Thermal Stability of Filtered Vacuum Arc Deposited Er2O3 Coatings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erbium oxide (Er2O3) coatings were deposited using filtered vacuum arc deposition (FVAD) and their structure and thermal stability were studied as a function of fabrication parameters. The coatings were deposited on silicon wafer and tantalum substrates with an arc current of 50 A and a deposition rate of 1.6 ± 0.4 nm/s. The arc was sustained on truncated cone Er cathodes. The influence of oxygen pressure (P= 0.40-0.93 Pa), bias voltage (Vb= -20, -40 or grounded) and substrate temperature (room temperature (RT) or 673K) on film properties was studied before and after post deposition annealing (1273K for 1 hour, at P~ 1.33 Pa). The coatings were characterized using X-ray diffraction (XRD), optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and Knoop Hardness. Optical microscope images indicated that the coatings had very low macroparticle concentration on their surface. The macroparticle diameters were less than 2.5 μm. The coatings were composed of only Er2O3 without any metallic phase under all deposition parameters tested. The coatings deposited on RT substrates were XRD amorphous and had a featureless cross-section microstructure. However, the coatings deposited on 673K heated substrates had a C-Er2O3 structure with (222) preferred orientation and weak columnar microstructure. The coating hardness varied with deposition pressure and substrate bias, and reached a maximum value of 10 GPa at P = 0.4 Pa and Vb = -40 V. The post-deposition annealing caused crystallization, and the coatings hardness dropped to 4 GPa with thermal treatment. However, after post-deposition annealing, no peeling or cracking appeared at the coating surface or the interface with the substrate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".