English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Field electron emission (FE) has relevance in many different technologicalcontexts. However, many related technological papers use a physically defectiveelementary FE equation for local emission current density (LECD). This equationtakes the tunneling barrier as exactly triangular, as in the original FE theoryof 90 years ago. More than 60 years ago, it was shown that the so-calledSchottky-Nordheim (SN) barrier, which includes an image-potential-energy term(that models exchange-and-correlation effects) is better physics. For ametal-like emitter with work-function 4.5 eV, the SN-barrier-relatedMurphy-Good FE equation predicts LECD values that are higher than theelementary equation values by a large factor, often between around 250 andaround 500. By failing to mention/apply this 60-year-old established science,or to inform readers of the large errors associated with the elementaryequation, many papers (aided by defective reviewing) spread a new kind of"pathological science", and create a modern research-integrity problem. Thepresent paper aims to enhance author and reviewer awareness by summarizingrelevant aspects of FE theory, by explicitly identifying the misjudgment in theoriginal 1928 Fowler-Nordheim paper, by explicitly calculating the size of theresulting error, and by showing in detail why most FE theoreticians regard the1950s modifications as better physics. Suggestions are made, about nomenclatureand about citation practice, that may help to diminish misunderstandings.

Comments on the continuing widespread and unnecessary use of a defective emission equation in field emission related literature