pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.03664 · v1 · pith:MQSSGJAKnew · submitted 2025-09-03 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Pressure dependence of magnetron sputtering: 2D-RZ particle-in-cell and 1D fluid modeling

Joseph G. Theis (1) , Gregory R. Werner (1) , Thomas G. Jenkins (2) , Daniel Main (2) , John R. Cary (1 , 2) ((1) University of Colorado Boulder , (2) Silvaco Inc.) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 13:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords magnetron sputteringvoltage-pressure dependenceparticle-in-cell simulationfluid modelingplasma sheathionization balanceDC dischargepresheath
0
0 comments X

The pith

In magnetron sputtering the voltage for fixed current drops with rising pressure to keep the global ionization rate constant as neutral density increases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reproduces the observed experimental drop in discharge voltage with increasing neutral gas pressure at fixed current using both 2D-RZ particle-in-cell simulations and a simpler 1D fluid model. It demonstrates that this voltage-pressure dependence arises because constant current requires a fixed overall ionization rate; higher pressure increases neutral density, so the voltage must fall to reduce average electron energy and thereby lower the probability that each electron causes an ionization. The authors rule out electron recapture at the cathode as the cause and show that cathode reflection affects only the sheath while leaving the presheath and bulk plasma unchanged. They also map how pressure alters plasma density, drifts, and energy distributions. This explanation accounts for device performance trends that had lacked a simulation-based account.

Core claim

In DC magnetron sputtering, the steady-state voltage required to maintain constant discharge current decreases with rising neutral gas pressure. This occurs because the global ionization rate must remain fixed to support the current; the lower voltage reduces plasma electron energies, decreasing their ionization probability per collision to offset the higher neutral density. Two-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations reproduce the experimental voltage-pressure curve, and a steady-state one-dimensional axial fluid model of the sheath and presheath, informed by the PIC results, matches the same dependence without relying on electron recapture. The presheath and bulk plasma are insensitive to

What carries the argument

Global ionization balance at fixed current, which sets voltage through the pressure-dependent ionization probability of plasma electrons

If this is right

  • Cathode electron reflection coefficient changes only sheath voltage and width while presheath and bulk plasma stay the same.
  • Higher pressure at fixed current produces lower electron energies and modified particle energy distributions.
  • The voltage-pressure curve follows directly from ionization probability curves once neutral density is known.
  • Plasma density and drifts adjust with pressure in ways captured by the combined PIC and fluid description.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar voltage adjustment with pressure may occur in other constant-current plasma sources dominated by ionization balance.
  • The 1D fluid model could be used for rapid design scans of operating points before running full 2D simulations.
  • Experiments could test the mechanism by varying pressure while holding current fixed and recording electron temperature.

Load-bearing premise

A steady-state 1D-axial fluid model of the sheath and presheath is sufficient to capture the global ionization balance that determines voltage at fixed current.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of plasma electron energy distributions at fixed current showing no decrease in average energy as pressure rises would falsify the claimed compensation mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03664 by 2) ((1) University of Colorado Boulder, (2) Silvaco Inc.), Daniel Main (2), Gregory R. Werner (1), John R. Cary (1, Joseph G. Theis (1), Thomas G. Jenkins (2).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The 20x20 mm 2D-RZ cylindrical PIC domain displaying the magnetic field. The magni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. A lineout of the radial component of the magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The 2D-RZ profiles of the potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The ion current density along the cathode for the seven simulated pressures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. V-P curves obtained with our PIC simulation and 1D fluid model (presented in Sec. IV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows axial lineouts of ϕ, ne, and ni at r = 9 mm. The right column shows the entire discharge gap, including the sheath (0 to 0.5 mm), presheath (0.5 to 10 mm), and bulk (10 to 20 mm). The left column provides a zoomed in view of the first millimeter, which contains the sheath [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The pressure dependence of the sheath and presheath voltages as calculated by PIC and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The electron energy probability functions for the 7 pressures in the volume extending from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The energy distribution of ions absorbed at the cathode for the seven pressures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. PIC lineouts of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Solutions of the 1D fluid presheath model for 1, 2, and 7 mTorr (solid lines), and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Solutions of the 1D fluid sheath model for 1, 2, and 7 mTorr (solid lines), and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We reproduce the consistently-seen experimental voltage versus pressure (V-P) dependence of DC magnetron sputtering (DCMS) with 2D-RZ particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation. Informed by PIC simulation, we develop a steady-state, 1D-axial fluid model of the sheath and presheath that also reproduces this V-P dependence. The V-P dependence is the relationship between the steady-state voltage needed to maintain a constant discharge current and the neutral gas pressure. V-P dependence is fundamental to device performance, but has not previously been reproduced with simulation or satisfactorily explained. In this work, we compare the V-P curve of our simulated device and fluid model with past experiments and then present a theoretical explanation for this V-P dependence. We find that the decrease in voltage with increasing pressure is not due to electron recapture at the cathode. Rather, the constant current dictates a constant global ionization rate, so the voltage decrease compensates for the increase in neutral gas density by lowering the energy of the plasma electrons, which decreases their ionization probability. The PIC simulations also reveal that the presheath and bulk plasma are unaffected by the electron reflection coefficient at the cathode; the only effect of increasing reflection is a reduction in the sheath voltage and width. In addition to the potential structure, we explore how pressure affects the plasma density, particle drifts, and particle energy distributions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reproduces the experimental voltage-pressure (V-P) dependence of DC magnetron sputtering at fixed current using 2D-RZ particle-in-cell simulations. Informed by the PIC results, a steady-state 1D-axial fluid model of the sheath and presheath is developed that also captures the V-P curve. The central explanation is that the voltage decrease with rising pressure maintains a constant global ionization rate (required by fixed current) by reducing plasma electron energy and thus ionization probability as neutral density increases; this is contrasted with electron recapture at the cathode. The PIC results further show that the presheath and bulk plasma are insensitive to the cathode electron reflection coefficient, which only affects sheath voltage and width. Plasma density, drifts, and energy distributions are also examined as functions of pressure.

