Fabrication of p+ contact by thermally induced solid state regrowth of Al on p-type Ge crystal

G. D. Patra; Husain Manasawala; Kulwant Singh; Manish Singh; Manoranjan Ghosh; S.G. Singh; Shashwati Sen; Shreyas Pitale; Vijay Karki

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Fabrication of p+ contact by thermally induced solid state regrowth of Al on p-type Ge crystal

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Annealing a thermally deposited aluminum film on p-type germanium at 350°C produces a rugged p+ contact by solid-state regrowth, with aluminum penetrating to roughly four times the film thickness.

desk verdict Solid process-engineering follow-up on a 1970s contact technique, with a plausible but under-verified thickness-scaling claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03036 v2 pith:FVXS6WUR submitted 2019-08-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Manoranjan Ghosh , Shreyas Pitale , S.G. Singh , Husain Manasawala , Vijay Karki , Manish Singh , Kulwant Singh , G. D. Patra

show 1 more author

Shashwati Sen

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords germaniumcrystalp-typecontactaluminumregrowthsolidstateSIMSdepthprofileHalleffectsheetresistancecarrierconcentration

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a low-temperature route to a p+ electrical contact on p-type germanium: evaporate aluminum onto the crystal, anneal at 350°C, and cool slowly. The authors' central claim is that solid-state regrowth of Al on Ge produces a rugged Al-Ge layer in which germanium moves through the entire aluminum film and aluminum penetrates into the underlying crystal to roughly four times the deposited film thickness. Depth profiles by secondary-ion mass spectrometry and Hall measurements show a heavily aluminum-doped p+ surface, with carrier concentration near $10^{20}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, that grades down to the bulk p-type crystal, forming a p+/p structure. This matters because germanium diode detectors need thin p+ contacts that are usually made by boron ion implantation, and the paper argues the annealed aluminum contact offers a simpler equivalent.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is solid-state regrowth by layer exchange. At 350°C Ge diffuses into the Al film (solid solubility about 0.7%) and, on slow cooling, the supersaturated Ge regrows on the Ge crystal while carrying Al into the crystal. The as-deposited Al thickness acts as the control parameter for the final contact: the paper's SIMS data indicate the Al penetration depth into Ge is roughly four times that thickness. To map the concentration gradient, the paper combines SIMS depth profiling with Hall measurements on surfaces exposed by repeated chemical-mechanical lapping.

What would settle it

A cross-sectional transmission electron microscope scan with elemental mapping through the annealed interface would settle it: if the Al-rich region does not extend roughly four times the Al film thickness into the Ge crystal, the SIMS-based claim is wrong; repeating the SIMS on unannealed samples at lower sputter energy would reveal whether the apparent Al tail is an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that thermally depositing Al on p-type Ge and annealing at 350°C, below the Al-Ge eutectic of 424°C, then cooling slowly, gives a recrystallized Al-Ge layer with a p+/p doping profile. SIMS depth profiles show Ge present through the whole Al layer after annealing but absent from unannealed films, which the authors read as layer exchange and solid-phase regrowth. The same profiles show Al inside the Ge crystal to depths of about four times the as-deposited Al film thickness, for example roughly 200 nm for 60 nm Al and 480 nm for 120 nm Al. Hall measurements after successive lapping show the top surface is metallic, with Al concentrations near $10^{20}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ falling to about $10^{11}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ toward the bulk, so the contact is p+ at the surface and p-type below.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative diffusion-length claim rests on reading the Al signal in unannealed SIMS profiles as stray contamination rather than as a measurement artifact; if that baseline is wrong, the reported 'four times the Al film thickness' depth is not supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Ge diode detectors could be fitted with p+ contacts by evaporation and annealing, replacing boron ion implantation and the associated apparatus.
The depth of the p+ region can be tuned by choosing the aluminum film thickness, since the paper reports Al penetration scales as about four times that thickness.
The top surface of the regrown Al-Ge layer has low sheet resistance, so the contact can serve directly for electrical readout in a detector.
Because the doping falls off from p+ to p-type, the contact forms a graded hole-selective region rather than an abrupt junction, with carrier concentrations from about $10^{19}$–$10^{20}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ down to about $10^{11}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$.
Since the anneal stays below the Al-Ge eutectic, the contact forms without melting, which keeps the process compatible with other low-temperature device steps.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The four-times scaling was tested for Al films from 15 nm to 150 nm with a fixed 40-minute anneal; whether it holds for thicker films or longer anneal times is untested and would be a natural next measurement.
If the same regrowth works on n-type Ge, the p+ contact could serve as the hole-blocking or anode contact in a full detector diode, extending the method beyond p-type substrates.
The paper's interpretation of the unannealed Al tail as stray chamber contamination is directly testable by comparing SIMS profiles taken at different sputter energies; a persistent tail would point to ion-beam mixing instead.
A cross-sectional microscopy measurement of the annealed interface could independently confirm both the depth and the shape of the Al distribution implied by the SIMS profiles.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a careful, modest experimental follow-up on a contact technique that has been around since the 1970s. The new bit is a systematic Al-thickness scan (15–150 nm) with SIMS and Hall depth profiling, and the claim that the Al diffusion depth into Ge is roughly four times the as-deposited Al film thickness. The qualitative picture—Ge out-diffuses through the Al layer, Al in-diffuses into Ge, forming a p+ gradient—is supported by the data and consistent with the older literature. The authors are upfront that regrowth itself is known; they are adding process control data.

