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 Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This Comment suggests that technological field electron emission (FE) papers,such as the paper under discussion [P. Serbun et al.,, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91,083906 (2020)], should use FE theory based on the 1956 work of Murphy and Good(MG), rather than a simplified version of FE theory based on the original 1928work of Fowler and Nordheim (FN). Use of the 1928 theory is common practice intechnological FE literature, but the MG treatment is known to be better physicsthan the FN treatment, which contains identifiable errors. The MG treatmentpredicts significantly higher emission current densities and currents foremitters than does the FN treatment. From the viewpoint of the research anddevelopment of electron sources, it is counterproductive (and unhelpful fornon-experts) for the technological FE literature to use theory that undervaluesthe performance of field electron emitters.

review of scientific instruments online/review of scientific instruments

Comment on "Advanced field emission measurement techniques for research  on modern cold cathode materials and their applications for transmission-type  x-ray sources" [Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91, 083906 (2020)]