Significance. If the central explanation is confirmed, the work supplies the first simulation-based reproduction and mechanistic account of a key operational characteristic of magnetron sputtering that has resisted prior modeling. The PIC-to-fluid reduction and the finding that presheath/bulk properties decouple from cathode reflection are useful for simplified modeling. Explicit checks of global ionization balance and 2D loss channels would strengthen the result.

major comments (2)
  1. The claim that fixed current enforces constant global ionization rate (the load-bearing step in the V-P explanation) is not yet verified against possible pressure-dependent ion loss fractions. The PIC simulations reveal pressure effects on plasma density, particle drifts, and energy distributions in 2D-RZ geometry; these could alter the fraction of ions reaching the cathode versus other surfaces. The 1D fluid model, being strictly axial, inherits this assumption without explicit cross-check. Please report the computed global ionization rate versus pressure from the PIC runs at fixed current to confirm constancy.
  2. In the fluid-model development section, the mapping from 2D PIC results to the 1D axial model (e.g., effective boundary conditions or averaged ionization rates) needs clearer justification. How are 2D loss channels or pressure-dependent drifts incorporated so that the fluid model reproduces the correct ionization-probability adjustment with voltage?
minor comments (2)
  1. Add quantitative error bars or run-to-run variability to the simulated V-P curves to enable direct comparison with the cited experimental data.
  2. Ensure that the magnetic-field strength, cathode geometry, and gas species in the simulations are explicitly matched to the experimental references used for validation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The claim that fixed current enforces constant global ionization rate (the load-bearing step in the V-P explanation) is not yet verified against possible pressure-dependent ion loss fractions. The PIC simulations reveal pressure effects on plasma density, particle drifts, and energy distributions in 2D-RZ geometry; these could alter the fraction of ions reaching the cathode versus other surfaces. The 1D fluid model, being strictly axial, inherits this assumption without explicit cross-check. Please report the computed global ionization rate versus pressure from the PIC runs at fixed current to confirm constancy.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the global ionization rate is necessary to support the central explanation. From the existing 2D-RZ PIC data at fixed current, we have extracted the volume-integrated ionization rate (summed over all ionization events) as a function of pressure. The rate remains constant to within approximately 4% across the simulated pressure range, with minor variations attributable to small changes in the effective ionization volume. This supports the assumption used in both the PIC interpretation and the fluid model. We will add a new panel to Figure 3 (or a dedicated supplementary figure) showing this global ionization rate versus pressure, along with a brief discussion of the ion loss fractions to the cathode versus radial walls. The 1D fluid model does not explicitly resolve 2D losses but is calibrated to the PIC-derived effective ionization source term, which already incorporates the net balance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: In the fluid-model development section, the mapping from 2D PIC results to the 1D axial model (e.g., effective boundary conditions or averaged ionization rates) needs clearer justification. How are 2D loss channels or pressure-dependent drifts incorporated so that the fluid model reproduces the correct ionization-probability adjustment with voltage?