What's genuinely good: the experiment is simple and the characterization is mostly appropriate. The SIMS profiles of annealed versus unannealed samples show clear Ge diffusion to the top of the Al layer. The Hall data at different lapped depths show the expected monotonic decrease in carrier concentration, and the sheet-resistance trend is internally coherent. The paper ships no code or machine-checked proofs, but the data are the product here.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The biggest one is the SIMS baseline. Unannealed Al/Ge controls already show Al tails one full film thickness into Ge (e.g., 60 nm and 120 nm). The authors call this stray Al from the evaporation chamber, but they offer no control—no Al-free Ge sample, no check for SIMS knock-on or crater roughness. If that tail is a measurement artifact, it contributes to every annealed profile, and the central quantitative claim (“four times the Al thickness”) becomes annealed-minus-unannealed excess, roughly 3t, or possibly not a clean linear scaling at all. This is load-bearing, because the thickness scaling is the main new result.

Secondary issues: no replicate statistics or error bars on a single-sample-per-thickness dataset; the CML depth calibration uses the same sheet-resistance values being reported, which is mildly circular (though the total depth is known from profilometry); and there is a numerical inconsistency between 10^23/cc in the text and 10^20/cm3 in the conclusion. Also, the detector contact framing is not backed by any diode I–V or detector measurement, so the practical payoff is asserted, not shown.

Who should read it: process engineers working on Ge detectors or Al-Ge contacts will get a useful parameter scan and a clear reminder of an old trick. It is not a new mechanism or device concept. The paper deserves a serious referee, and a good referee should ask for a baseline control, uncertainty quantification, and reconciliation of the concentration numbers before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports fabrication of p+ contacts on p-type Ge crystals by thermal evaporation of Al followed by annealing at 350°C and slow cooling. The authors use SIMS depth profiling to argue that Ge diffuses through the entire Al layer and that Al diffuses into Ge to a depth of approximately four times the as-deposited Al film thickness. Hall measurements on progressively lapped Al-Ge layers are used to infer an Al concentration gradient and p+/p doping profile. The paper claims that the regrown contact layer is rugged and that its thickness can be controlled by the deposited Al thickness. The central quantitative claims are the four-times diffusion scaling and top-surface Al dopant concentrations near 10^20/cm3.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a simple, low-temperature route to p+ contacts on Ge, relevant to detector and electronic device applications. The systematic variation of Al film thickness and the combination of SIMS and Hall measurements are strengths. The paper builds on a known solid-phase regrowth approach and adds a claimed thickness control law. However, the quantitative claims rest on a small number of single measurements and on a SIMS baseline interpretation that is not adequately controlled. The qualitative picture of interdiffusion and p-type doping is plausible, but the load-bearing 'four times thickness' scaling and the reported concentration values need stronger support.

major comments (4)

