Paper detail

Scaling and laws of DC discharges as pointers for HiPIMS plasmas

Scaling or smiliarity laws of plasmas are of interest if lab size plasma sources are to be scaled for industrial processes. Ideally, the discharge parameters of the scaled plasmas are predictable and the fundamental physical processes are unaltered. Naturally, there are limitations and ranges of validity. Scaling laws for direct current glow discharges are well known. If a well diagnosed discharge is scaled, the field strength in the positive column, the gas amplification and the normal current density can easily be estimated. For non-stationary high power discharges like high power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS) plasmas, scaling is not as straight forward. Here, one deals with a non-stationary complex system with strong changes in plasma chemistry and symmetry breaks during the pulses. Because of the huge parameter space no good parameters are available to define these kind of discharges unambiguous at the moment. In this contribution we will discuss the scaling laws for DC glow discharges briefly and present experimental results for a discharge with copper electrodes and helium as plasma forming gas. This discharge was operated in a pressure range from 200 to 1600 hPa with three different electrode diameters (D=2.1, 3.0 and 4.3 mm). Results from breakdown voltage measurements indicate that the pressure and electrode distance cannot be varied independently. Effects of the scaling on the reduced normal current density, the reduced normal electric field in the positive column and discharge temperature will be discussed and limitations highlighted. Compared with these results the added complexity of HiPIMS plasmas will be described. Suggestions in the community how to obtain experimental finger prints of the plasmas will be reviewed and implications from the experiences with DC discharges on the development of similarity laws for HiPIMS plasmas will be discussed.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.