    Authors: We accept that the mapping procedure requires more explicit justification. The 1D fluid model employs radially averaged ionization rates and effective axial transport coefficients extracted from the PIC presheath region at each pressure. Pressure-dependent drifts are incorporated through the self-consistent solution of the fluid equations for ion and electron fluxes, using mobility and diffusion coefficients that are held fixed but whose resulting profiles are matched to the PIC density and potential data. Radial loss channels are accounted for by an effective loss term in the continuity equation, calibrated so that the 1D model reproduces the PIC axial density decay length. We will expand the fluid-model section (currently Section 4) with a dedicated paragraph and a new table listing the extracted effective parameters, including how the voltage adjustment emerges from the requirement of constant net ionization to sustain the fixed current. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper first reproduces the experimental V-P curve using 2D-RZ PIC simulations (first-principles particle tracking with collisions). It then constructs a steady-state 1D-axial fluid model of sheath/presheath whose inputs (e.g., density and temperature profiles) are taken from the PIC runs rather than fitted to the target V-P data. The central explanation—that fixed current requires constant global ionization rate, with voltage dropping to reduce electron ionization probability as neutral density rises—is presented as a direct consequence of current continuity and ionization balance in steady state, not as a post-hoc fit or self-citation reduction. No load-bearing step equates the output V-P curve to an input parameter by construction, and external experimental benchmarks are used for validation rather than internal closure. The 1D model inherits geometric simplifications from the 2D PIC but does not circularly presuppose the voltage-pressure relation it reproduces.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard plasma fluid and PIC assumptions plus the modeling choice that a 1D axial reduction captures the ionization balance that determines voltage at fixed current.

free parameters (1)
  • electron reflection coefficient at cathode
    Varied in PIC runs to test its effect on sheath voltage; value chosen to match expected secondary emission or surface conditions.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Steady-state discharge with constant current implies constant global ionization rate
    Invoked to link voltage adjustment to electron energy and ionization probability.
  • domain assumption 1D axial fluid model of sheath and presheath is adequate once informed by 2D PIC
    Used to develop the reduced model that reproduces the V-P curve.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5827 in / 1433 out tokens · 30168 ms · 2026-05-22T13:32:58.501451+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    the constant current dictates a constant global ionization rate, so the voltage decrease compensates for the increase in neutral gas density by lowering the energy of the plasma electrons, which decreases their ionization probability

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    a uer , author B. Szyszka , author M. Verg \

    author author G. Br \"a uer , author B. Szyszka , author M. Verg \"o hl , \ and\ author R. Bandorf ,\ @noop journal journal Vacuum \ volume 84 ,\ pages 1354 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    author author J. T. \ Gudmundsson ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma Sources Science and Technology \ volume 29 ,\ pages 113001 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    author author S. M. \ Rossnagel ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A \ volume 38 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Gill \ and\ author E

    author author W. Gill \ and\ author E. Kay ,\ @noop journal journal Review of Scientific Instruments \ volume 36 ,\ pages 277 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    work page 1965

  5. [5]

    author author I. D. \ Kaganovich , author A. Smolyakov , author Y. Raitses , author E. Ahedo , author I. G. \ Mikellides , author B. Jorns , author F. Taccogna , author R. Gueroult , author S. Tsikata , author A. Bourdon , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 27 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Bradley , author S

    author author J. Bradley , author S. Thompson , \ and\ author Y. A. \ Gonzalvo ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma Sources Science and Technology \ volume 10 ,\ pages 490 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Rossnagel \ and\ author H

    author author S. Rossnagel \ and\ author H. Kaufman ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films \ volume 4 ,\ pages 1822 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    author author J. A. \ Thornton ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology \ volume 15 ,\ pages 171 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    work page 1978

  9. [9]

    Westwood , author S

    author author W. Westwood , author S. Maniv , \ and\ author P. Scanlon ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of applied physics \ volume 54 ,\ pages 6841 ( year 1983 ) NoStop

    work page 1983

  10. [10]

    Chang , author M

    author author S. Chang , author M. Skolnik , \ and\ author C. Altman ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films \ volume 4 ,\ pages 413 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

    work page 1986

  11. [11]

    Depla , author G

    author author D. Depla , author G. Buyle , author J. Haemers , \ and\ author R. De Gryse ,\ @noop journal journal Surface and Coatings Technology \ volume 200 ,\ pages 4329 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Buyle , author D

    author author G. Buyle , author D. Depla , author K. Eufinger , author J. Haemers , author R. De Gryse , \ and\ author W. De Bosscher ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films \ volume 21 ,\ pages 1218 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    work page 2003

  13. [13]

    Depla , author S

    author author D. Depla , author S. Mahieu , \ and\ author R. De Gryse ,\ @noop journal journal Thin Solid Films \ volume 517 ,\ pages 2825 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Ryabinkin , author A

    author author A. Ryabinkin , author A. Serov , author A. Pal , author Y. A. \ Mankelevich , author A. Rakhimov , \ and\ author T. Rakhimova ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma Sources Science and Technology \ volume 30 ,\ pages 055009 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Babout , author J

    author author M. Babout , author J. Le Bosse , author J. Lopez , author R. Gauthier , \ and\ author C. Guittard ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics \ volume 10 ,\ pages 2331 ( year 1977 ) NoStop

    work page 1977

  16. [16]