[III.B, Figs. 2 and 3] The unannealed Al/Ge SIMS profiles already show Al tails extending 60 nm and 120 nm into Ge, which the authors attribute to stray Al in the evaporation chamber rather than to room-temperature diffusion. This attribution is asserted without a control measurement on an Al-free Ge sample or an assessment of SIMS artifacts such as ion-beam mixing, knock-on, or crater/interface roughening. Because the annealed diffusion depths (200 nm and 480 nm for 60 nm and 120 nm Al, respectively; 60 nm and 580 nm for 15 nm and 150 nm Al) are read from the same kind of raw tail, any such artifact would contribute to every annealed profile. The appropriate thermal diffusion depth would then be the annealed-minus-unannealed excess, roughly 3t rather than 4t, and the linear scaling with film thickness would not be established. This directly affects the central claim that the regrown layer length is controlled by the as-deposited Al thickness.
[III.B, Fig. 5(b) and Conclusion] The text states that the Al concentration on the top surface of the regrown Al-Ge layer is 'as high as 10^23/cc' for 120 nm Al, while the Conclusion states that 'Dopant concentration at the top surface ... can be as high as 10^20/cm3.' These values differ by three orders of magnitude. The Hall data in Fig. 4(b) additionally give carrier concentrations near 10^19/cm3 for the 15 ohm sheet resistance layer. The manuscript must reconcile these numbers; as written, the reported Al concentration values are internally inconsistent and the claimed p+ doping level is not reliably quantified.
[III.B, Hall measurement and depth calibration] The depth calibration for the lapped Hall measurements uses sheet resistance values: 'Duration of the CML is calibrated using measured sheet resistance values.' Since sheet resistance is then reported as the dependent variable versus depth, using the same values to assign depths risks circularity. The total lapped depth is stated as approximately 150 nm, but individual depth values plotted in Fig. 4(a) are not independently verified by profilometry or another technique. Please provide independent depth measurements at each CML step or state clearly that the depth axis is inferred from the sheet resistance calibration.
[III.B, Figs. 2-5] No error bars, replicate measurements, or uncertainty analysis are provided for the SIMS profiles, diffusion lengths, sheet resistances, carrier concentrations, or Hall coefficients. All quantitative conclusions rest on single measurements per condition. Given the observed variability in electrical data (e.g., 1.5 ohm for 120 nm Al versus 7 ohm for 30 nm Al), the paper should report statistics from at least three samples per condition or explicitly justify why a single measurement is representative.

minor comments (4)

[III.B, SIMS threshold] The statement 'Al can be found (above 10 counts) up to 60 nm and 120 nm in Ge' does not define the threshold or its units; please specify the detection limit or background level used to define the diffusion depth.
[Throughout] The text contains inconsistent notation, such as '0C' instead of '°C', and inconsistent use of 'Al/Ge' for unannealed and 'Al-Ge' for annealed samples; please standardize these conventions.
[III.B, conductivity transition discussion] The discussion of the extrinsic-to-intrinsic transition and its shift with Al concentration is difficult to follow; a figure or a more explicit explanation of the carrier compensation and mobility effects would improve clarity.
[I, Introduction] The reference to 'A1' (Al) and 'AI' appears multiple times; please correct these typographical errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are direct experimental measurements, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—Al/Ge interdiffusion at 350 C, Ge transport through the Al film, Al penetration into Ge scaling with film thickness, and the resulting p+/p doping gradient—are obtained directly from SIMS depth profiles and Hall/sheet-resistance measurements. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then repackaged as a prediction; the 'four times film thickness' rule is a read-out of measured SIMS tails, with the caveat that the unannealed baseline also shows tails equal to the film thickness, which is a measurement-interpretation concern (possible SIMS mixing or stray Al) rather than a circularity. The only quasi-inferential loop, using sheet resistance values to help identify lapped depths, is anchored by an independent total-layer-depth estimate of roughly 150 nm obtained from profilometry and SIMS crater depths, and it does not enter the central diffusion-length or doping-gradient claims. Reference [19] is a self-citation used for a peripheral comparison of transition-temperature shifts; it is not load-bearing, and it reports independent experimental data rather than an unverified assumption. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on established regrowth phenomenology (refs 12-16), the standard SIMS depth calibration, and several unverified assumptions about baselines and activation. The only empirically fitted constant is the roughly 4x Al diffusion depth multiplier. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

