Author Topic: Ion pump: diode vs. triode  (Read 2038 times)

Julien

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 73
  • The truth is out there...
    • Geoloweb - J. Allaz personal website
Ion pump: diode vs. triode
« on: January 21, 2017, 07:37:08 pm »
Hi everybody,

We still have issues with (small) beam instability that matches some spiking on the ion pump – probably related to some build-up of Ar from the P-10 that causes discharges. To further test, JEOL wants to “innovate” with old material on my new probe. Installing a (refurbish) triode ion pump. They say this kind of triode ion pump are more efficient to handle pollution by Ar, but this sounds a little experimental (never done on an 8230)… Any thoughts on that? Pros & cons?

Julien

Probeman

  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Never sleeps...
    • John Donovan
Re: Ion pump: diode vs. triode
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2017, 09:18:12 am »
We still have issues with (small) beam instability that matches some spiking on the ion pump – probably related to some build-up of Ar from the P-10 that causes discharges. To further test, JEOL wants to “innovate” with old material on my new probe. Installing a (refurbish) triode ion pump. They say this kind of triode ion pump are more efficient to handle pollution by Ar, but this sounds a little experimental (never done on an 8230)… Any thoughts on that? Pros & cons?

I think this makes sense, if by diode/triode you mean one versus two sputter elements.

The early Cameca ion pumps had only Ti elements for ion pumping, but if I remember correctly, later models had both Ti and Ta elements.  And I believe the goal of these dual element ion pumps was to better pump Ar by sputter "burial", as opposed to chemical absorption.

http://nau.edu/cefns/labs/electron-microprobe/glg-510-class-notes/instrumentation/#SputPump

john
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 10:17:57 am by Probeman »
The only stupid question is the one not asked!