2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Carbon–silicon stripper foils

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The plasma treatment was performed with following parameters: p = 0.1 mbar; ν = 13.56 MHz, P = 100 W, t = 30…120 s. The optimum treatment time was found to be at about 30…60 s. A longer plasma activation (120 s) resulted in a strong compound between the release agent and parylene in some places, leading to damages during the floating process. That can be explained by a crosslinking of the release agent by short‐wave UV radiation from plasma …”
Section: Foil Productionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The plasma treatment was performed with following parameters: p = 0.1 mbar; ν = 13.56 MHz, P = 100 W, t = 30…120 s. The optimum treatment time was found to be at about 30…60 s. A longer plasma activation (120 s) resulted in a strong compound between the release agent and parylene in some places, leading to damages during the floating process. That can be explained by a crosslinking of the release agent by short‐wave UV radiation from plasma …”
Section: Foil Productionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, the results obtained from a 27-nm-thick parylene foil were compared with 30-nm-thick DLC foil produced by laser deposition (Micromatter, Canada). 32 Foil surface imaging and foil stiffness measurements were performed by an atomic force microscope (AFM, MFP3D, Asylum Research, USA). Both types of foils were attached on transmission electron microscopy (TEM) grids with circular aperture and mesh sizes of 10 mm (Athene RM20, Plano GmbH, Germany).…”
Section: Foil Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 99%