Al diffusion depth proportionality constant = ~4 (measured 3.3 to 4.0 for Al films of 15, 60, 120, and 150 nm)
The paper derives the scaling 'Al diffusion length in Ge extends up to four times of Al film thickness' from four SIMS depth profiles; the factor 4 is fitted to these data and is then used in the conclusion that the regrown contact thickness can be controlled by Al thickness.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Solid-state regrowth of Al on Ge below the eutectic temperature (424 degrees Celsius) produces epitaxial p-type Al-Ge contacts
Taken from refs 12-15 and used to interpret the SIMS and Hall data as regrowth.
domain assumption Ge solid solubility in Al is about 0.7% at 350 degrees Celsius and near zero at room temperature, driving supersaturation and regrowth during slow cooling
Invoked in Results to explain regrowth; sourced from ref 16.
domain assumption SIMS sputter time converts linearly to depth using measured crater depths
Used for all depth profiles; assumes uniform sputter rate across the graded Al-Ge layer and the Ge substrate.
ad hoc to paper Al diffusion in Ge at room temperature is negligible, so the Al tail in unannealed samples is stray Al from the evaporation chamber
Introduced in Section III.B to explain non-zero Al signal in unannealed samples; no control experiment supports it.
domain assumption Hall-measured carrier concentration equals the electrically active Al concentration
Used to convert sheet resistance and depth into doping concentration; assumes full activation and no compensation.
domain assumption CML removes uniform layers and sheet resistance can identify the exposed depth
Used in Section III.C to generate depth-resolved Hall data; the calibration uses the same quantity being profiled.
domain assumption The p-type Ge substrate has carrier concentration about 10^10 per cubic centimeter at 77K and shows extrinsic-to-intrinsic transition near 220-260K
From vendor specification and the authors' own prior work (ref 19); used to interpret Hall temperature dependence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fabrication of p+ contact by thermally induced solid state regrowth of Al on p-type Ge crystal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVXS6WUR

@misc{pith2026190803036,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fabrication of p+ contact by thermally induced solid state regrowth of Al on p-type Ge crystal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVXS6WUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03036}
}

read the original abstract

Formation of p+ contact on Germanium is important for applications in diode detector and other electronic devices. In this work, thermally deposited Al on Ge crystal is annealed at 350oC followed by slow cooling for solid-state regrowth of Al-Ge p+ contact on Ge. Depth profile analysis by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) is carried out to investigate the occurrence of Al and Ge along the depth of the regrown Al-Ge layer. Evidence of regrowth is observed due to inter-diffusion of both Ge and Al across the layers although Ge diffusion in Al layer is found to be more prevalent. Thickness of the evaporated Al layer is varied to understand the diffusion profile of Al, Ge and estimate the depth of Al incorporation in Ge crystal underneath. Hall measurement at different depth of Al-Ge regrown layer reveals that Al impurity induces p+ doping in p-type Ge and its concentration gradually reduces towards the Ge crystal. Top surface of the Al-Ge layer exhibits lowest sheet resistance that varies with the thickness of the as deposited Al layer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03036 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Surface profile (a) and thickness (b) of scratched Al after thermal deposition of 5 mg Al without post deposition heat The same for 15 mg Al is shown in (c) and (d). ces and desired size of 8mm × 8mm × 1.5 mm were achieved by lapping on SiC abrasives sheets successively with grit sizes from 220 to 1500. Samples sonication in methanol for 15 minutes. Further planarization is performed and mirror like surfaces are obt… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) SIMS profile of Ge and Al along the depth for unannealed Al/Ge [(a) and (c)] Fig. 2. (a) SIMS profile of Ge and Al along the depth for unannealed Al/Ge [(a) and (c)] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Depth profiles of Ge and Al in annealed Al Al film thickness (a) 15 nm and (b) 150 nm. 3 us, the length of Al diffusion in Ge is found to be linked with the as deposited Al film thickness. It is established further by depth profile analysis of two additional samples having Al thickness 15 nm and 150 nm [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) Sheet resistance (SR) of annealed Aldependent net carrier concentration and (c) hall co-efficient error in estimating the depth. Temperature dependent sheet resistance of all exposed layers after successive lapping has been plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Sheet resistance (a) and net carrier concentration (b) at the top Al-Ge surface without lapping having different as deposited Al thickness. 4 comparison, net carrier concentrations are shown in logarithmic scale below 150K avoiding the said extrinsic to intrinsic trans…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Germanium gamma-ray detectors,

