论文标题
评论“现代冷极材料研究的高级现场排放测量技术及其在传输型X射线源中的应用” [Rev.科学。乐器。 91，083906（2020）]
Comment on "Advanced field emission measurement techniques for research on modern cold cathode materials and their applications for transmission-type x-ray sources" [Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91, 083906 (2020)]
论文作者
论文摘要
该评论表明，技术领域电子发射（FE）论文，例如正在讨论的论文[P. Serbun等，Rev. Sci。乐器。 91，083906（2020）]应根据1956年的《墨菲和良好（MG）的作品而不是基于FE理论的简化版本，基于FOWLER和NORDHEIM的原始作品（FN），而不是FE理论。 1928年理论的使用是技术FE文献中的常见实践，但是MG治疗比FN治疗更好，而FN治疗中包含可识别的错误。 MG治疗预测发射器的发射电流密度和电流明显高于FN处理。从电子资源的研发的角度来看，技术FE文献使用理论低估了田间电子发射器的性能，它适得其反（对于非专家而言）。
This Comment suggests that technological field electron emission (FE) papers, such as the paper under discussion [P. Serbun et al.,, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91, 083906 (2020)], should use FE theory based on the 1956 work of Murphy and Good (MG), rather than a simplified version of FE theory based on the original 1928 work of Fowler and Nordheim (FN). Use of the 1928 theory is common practice in technological FE literature, but the MG treatment is known to be better physics than the FN treatment, which contains identifiable errors. The MG treatment predicts significantly higher emission current densities and currents for emitters than does the FN treatment. From the viewpoint of the research and development of electron sources, it is counterproductive (and unhelpful for non-experts) for the technological FE literature to use theory that undervalues the performance of field electron emitters.
