1993
DOI: 10.1103/physrevb.48.920
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Swift heavy ions in magnetic insulators: A damage-cross-section velocity effect

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
142
3

Year Published

1996
1996
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 350 publications
(154 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
9
142
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This is consistent with the ion 'velocity effect,' in which reduction of the energy and mass of impinging particles can lead to enhanced damage efficiency within smaller ion tracks, due to more compact energy deposition volumes. For example, Meftah et al 28 have shown that mean in-track energy densities produced by 185 MeV Xe ions in Y 3 Fe 5 O 12 are more than double of those produced by 2.5 GeV Pb ions, a trend similar to that seen here. As the magnitude of the structural damage quenched into ion tracks in ThO 2 depends on the amount of energy available to displace atoms and produce defects, the decreased spatial extent of energy deposition by the Xe ions, as compared with Au, results in enhanced damage production within smaller ion tracks.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…This is consistent with the ion 'velocity effect,' in which reduction of the energy and mass of impinging particles can lead to enhanced damage efficiency within smaller ion tracks, due to more compact energy deposition volumes. For example, Meftah et al 28 have shown that mean in-track energy densities produced by 185 MeV Xe ions in Y 3 Fe 5 O 12 are more than double of those produced by 2.5 GeV Pb ions, a trend similar to that seen here. As the magnitude of the structural damage quenched into ion tracks in ThO 2 depends on the amount of energy available to displace atoms and produce defects, the decreased spatial extent of energy deposition by the Xe ions, as compared with Au, results in enhanced damage production within smaller ion tracks.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…The maximum size of the etchable track occurs below the stopping power maximum, this being a characteristic found in many different phenomena related to ion-solid interactions because of the so-called velocity effect. [28][29][30][31] For high velocities, despite the further increase in S e , there is an effective decrease in the energy density deposited initially in the tracks due to the higher energy of emitted secondary electrons. For the Au data, this effect is evident for velocities larger than 0.45 MeV/ u ͑ϳ90 MeV͒.…”
Section: A Thresholdsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as mentioned previously, because of the importance of the spatial distribution of the deposited energy, such thresholds are not unique, but vary with the ion velocity. 31 Here we employ the inelastic thermal spike ͑i-TS͒ model to calculate the conditions ͑critical energy density etch deposited in a specific cylinder͒ needed to produce an etchable damage structure. The i-TS model is the only model available to describe quantitatively the threshold of damage creation and the track size in insulators, taking into account the incident ion velocity.…”
Section: Criterion For Etchability and The Inelastic Thermal Spikementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For MeV ion-solid interactions, it is well known ͑from, e.g., biomolecular damage, electronic sputtering and latent track investigations͒ that the ion stopping power in the solid does not alone characterize the energy density deposited in the targets. [11][12][13][14] Part of the energy deposited by the primary ions is transported far away from the path of the ion by means of secondary electrons produced as a result of the primary ionizations. A detailed description of ion tracks involves the knowledge of double differential cross sections for the emission angle and energy of the secondary electrons and electron interaction cross sections for the target atoms and molecules, which are generally not known.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%