Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:22:25.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparing Field Emission Stability of Lithography-free, Modified Multi-walled Carbon Nanotubes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Archana Pandey
Affiliation:
[email protected], Michigan Technological University, Physics, Houghton, United States
Abhishek Prasad
Affiliation:
[email protected], Michigan Technological University, Physics, Houghton, Michigan, United States
Jason Moscatello
Affiliation:
[email protected], Michigan Technological University, Physics, Houghton, Michigan, United States
Yoke Khin Yap
Affiliation:
[email protected], None, None, United States
Get access

Abstract

Field emission from carbon nanotubes (CNTs) has been known for more than a decade but there is no commercialized product available in the market. Apparently, we need to improve our basics understanding on stable field emission from CNTs. Here we compared the field emission properties of as grown vertically-aligned multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) to two types of modified MWCNTs: 1) Conical bundles of opened-tip MWCNTs, and 2) Opened-tip MWCNTs embedded in poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA). We found that both types of modified MWCNTs have lower emission thresholds and better emission stability than the as grown samples. Among these modified samples, MCNTs embedded in PMMA has lower emission thresholds and better emission stability. We attributed these improvements to the filling of spacing between MWCNTs with PMMA that has higher dielectric constant than vacuum.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Rinzler, A. G., Hafner, J. H., Nikolaev, P., Lou, L., Kim, S. G., Tomanek, D., Nordlander, P., Colbert, D. T. and Smalley, R. E., Science 269, 1550 (1995).Google Scholar
2. Nilsson, L., Groening, O., Emmenegger, C., Kuettel, O., Schaller, E., Schlapbach, L., Appl Phys Lett 76, 2071 (2000).Google Scholar
3. deHeer, W.A., Chatelain, A., Ugarte, D., Science 270, 1179 (1995).Google Scholar
4. Collins, P.G., Zettl, A., Appl Phys Lett 69, 1969 (1996).Google Scholar
5. Choi, W.B., Chung, D.S., Kang, J.H., Kim, H.Y., Jin, Y.W., Han, I.T., Appl Phys Lett 75:3, 129 (1999).Google Scholar
6. Saito, Y., Hamaguchi, K., Uemura, S., Uchida, K., Tasaka, Y., Ikazaki, F., Appl Phys A67, 95 (1998).Google Scholar
7. Bonard, J.M., Salvetat, J.P., Stockli, T., Forro, L., Chatelain, A., Appl Phys A69, 245 (1999).Google Scholar
8. Bonard, J.M., Kind, H., Stockli, T., Nilsson, L.O., Solid-State Electron 45, 893 (2001).Google Scholar
9. Ulmen, B., Kayastha, V. K., DeConinck, A., Wang, J., and Yap, Y. K., Diamond and Related Materials 15, 212 (2006).Google Scholar
10. Kayastha, V. K., Ulmen, B. and Yap, Yoke Khin, Nanotechnology 18, 035206 (2007).10.1088/0957-4484/18/3/035206Google Scholar
11. Pandey, A., Prasad, A., Moscatello, J., Ulmen, B., Yap, Y. K., Carbon 48, 287 (2010).Google Scholar
12. Fowler, R. H. and Northeim, L., Proc. R. Soc. A 119, 173 (1928).Google Scholar