Comparison of two thermal spike models for ion-solid interaction

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A comparative review of the inelastic thermal spike model (ITSM, Meftah et al., 1994) and the analytical thermal spike model (ATSM Szenes, 1995) is given. The ITSM follows the formation of the ion-induced thermal spike based on the Fourier equation while the ATSM skips this stage and a final Gaussian temperature distribution is assumed. Each of the two models doubts the basic assumptions of the other. The ITSM rejects the Gaussian temperature distribution while according to ATSM several thermophysical parameters used by the ITSM are irrelevant to the formation of the thermal spike and the equilibrium values are not valid under spike conditions. The essentially different conclusions of the models are discussed in connection with experiments performed in BaFe 12O19, Al2O3, silica and high-T c superconductors.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)174-179
Number of pages6
JournalNuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
Volume269
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 15 2011

Fingerprint

spikes
Ions
ions
Temperature distribution
interactions
temperature distribution
Superconducting materials
Silica
Hot Temperature
silicon dioxide
Experiments

Keywords

  • Insulators
  • Ion irradiation
  • Thermal spike models
  • Tracks

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Instrumentation
  • Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Cite this

@article{55acc9fc25654cfd94bf4015f4815ad3,
title = "Comparison of two thermal spike models for ion-solid interaction",
abstract = "A comparative review of the inelastic thermal spike model (ITSM, Meftah et al., 1994) and the analytical thermal spike model (ATSM Szenes, 1995) is given. The ITSM follows the formation of the ion-induced thermal spike based on the Fourier equation while the ATSM skips this stage and a final Gaussian temperature distribution is assumed. Each of the two models doubts the basic assumptions of the other. The ITSM rejects the Gaussian temperature distribution while according to ATSM several thermophysical parameters used by the ITSM are irrelevant to the formation of the thermal spike and the equilibrium values are not valid under spike conditions. The essentially different conclusions of the models are discussed in connection with experiments performed in BaFe 12O19, Al2O3, silica and high-T c superconductors.",
keywords = "Insulators, Ion irradiation, Thermal spike models, Tracks",
author = "G. Szenes",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.nimb.2010.11.009",
language = "English",
volume = "269",
pages = "174--179",
journal = "Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms",
issn = "0168-583X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of two thermal spike models for ion-solid interaction

AU - Szenes, G.

PY - 2011/1/15

Y1 - 2011/1/15

N2 - A comparative review of the inelastic thermal spike model (ITSM, Meftah et al., 1994) and the analytical thermal spike model (ATSM Szenes, 1995) is given. The ITSM follows the formation of the ion-induced thermal spike based on the Fourier equation while the ATSM skips this stage and a final Gaussian temperature distribution is assumed. Each of the two models doubts the basic assumptions of the other. The ITSM rejects the Gaussian temperature distribution while according to ATSM several thermophysical parameters used by the ITSM are irrelevant to the formation of the thermal spike and the equilibrium values are not valid under spike conditions. The essentially different conclusions of the models are discussed in connection with experiments performed in BaFe 12O19, Al2O3, silica and high-T c superconductors.

AB - A comparative review of the inelastic thermal spike model (ITSM, Meftah et al., 1994) and the analytical thermal spike model (ATSM Szenes, 1995) is given. The ITSM follows the formation of the ion-induced thermal spike based on the Fourier equation while the ATSM skips this stage and a final Gaussian temperature distribution is assumed. Each of the two models doubts the basic assumptions of the other. The ITSM rejects the Gaussian temperature distribution while according to ATSM several thermophysical parameters used by the ITSM are irrelevant to the formation of the thermal spike and the equilibrium values are not valid under spike conditions. The essentially different conclusions of the models are discussed in connection with experiments performed in BaFe 12O19, Al2O3, silica and high-T c superconductors.

KW - Insulators

KW - Ion irradiation

KW - Thermal spike models

KW - Tracks

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649965097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649965097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.nimb.2010.11.009

DO - 10.1016/j.nimb.2010.11.009

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:78649965097

VL - 269

SP - 174

EP - 179

JO - Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

JF - Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

SN - 0168-583X

IS - 2

ER -