R. H. Pehl, “Germanium gamma-ray detectors,” Physics Today, vol. 30, no. 11, p. 50, 1977

work page 1977
[2]

Gamma ray detectors made from high purity germanium,

R. D. Baertsch and R. N. Hall, “Gamma ray detectors made from high purity germanium,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 235-240, 1970

work page 1970
[3]

From Ge(Li) detectors to gamma-ray tracking arrays–50 years of gamma spectroscopy with germanium detectors,

J. Eberth and J. Simpson, “From Ge(Li) detectors to gamma-ray tracking arrays–50 years of gamma spectroscopy with germanium detectors,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 283-337, 2008

work page 2008
[4]

Formation of injecting and blocking contacts on high-resistivity germanium,

G. Ottaviani, V. Marrello, J. W. Mayer, M-A. Nicolet, and J. M. Caywood, “Formation of injecting and blocking contacts on high-resistivity germanium,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 20, pp. 323-325, 1972

work page 1972
[5]

Lithium-diffused n+ contacts on high-purity germanium detectors: How thin can they be made-how stable are they?

R. H. Pehl and R. C. Cordi, “Lithium-diffused n+ contacts on high-purity germanium detectors: How thin can they be made-how stable are they?” IEEE Transaction on Nuclear Science, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 177-177, 1975

work page 1975
[6]

Diffusion of boron in germanium at 800-9000C,

S. Uppal, A. F. W. Willoughby, J. M. Bonar, N. E. B. Cowern, T. Grasby, R. J. H. Morris, and M. G. Dowsett, “Diffusion of boron in germanium at 800-9000C,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 96, pp. 1376-1380, 2004

work page 2004
[7]

Leakage current in high-purity germanium detectors with amorphous semiconductor contacts,

Q. Looker, M. Amman and K.Vetter, “Leakage current in high-purity germanium detectors with amorphous semiconductor contacts,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, vol. 777, pp. 138-147, 2015

work page 2015
[8]

Fabrication and characterization of high-purity germanium detectors with amorphous germanium contacts,

X.-H. Meng, G.-J. Wang, M.-D. Wagner, H. Mei, W.-Z. Wei, J. Liu, G. Yang, and D.-M. Mei, “Fabrication and characterization of high-purity germanium detectors with amorphous germanium contacts,” Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. P02019, Feb. 2019

work page 2019

Show all 20 references

[9]

Thin film reaction of transition metals with germanium,

S. Gaudet, C. Detavernier, A. J. Kellock, P. Desjardins, and C. Lavoie, “Thin film reaction of transition metals with germanium,” J. of Vac. Sci. & Tech. A, vol. 24, pp. 474- 485, 2006

2006
[10]

Low temperature migration of silicon in thin layers of gold and platinum,

A. Hiraki, M-A. Nicolet, and J. W. Mayer, “Low temperature migration of silicon in thin layers of gold and platinum,” Appl. Phys. Letters., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 178-181, 1971

1971
[11]

Alloying behavior of Au and Au–Ge on GaAs,

J. Gyulai, J. W. Mayer, V. Rodriguez, A.Y.C. Yu, and H. J. Gopen, “Alloying behavior of Au and Au–Ge on GaAs,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 42, no. 9, 3578-3585, 1971

1971
[12]

Solid-phase epitaxial growth of Ge layers,

V. Marrelloj, M. Caywood, J. W. Mayer, and M.-A. Nicole, “Solid-phase epitaxial growth of Ge layers,” phys. stat. sol. (a), vol. 13, pp. 531-536, 1972

1972
[13]

Solid-phase growth of Ge from evaporated Al Layer,

J. M. Caywood, A. M. Fern, J.O. McCaldin, and G. Ottaviani, “Solid-phase growth of Ge from evaporated Al Layer,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 20, pp. 326-327, 1972

1972
[14]

Germanium alpha particle detectors with aluminum regrowth p+ contacts,

A. Lidow, “Germanium alpha particle detectors with aluminum regrowth p+ contacts,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods, vol. 124, pp. 609-610, 1975