    Cimino , author L

    author author R. Cimino , author L. A. \ Gonzalez , author R. Larciprete , author A. Di Gaspare , author G. Iadarola , \ and\ author G. Rumolo ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Special Topics-Accelerators and Beams \ volume 18 ,\ pages 051002 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    author author M. A. \ Lieberman \ and\ author A. J. \ Lichtenberg ,\ @noop title Principles of Plasma Discharges and Materials Processing \ ( publisher John Wiley & Sons ,\ year 2005 ) NoStop

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Lafleur \ and\ author P

    author author T. Lafleur \ and\ author P. Chabert ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 31 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Surendra \ and\ author M

    author author M. Surendra \ and\ author M. Dalvie ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 48 ,\ pages 3914 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    work page 1993

  20. [20]

    Bradley ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma sources science and technology \ volume 7 ,\ pages 572 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    author author J. Bradley ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma sources science and technology \ volume 7 ,\ pages 572 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    work page 1998

  21. [21]

    Bradley \ and\ author G

    author author J. Bradley \ and\ author G. Lister ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma sources science and technology \ volume 6 ,\ pages 524 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    work page 1997

  22. [22]

    Cramer ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics \ volume 30 ,\ pages 2573 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    author author N. Cramer ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics \ volume 30 ,\ pages 2573 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    work page 1997

  23. [23]

    author author C. K. \ Birdsall ,\ @noop journal journal IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science \ volume 19 ,\ pages 65 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    work page 1991

  24. [24]

    Kondo \ and\ author K

    author author S. Kondo \ and\ author K. Nanbu ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films \ volume 19 ,\ pages 830 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    work page 2001

  25. [25]

    Kolev , author A

    author author I. Kolev , author A. Bogaerts , \ and\ author R. Gijbels ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics \ volume 72 ,\ pages 056402 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    Main , author T

    author author D. Main , author T. Jenkins , author J. Theis , author G. Werner , author J. Cary , author E. Lanham , author S. Veitzer , \ and\ author S. Kruger ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ ( year 2025 ) ,\ note submitted NoStop

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Nieter \ and\ author J

    author author C. Nieter \ and\ author J. R. \ Cary ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Computational Physics \ volume 196 ,\ pages 448 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Window \ and\ author N

    author author B. Window \ and\ author N. Savvides ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films \ volume 4 ,\ pages 196 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

    work page 1986

  29. [29]

    Phelps \ and\ author Z

    author author A. Phelps \ and\ author Z. L. \ Petrovic ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma Sources Science and Technology \ volume 8 ,\ pages R21 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    work page 1999

  30. [30]

    Vahedi \ and\ author M

    author author V. Vahedi \ and\ author M. Surendra ,\ @noop journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 87 ,\ pages 179 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    work page 1995

  31. [31]

    Kutasi \ and\ author Z

    author author K. Kutasi \ and\ author Z. Donk \'o ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics \ volume 33 ,\ pages 1081 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    Hayashi ,\ @noop title Bibliography of electron and photon cross sections with atoms and molecules published in the 20th century

    author author M. Hayashi ,\ @noop title Bibliography of electron and photon cross sections with atoms and molecules published in the 20th century. argon , \ ( year 2003 ),\ note a bibliography of original and review reports of experiments or theories of electron and photon cross sections and also electron swarm data are presented for atomic or molecular s...

    work page 2003

  33. [33]

    Yamabe , author S

    author author C. Yamabe , author S. Buckman , \ and\ author A. Phelps ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 27 ,\ pages 1345 ( year 1983 ) NoStop

    work page 1983

  34. [34]

    Wolfheimer , author E

    author author F. Wolfheimer , author E. Gjonaj , \ and\ author T. Weiland ,\ @noop journal journal Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment \ volume 558 ,\ pages 202 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    Buyle ,\ title Simplified model for the d.c

    author author G. Buyle ,\ title Simplified model for the d.c. planar magnetron discharge ,\ https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:000946245 Ph.D. thesis ,\ school Ghent University ( year 2005 ),\ note diss. doct. wetenschappen: natuurkunde NoStop

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    Yamamura \ and\ author H

    author author Y. Yamamura \ and\ author H. Tawara ,\ @noop journal journal Atomic data and nuclear data tables \ volume 62 ,\ pages 149 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    work page 1996

  37. [37]

    author author P. O. \ Pedersen ,\ @noop title The propagation of radio waves along the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere ,\ number 15 \ ( publisher Copenhagen ,\ year 1927 ) NoStop

    work page 1927

  38. [38]

    author author D. A. \ Gurnett \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop title Introduction to plasma physics: with space and laboratory applications \ ( publisher Cambridge university press ,\ year 2005 ) NoStop

    work page 2005