Experimental determination of electron inelastic scattering cross-sections in Si, Ge and III–V semiconductors

Surface excitation parameter for 12 semiconductors and determination of a general predictive formula

“…Experimental SEP results for Si, Ge, InAs, GaAs, GaP and InSb were already published by Orosz et al [23] and for Si by Werner et al [22] We do not expect perfect agreement, because SEP definition 1 was used in these papers; their results differ from our SEP values by Figure 3. Angular distribution of the SEP P s (E, θ) for SiC calculated from our model (symbols) and fitted to eq.…”

“…In other words, they considered our SEP definition 2 with the additional assumption of no net effect of the surface inside the solid, which is only a rough approximation. [47] They also obtained a difference of about a factor of 2 between their results and results of Orosz et al [23] As discussed in the Introduction, our SEP definition 2 takes into account the Begrenzungs effect, i.e. the decrease of the bulk crosssection close to the surface.…”

Angular and energy dependences of the surface excitation parameter for semiconducting III–V compounds

“…Fits to these results using Eq. (8) (solid curve) and to previous results [36] (dashed curve) as well as the experimental results of Orosz et al [37] (open circles) are included for comparisons. It is seen that the SEP decreases with increasing electron energy due to the smaller interaction time between the electron and the surface.…”

Determination of effective electron inelastic mean free paths in SiO2 and Si3N4 using a Si reference

“…There are several analyses, which deals with the loss processes in the vicinity of the surface [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] (and references cited therein). Obviously there are no calculations to describe the effect of the alteration of the near-surface layer on the IMFP since even the alteration itself is badly defined.…”