Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T22:05:13.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Light-ion-beam-induced annealing of implantation damage in diamond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

M. Adel
Affiliation:
Physics Department and Solid State Institute, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32 000, Israel
R. Kalish
Affiliation:
Physics Department and Solid State Institute, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32 000, Israel
V. Richter
Affiliation:
Physics Department and Solid State Institute, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32 000, Israel
Get access

Abstract

The removal of defects in diamond by light-ion bombardment has been studied by means of Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy (RBS) channeling techniques. The damage produced by 1 × 1014 Sb ions cm−2 at 300 keV (below the critical dose for graphitization) was observed to diminish by as much as 50% under bombardment with H and He ions. The ion-beam-induced annealing has been studied as a function of ion dose and incident angle (channeling and random). Although the data sets differ markedly, they nearly coincide when the dose is normalized to the energy deposited by elastic collisions in the damaged region. This may indicate that nuclear and not electronic collisions contribute primarily to the in situ annealing in a reasonably good insulator such as diamond.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Braunstein, G., Talmi, A., Kalish, R., Bernstein, T., and Beserman, R., Radiat. Eff. 48, 139 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Nelson, R. S. and Rustbridge, K., Ion Beam Modification of Materials Conference, Albany, New York, 1980 (unpublished).Google Scholar
3Braunstein, G. and Kalish, R., Appl. Phys. Lett. 38, 416 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Westmoreland, J. E., Mayer, J. W., Eisen, F. H., and Welch, B., Radiat. Eff. 6, 161 (1970).Google Scholar
5Linnros, J., Svensson, B., and Holmen, G., Phys. Rev. B 30, 3629 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Golecki, I., Chapman, G. E., Lau, S. S., Tsaur, B. Y., and Mayer, J. W., Phys. Lett. A 71, 267 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Williams, J. S., Brown, W. L., Elliman, R. G., Knoell, R. V., Maher, D. M., and Seidel, T. E., in the Proceedings of the Materials Research Society, 1985 (inpress).Google Scholar
8Nakata, J. and Kajiyama, K., Appl. Phys. Lett. 40, 686 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Braunstein, G., M. Sc. thesis, Department of Physics, Technion, 1978.Google Scholar
10Biersack, J. P., in Ion Implantation Equipment, edited by Ryssel, H. and Glawischnig, H. (Springer, Berlin, 1982).Google Scholar
11Wilson, W. D. and Biersack, J. P., Phys. Rev. B 15, 2458 (1977).Google Scholar
12Fearick, R. W. and Sellschop, J. P. F., Nucl. Instrum. Methods 168, 51 (1980).Google Scholar
13Gibbons, J. G., Johnson, W. S., and Mylroie, S. W., Projected Range Statistics (Halsted, Stroudsburg, PA, 1975), 2nd ed.Google Scholar
14Eisen, F. H., Channeling, edited by Morgan, D. V. (Wiley, New York, 1973), Chap. XIV.Google Scholar
15Bøigh, E., Can. J. Phys. 46, 653 (1968).Google Scholar
16Talmi, A., Beserman, R., Braunstein, G., Bernstein, T., and Kalish, R., Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. 46, 347 (1979); G. Braunstein, A. Talmi, R. Kalish, and T. Bernstein, Radiat. Eff. 48, 139 (1980).Google Scholar