma reactors, where the effect of substrate incorporation on the plasma fluxes is emphasized. With the key process and material parameters, such as growth and modification rates, phase transitions, crystallinity, density of lattice defects, and others being linked to plasma and energy fluxes, this review offers direction to physicists, engineers, and materials scientists engaged in the design and development of instrumentation for plasma processing and diagnostics, where the selection of the correct tools is critical for the advancement of emerging and high-performance applications.

show abstract

Bunker probe: A plasma potential probe almost insensitive to its orientation with the magnetic field

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Plasma potential probes for hot plasmas

Plasma potential probes for hot plasmas

TiN deposition and morphology control by scalable plasma-assisted surface treatments

Plasma under control: Advanced solutions and perspectives for plasma flux management in material treatment and nanosynthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About