Response to “Comment on ‘Ultrahigh secondary electron emission of carbon nanotubes’ ” [Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 066101 (2011)]

Contrast Mechanisms in Secondary Electron e-Beam-Induced Current (SEEBIC) Imaging

“…In their conflicting study of the SE yield of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), they suspended the MWCNTs and obtained a much lower SE yield. The original group published a response (Luo et al, 2011). The underlying debate concerns the role of the substrate in the SE emission process.…”

Comment on “Secondary electron yield of multiwalled carbon nanotubes” [Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 261902 (2010)]

“…We do not agree with this assertion, because our result is based on the SEM imaging mechanism of the SWNTs, which has been validated by its good fit with the SEM images of the SWNTs and an independent experiment to measure the radius of the SEM electron beam. 2,3 In their Letter and subsequent comment 4 on our result, Alam et al do not give any evidence which would invalidate our imaging mechanism.…”

Response to “Comment on ‘Secondary electron yield of multiwalled carbon nanotubes’” [Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 126103 (2011)]

“…The average energy loss for the generation of one SE for carbon has thus been reported to be in the 80-125 eV range 8,9 and Luo et al also agreed to this. 4 As a final note, we point out that one expects a difference between the SE yield of single-walled and multiwalled carbon nanotubes, although such a difference is not expected to be several orders of magnitude. In addition, Luo et al recently published another paper, reporting "ultralow" SE yield from graphene.…”