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.
Comparative study of implantation‐induced damage in GaAs and Ge: Temperature and flux dependence
1.T. E. Haynes and O. W. Holland, Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 62 (1991).
2.F. G. Moore, H. B. Dietrich, E. A. Dobisz, and O. W. Holland, Appl. Phys. Lett. 57, 911 (1990);
2.and F. G. Moore and H. B. Dietrich, presented at the Seventh International Conference on Ion Beam Modification of Materials, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B 59/60, 978 (1991).
3.T. E. Haynes and O. W. Holland, presented at the Seventh International Conference on Ion Beam Modification of Materials, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B 59/60, 1028 (1991).
4.F. H. Eisen, in Channeling, edited by D. V. Morgan (Wiley, New York, 1973), pp. 417-9.
5.G. Carter, M. J. Nobes, and I. S. Tashlykov, Rad. Eff. Lett. 85, 37 (1984).
6.F. F. Morehead, Jr., and B. L. Crowder, Rad. Eff. 6, 27 (1970).
7.J. R. Parsons, Philos. Mag. 12, 1159 (1965).
8.The values of and Q in Table I describe diffusion of primary defects under irradiation conditions, and they should be interpreted with some care, i.e., they should not be compared to intrinsic diffusion coefficients. However, it is perhaps interesting that the fits give a similar “activation energy” for both materials.
9.J. A. Brinkman, J. Appl. Phys. 25, 961 (1954).
10.J. F. Gibbons, Proc. IEEE 60, 1062 (1972).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month
Most cited this month