1996
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.76.1485
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Apparent Barrier Height in Scanning Tunneling Microscopy Revisited

Abstract:  Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

13
134
2

Year Published

1998
1998
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 186 publications
(149 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
13
134
2
Order By: Relevance
“…16 Note that this occurs when the force interaction becomes strong, and so perturbation of the local atom positions might be occurring as well as electronic barrier quenching. 17 The whole approach and retraction process remains reversible provided the separation is not reduced beyond the point at which the measured stiffness becomes positive ͑i.e., the point of inflection on the binding energy curve͒. The curve shown here is a single approach curve and is not averaged over several different measurements.…”
Section: ͑1͒mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 Note that this occurs when the force interaction becomes strong, and so perturbation of the local atom positions might be occurring as well as electronic barrier quenching. 17 The whole approach and retraction process remains reversible provided the separation is not reduced beyond the point at which the measured stiffness becomes positive ͑i.e., the point of inflection on the binding energy curve͒. The curve shown here is a single approach curve and is not averaged over several different measurements.…”
Section: ͑1͒mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Simultaneously, the jump-to-contact voltage is increased by 7% compared to the value predicted from Eq. (8). The jump-to-contact voltage V C is seen to be rather insensitive to the radius of curvature of the tip ͑V C~R 20.25 ͒, quite sensitive to the reduced Young's modulus ͑V C~p Y r ͒, and very sensitive to the equilibrium tunnel gap ͑V C~h 1.25 0 ͒.…”
Section: Field-induced Deformation As a Mechanism For Scanning Tunnelmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Direct interaction due to the interatomic potentials between atoms on the tip and the sample can cause significant deformations of both tip and sample [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Such direct interaction has important consequences for measurements of the absolute tip position [7], the tunnel barrier height [8], the atomic corrugation of surfaces [1,9], and the phenomenon of jump to contact, where a mechanical instability causes tip and sample to suddenly join [3,4].…”
Section: Field-induced Deformation As a Mechanism For Scanning Tunnelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When tip and sample are still far from each other the two minima of this potential are well separated; this means that the restoring spring force is stronger thus keeping the tip apex atoms bound to the tip structure. While decreasing the tip-sample distance the metallic adhesive force between tip and sample becomes stronger than the restoring spring force; to minimize their energy the atoms of the tip relax towards a new potential minimum and the tip is thus abruptly brought in contact with the sample [38,39,42]. Transport abruptly changes from tunneling to contact regime.…”
Section: Uhvmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 in which an Ir tip is brought in contact with an Ir surface [32]. Mechanical properties of atomic-sized contacts have been investigated theoretically by molecular dynamics computer simulations and first-principle calculations [36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. The sudden jump-to-contact can be explained by taking into account the balance of forces involved inside the constriction [36,40,42].…”
Section: Uhvmentioning
confidence: 99%