1975
[15]

High purity germanium gamma-ray spectrometers with regrowth p+ contacts,

V. Marrello, T. A. McMath, J.W. Mayer and I. L. Fowler, “High purity germanium gamma-ray spectrometers with regrowth p+ contacts,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods, vol. 108, pp. 93-97, 1973

1973
[16]

Some aspects of Ge epitaxial growth by solid solution,

G. Ottaviani, C. Canali, and G. Majni, “Some aspects of Ge epitaxial growth by solid solution,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 627-630, 1976

1976
[17]

Nucleation and growth kinetics during metal-induced layer exchange crystallization of Ge thin films at low temperatures,

S. Hu and P. C. McIntyre, “Nucleation and growth kinetics during metal-induced layer exchange crystallization of Ge thin films at low temperatures,” J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 111, no. 4, p. 044908, 2012

2012
[18]

Sigurd, G

D. Sigurd, G. Ottaviani, H. J. Arnal, and J. W. Mayer, Crystallization of Ge and Si in metal films. II,” J. of Appl. Phys., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1740-1745, 1974

1974
[19]

Impurity concentration dependent electrical conduction in germanium crystal at low temperatures,

M. Ghosh, S. Pitale, S. G. Singh, S. Sen, S. C. Gadkari, “Impurity concentration dependent electrical conduction in germanium crystal at low temperatures,” Bulletin of Materials Science (accepted), arXiv:1907.05067 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

1907 arXiv
[20]

Aluminium implantation in germanium: Uphill diffusion, electrical activation, and trapping,

G. Impellizzeri, E. Napolitani, S. Boninelli, V. Privitera, T. Clarysse, W. Vandervorst, and F. Priolo, “Aluminium implantation in germanium: Uphill diffusion, electrical activation, and trapping,” Applied Physics Express, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 021301-3, 2012

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Germanium gamma-ray detectors,

R. H. Pehl, “Germanium gamma-ray detectors,” Physics Today, vol. 30, no. 11, p. 50, 1977

work page 1977

[2] [2]

Gamma ray detectors made from high purity germanium,

R. D. Baertsch and R. N. Hall, “Gamma ray detectors made from high purity germanium,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 235-240, 1970

work page 1970

[3] [3]

From Ge(Li) detectors to gamma-ray tracking arrays–50 years of gamma spectroscopy with germanium detectors,

J. Eberth and J. Simpson, “From Ge(Li) detectors to gamma-ray tracking arrays–50 years of gamma spectroscopy with germanium detectors,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 283-337, 2008

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Formation of injecting and blocking contacts on high-resistivity germanium,

G. Ottaviani, V. Marrello, J. W. Mayer, M-A. Nicolet, and J. M. Caywood, “Formation of injecting and blocking contacts on high-resistivity germanium,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 20, pp. 323-325, 1972

work page 1972

[5] [5]

Lithium-diffused n+ contacts on high-purity germanium detectors: How thin can they be made-how stable are they?

R. H. Pehl and R. C. Cordi, “Lithium-diffused n+ contacts on high-purity germanium detectors: How thin can they be made-how stable are they?” IEEE Transaction on Nuclear Science, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 177-177, 1975

work page 1975

[6] [6]

Diffusion of boron in germanium at 800-9000C,

S. Uppal, A. F. W. Willoughby, J. M. Bonar, N. E. B. Cowern, T. Grasby, R. J. H. Morris, and M. G. Dowsett, “Diffusion of boron in germanium at 800-9000C,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 96, pp. 1376-1380, 2004

work page 2004

[7] [7]

Leakage current in high-purity germanium detectors with amorphous semiconductor contacts,

Q. Looker, M. Amman and K.Vetter, “Leakage current in high-purity germanium detectors with amorphous semiconductor contacts,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, vol. 777, pp. 138-147, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Fabrication and characterization of high-purity germanium detectors with amorphous germanium contacts,

X.-H. Meng, G.-J. Wang, M.-D. Wagner, H. Mei, W.-Z. Wei, J. Liu, G. Yang, and D.-M. Mei, “Fabrication and characterization of high-purity germanium detectors with amorphous germanium contacts,” Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. P02019, Feb. 2019

work page 2019