A Conductive metals that are not prone to sputtering

[rppearso]

Does anyone know if there are highly conductive metals (or any conductive metals) that are not prone to sputtering. Or any non metalic conductors that don't sputter?

 

[berkeman]

Does anyone know if there are highly conductive metals (or any conductive metals) that are not prone to sputtering. Or any non metalic conductors that don't sputter?

Could you perhaps explain your question more? Why would you want such a metal if you are trying to perform sputtering deposition?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputtering

 

[ZapperZ]

Does anyone know if there are highly conductive metals (or any conductive metals) that are not prone to sputtering. Or any non metalic conductors that don't sputter?

If you bombard ANYTHING with ions of sufficiently high enough energy, you'll induce melting, sputtering, and a whole lot of other stuff. So unless you have a specific energy range you are limiting yourself to, then the answer is no.

Zz.

 

[Nidum]

Tungsten

 

[ZapperZ]

Tungsten

Nope.

http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/sputtered-Tungsten_JVSTA.pdf

Zz.

 

[rppearso]

That's what I was thinking too, I will have to design my way out of it with configuration geometry to catch the metal particles and allow electrons to flow. I am guessing that the metal particles will impinge themselves on the nearest surface where as the electrons will just follow along with the gas flow so perhaps a tortious path could be made to catch the metal particles and allow the electrons to flow?

 

[Mapes]

Everything's going to sputter to some degree, but perhaps you're looking for the lowest erosion flux under certain conditions. I would have guessed tungsten as well because of its strong atomic bonds (deducible from its high density and refractory nature), but this chart indicates that titanium has a lower sputter yield. (Sigmund's theory indicates that nuclear stopping power is a factor in addition to atomic binding strength.) Carbon (and graphite would satisfy your conductivity requirement) is lower still.

 

[rppearso]

Everything's going to sputter to some degree, but perhaps you're looking for the lowest erosion flux under certain conditions. I would have guessed tungsten as well because of its strong atomic bonds (deducible from its high density and refractory nature), but this chart indicates that titanium has a lower sputter yield. (Sigmund's theory indicates that nuclear stopping power is a factor in addition to atomic binding strength.) Carbon (and graphite would satisfy your conductivity requirement) is lower still.

Graphite sounds perfect, I will have to see if there are commercially avalible materials.

 

[f95toli]

Graphite sounds perfect, I will have to see if there are commercially avalible materials.

Graphite crucibles are often used in e-beam deposition systems, so they are readily available.

 

[rppearso]

Graphite sounds perfect, I will have to see if there are commercially avalible materials.

Everything's going to sputter to some degree, but perhaps you're looking for the lowest erosion flux under certain conditions. I would have guessed tungsten as well because of its strong atomic bonds (deducible from its high density and refractory nature), but this chart indicates that titanium has a lower sputter yield. (Sigmund's theory indicates that nuclear stopping power is a factor in addition to atomic binding strength.) Carbon (and graphite would satisfy your conductivity requirement) is lower still.

what about graphene coated silver rod, would the layer of graphene prevent sputter of the silver?

 

[f95toli]

what about graphene coated silver rod, would the layer of graphene prevent sputter of the silver?

No, graphene is -by definition- one atomic layer thick. Hence, although it might slow things down for a little while it will disappear very, very quickly,.
Again, EVERYTHING sputters; it is only the rates that differ.

Also, how would you coat a silver rod with graphene? It sound like something that would be very hard to do.

 

[rppearso]

No, graphene is -by definition- one atomic layer thick. Hence, although it might slow things down for a little while it will disappear very, very quickly,.
Again, EVERYTHING sputters; it is only the rates that differ.

Also, how would you coat a silver rod with graphene? It sound like something that would be very hard to do.

No, graphene is -by definition- one atomic layer thick. Hence, although it might slow things down for a little while it will disappear very, very quickly,.
Again, EVERYTHING sputters; it is only the rates that differ.

Also, how would you coat a silver rod with graphene? It sound like something that would be very hard to do.

I was reading that there were experements done where they would mix the graphene pieces (likely created with detergent) and then put it into an aerosol and expand it through a delaval nozzle (they may have ran it through a compressor) so that it would impact the target at super sonic speeds creating a smooth finish. Once it was adequately coated it was found that the graphene would sort of "self heal" as it would self orient itself to fill in any cracks and gaps once coated on the surface at such speeds. Because graphene is so strong it would not actually break up when it hit but rather wrap itself around the target.

However, I have not seen any samples of the coating. I was looking into this as the conductivity of graphite rods are far below that of silver or aluminium but graphene actually had a higher conductivity than silver, thus in theory the electrons could very easily transmit through the graphene coating while minimizing the sputter effects of the silver.

The only issue is making sure the graphene is pure and that you don't have a bunch of contaminates in the aerosol when you start "spraying" it on.