Estimated rotational temperature vs (a) pressure, (b) lower electrode power, and (c) top coil power. Also shown is the result of a simple global model fit (dashed line).
Sample UV absorption data showing the absorption peak at . The absorption intensity is estimated at the center peak of the absorbance, as shown on the plot.
Methyl concentration measured for different operating conditions in the reactor. The standard condition is , , , top coil power, bottom electrode power, and bottom electrode temperature. (a) The bottom electrode power varied between 20 and . Shown are the densities measured without heating, heating without a substrate present, and heating with a substrate present. (b) The top Coil power is between 0 and . (c) The pressure varied between 0.5 and . The mole fraction is also indicated on this plot.
Ratio of intensities predicted by the model fit to observed intensities. The and lines and Ar line all fit well, while the 750, 751, 801, 811, and lines differ by varying amounts. The line also shows significant variation, but is subject to substantial error due to its low intensity.
Predicted electron densities (at ), electron temperature, and atomic to molecular hydrogen ratio from the emission model as a function of the bottom (capacitive) power, top (coil) power, and pressure.
Bar chart showing the relative impact of different processes involved in the emission model. The data shown represent the average contribution while the error bars show the range (min/max) for the contributions. (a) Relative excitation contributions including direct and dissociative excitation and cascade populations by both direct and readsorbed radiation. (b) Relative rates of loss processes of radiative decay (including reabsorbed radiation) and collisional quenching. The impact of reabsorption by itself is also presented as a percentage of the total loss rate.
Rate parameters used to model results.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...