Paper detail

Transition voltage spectroscopy: a challenge for vacuum tunneling models at nanoscale

Several studies on the transition voltage ($V_t$) are based on calculations of the tunneling current within the Simmons model. In this paper devoted to vacuum nano-junctions, we compare the Simmons results for $V_t$ with those obtained from the exact Schrodinger equation by exactly including the classical image effects. The comparison reveals that the Simmons estimates for $V_t$ are completely unacceptable for nanogap sizes ($d$) at which image effects are important. The Simmons treatment drastically overestimates these effects, because it misses the famous 1/2 factor related to the fact that the image interaction energy is a self energy. The maximum of the Simmons curve $V_t$ vs. $d$ turns out to be merely an artefact of an inappropriate approximation. Unlike the Simmons approach, the "exact" WKB method yields results, which qualitatively agree with the exact ones; quantitative differences are important, demonstrating that the transmission prefactor has a significant impact on $V_t$. Further, we show that a difference between the work functions of the left and right electrodes, which gives rise to a Volta field, may be important for the ubiquitous asymmetry of the measured $I$-$V$-characteristics in general, and for the different $V_t$-values at positive and negative biases reported in vacuum nanojunctions in particular. The weak dependence $V_t = V_t(d)$ found experimentally in vacuum nanojunctions contrasts to the pronounced dependence obtained by including the exact electrostatic image contribution into the Schrodinger equation. This demonstrates that not only the molecular transport, but also the transport through a vacuum nanogap represents a nontrivial problem, which requires further refinements, e.g., a realistic description of contacts' geometry, retardation effects due to the finite tunneling time, local phonons, surface plasmons or electron image states.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.