Full text loading...
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Thickness‐dependent void fraction of rf‐sputtered amorphous Ge films by spectroscopic ellipsometry
1.R. Messier and J. E. Yehoda, J. Appl. Phys. 58, 3739 (1985).
2.R. A. Roy and R. Messier, in Plasma Synthesis and Etching of Electronic Materials, Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 38, edited by R. P. H. Chang and B. Abeles (North‐Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), p. 363.
3.For example, see references in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on A morphous and Liquid Semiconductors, edited by F. Evangelisti and J. Stuke, J. Non‐Cryst. Solids 77/78 (North‐Holland, Amsterdam, 1985).
4.D. G. Ast and M. H. Brodsky, J. Non‐Cryst. Solids 35/36, 611 (1980).
5.R. P. Netterfield, Appl. Opt. 15, 1969 (1976).
6.J. P. Borgogno, B. Lazarides, and E. Pelletier, Appl. Opt. 21, 4020 (1982).
7.S. Hasegawa and Y. Imai, Philos. Mag. B 46, 239 (1982).
8.B. Ranchoux, D. Jousse, J.‐C. Bruyere, and A. Deneuville, J. Non‐Cryst. Solids 59/60, 185 (1983).
9.J. R. Blanco, P. J. McMarr, J. E. Yehoda, K. Vedam, and R. Messier, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 4, 577 (1986).
10.P. J. McMarr, J. R. Blanco, K. Vedam, R. Messier, and L. Pilione (unpublished).
11.J. R. Blanco, R. Messier, K. Vedam, and P. J. McMarr, in Plasma Synthesis and Etching of Electronic Materials, Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 38, edited by R. P. H. Chang and B. Abeles (North‐Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), p. 301.
12.L. Pajasova, Czech. J. Phys. B 19, 1265 (1969).
13.W. Paul, G. A. N. Connell, and R. J. Temkin, Adv. Phys. 22, 531 (1973).
14.B. A. Movchan and A. V. Demchishin, Phys. Met. Metallogr. 28, 83 (1969).
15.J. A. Thornton, Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci. 7, 239 (1977).
16.H. A. Macleod, Proc. Soc. Photo‐Opt. Instrum. Eng. 325, 21 (1982).
17.For instance, throughout the literature, the TEM micrographs of the early growth stages consistently show morphology size as whereas the SEM micrographs of thicker films usually show much larger dominant morphology size, /am. There have been no studies reported in which these size discrepancies have been addressed, much less resolved.
18.P. Ramanlal and L. M. Sander, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1828 (1985).
19.A. G. Dirks and H. J. Leamy, Thin Solid Films 47, 219 (1977).
20.R. A. Roy, Ph.D. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University 1985.
21.B. Yang and R. Messier (unpublished).
Article metrics loading...