Open Access

Technological challenges in manufacturing of vacuum gauge thermionic cathode using thick-film technology

Laura Jasińska

Laura Jasińska

Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Electronics, Photonics and MicrosystemsWrocław, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Jasińska, Laura
, 
Krzysztof Dzbik

Krzysztof Dzbik

Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Electronics, Photonics and MicrosystemsWrocław, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Dzbik, Krzysztof
, 
Damian Nowak

Damian Nowak

Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Electronics, Photonics and MicrosystemsWrocław, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Nowak, Damian
, 
Krzysztof Stojek

Krzysztof Stojek

Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Electronics, Photonics and MicrosystemsWrocław, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Stojek, Krzysztof
, 
Aleksandra Chudzyńska

Aleksandra Chudzyńska

Nanores Sp. z o. o. Sp. k.Wrocław, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Chudzyńska, Aleksandra
, 
Kamil Politański

Kamil Politański

Nanores Sp. z o. o. Sp. k.Wrocław, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Politański, Kamil
 and 
Karol Malecha

Karol Malecha

Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Electronics, Photonics and MicrosystemsWrocław, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Malecha, Karol
  
May 22, 2024
Technological challenges in manufacturing of vacuum gauge thermionic cathode using thick-film technology's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
Published Online: May 22, 2024
Page range: 126 - 139
Received: Feb 05, 2024
Accepted: Apr 11, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2024-0007
Keywords
© 2024 Laura Jasińska et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1.

Classification of vacuum gauges by operating principle/structure, based on [10–15]
Classification of vacuum gauges by operating principle/structure, based on [10–15]

Fig. 2.

Optical microscope imaging results: a) top view of the structure with the thickness testing trajectory (red line), b) thickness profile of the tested structure according to the set trajectory
Optical microscope imaging results: a) top view of the structure with the thickness testing trajectory (red line), b) thickness profile of the tested structure according to the set trajectory

Fig. 3.

Samples: a) before firing, b) after firing using different two-stage temperature profile
Samples: a) before firing, b) after firing using different two-stage temperature profile

Fig. 4.

Structures of platinum bridge directly on Al2O3 substrate before firing: a) 1 SVM layer, b) 2 SVM layers
Structures of platinum bridge directly on Al2O3 substrate before firing: a) 1 SVM layer, b) 2 SVM layers

Fig. 5.

Structures of platinum bridge directly on alundum substrate after firing in a chamber furnace: a) 1 SVM layer, b) 2 SVM layers
Structures of platinum bridge directly on alundum substrate after firing in a chamber furnace: a) 1 SVM layer, b) 2 SVM layers

Fig. 6.

Structures of platinum bridge directly on alundum substrate after belt furnace firing: a) 1 SVM layer, b) 2 SVM layers
Structures of platinum bridge directly on alundum substrate after belt furnace firing: a) 1 SVM layer, b) 2 SVM layers

Fig. 7.

Matrix of platinum bridges with different geometries: a) after application of carbon layer, b) after application of platinum layer, c) after firing
Matrix of platinum bridges with different geometries: a) after application of carbon layer, b) after application of platinum layer, c) after firing

Fig. 8.

Platinum bridge structures on ceramic supports: a) design pattern, b) fired structures without the lamination process, c) fired structures with the lamination process before firing
Platinum bridge structures on ceramic supports: a) design pattern, b) fired structures without the lamination process, c) fired structures with the lamination process before firing

Fig. 9.

One-sided structures: a) design pattern, b) unfired structures, c) fired structures
One-sided structures: a) design pattern, b) unfired structures, c) fired structures

Fig. 10.

LTCC platinum bridges: a) after screen printing of the platinum layer, b) after the firing process
LTCC platinum bridges: a) after screen printing of the platinum layer, b) after the firing process

Fig. 11.

Surface characterization using SEM/Ga-FIB of FEI Helios Nanolab 600i (operating voltage and current of 1 kV and 86 μA, respectively) for Al2O3 samples: a) without etching and after etching for: b) 5 min, c) 10 min, d) 15 min, e) 30 min
Surface characterization using SEM/Ga-FIB of FEI Helios Nanolab 600i (operating voltage and current of 1 kV and 86 μA, respectively) for Al2O3 samples: a) without etching and after etching for: b) 5 min, c) 10 min, d) 15 min, e) 30 min

Fig. 12.

Surface roughness profile of alundum substrates: a) before etching, b) after etching in KOH for 30 min and ?380 °C
Surface roughness profile of alundum substrates: a) before etching, b) after etching in KOH for 30 min and ?380 °C

Fig. 13.

Al2O3 wet etching process in KOH: a) structures before etching, b) acceptable result, c) unacceptable result
Al2O3 wet etching process in KOH: a) structures before etching, b) acceptable result, c) unacceptable result

Fig. 14.

Schematic diagram of the bench for thermal measurements of a platinum thermionic cathode
Schematic diagram of the bench for thermal measurements of a platinum thermionic cathode

Fig. 15.

Calibration curves of the measurement station using a thermal imaging camera
Calibration curves of the measurement station using a thermal imaging camera

Fig. 16.

Temperature dependence of platinum planar structures as a function of applied electrical power
Temperature dependence of platinum planar structures as a function of applied electrical power

Fig. 17.

Experimental setup (emission performance)
Experimental setup (emission performance)

Fig. 18.

Emission current vs thermionic cathode power
Emission current vs thermionic cathode power

Results of thermal measurements for planar platinum structures

Supply current I [A] Supply voltage U [V] Power P [W] Structure temp. Without shutter T [°C] Structure temp. with shutter TSi [°C] = T·0.66925
Measurement with rapid temperature rise
0.33 3.05 1.01 150 100.39
0.39 3.94 1.54 200 133.85
0.46 5.43 2.48 300 200.78
0.50 6.83 3.41 400 267.70
0.55 8.42 4.63 500 334.63
Measurement with slow temperature rise
0.35 2.847 0.99645 150 100.39
0.39 3.44 1.33 200 133.85
0.46 4.73 2.15 300 200.78
0.51 6.02 3.06 400 267.70
0.56 7.52 4.24 500 334.63
0.611 9.00 5.50 600 401.55
0.66 10.70 7.09 700 468.48

Calibration measurements for silicon shutter bench

Supply current I [A] Supply voltage U [V] Power P [W] Structure temp. without shutter T [°C] Structure temp. with shutter TSi [°C] Loss rate TSi/T [%]
0.33 3.05 1.0065 150 97 64.7
0.386 3.94 1.52084 201 135 67.2
0.45 5.43 2.4435 300 206 68.7
0.5 7.02 3.51 402 272 67.1
Mean 66.925
Standard deviation 1.654
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Materials Sciences, Materials Sciences, other, Nanomaterials, Functional and Smart Materials, Materials Characterization and Properties
Journal RSS Feed