Thermionic Emission: Questions Explained

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
6 replies · 3K views
chimay
Messages
81
Reaction score
8
Hi,

in the latest lesson my professor explained the thermionic emission; I guess it is a simplified approach, since I am not a Physicist.
Anyway, there are some things not clear to me; I'll show you the approach and I hope someone of you could help me.

As usual, [itex]W=[/itex] work function and [itex]E_{f}=[/itex] Fermi Level and [itex]J=[/itex] current density
The solution is straightforward:
[tex]J= -q \int 2 \frac{d^{3} \bar k\ }{(2\pi)^{3}} \frac{1}{e^{\frac{E_{z}+E_{||}-E_{f}}{kT}+1}} \frac{1}{\hbar} \frac{dE_{z}}{dK_{z}}[/tex]
[itex]E=\frac{{\hbar}^{2}}{2m^{*}} ( {K_{x}}^{2}+{K_{y}}^{2}+{K_{z}}^{2} )= E_{||}+E_{z}[/itex] and [itex]z[/itex] is the direction of flowing of the current.

[itex]2 \frac{d^{3} \bar k\ }{(2\pi)^{3}}[/itex] is the density of states per unit volume

[itex]\frac{1}{e^{\frac{E_{z}+E_{||}-E_{f}}{kT}+1}}[/itex] is the probability of occupation of each state

[itex]\frac{1}{\hbar} \frac{dE_{z}}{dK_{z}}[/itex] is the velocity of each carrier

Since [itex]d^{3} \bar k\ = d^{2}k_{||}*dK_{z}[/itex]
[tex]J= \frac{-2q}{{2\pi}^{3}\hbar} \int d^{2}k_{||} \int_{E_0}^{+\infty} dE_{z} \frac{1}{e^{\frac{E_{z}+E_{||}-E_{f}}{kT}+1}}[/tex]
[itex]E_{0}= E_{f}+W[/itex]

My questions are the following ones:
- the integral goes from [itex]E_{0}[/itex] to [itex]+ \infty[/itex]; since electrons that have energy higher than [itex]E_{0}[/itex] are "free", why are concepts like the K-space still used? Are they related to electrons bounded in a crystal, are they?
- in the integral there is no reference to any electric field applied. I can't understand how can we have a net current just by summing thermal velocities.

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your answer is not clear to me , should it be a kind of "hint" to solve my questions?

I have thought about the problem since yesterday, but I really can't solve it.
Suppose for a moment that an electron with energy above [itex]E_{0}[/itex] can still be described by means of K-Space (I am not convinced about this, it is an assumption).
Basically, the explanation of the integral is the following: let's choose a surface [itex]S[/itex], for each [itex]K[/itex] we have a certain current density [itex]J= -qn(K)V_{z}(K)[/itex], let's sum them all togheter and we get the overall current. It seem like taking a piece of metal and expecting a current flowing just by thermal agitation.

Obviously this is no the case of thermion emission, since the elctrons escaping from surface (please refer to the figure) do not have a counterpart coming inside the metal, my problem is how this is translated into mathematical language.

Thank you very much
 

Attachments

  • Da caricare.png
    Da caricare.png
    1.4 KB · Views: 540
chimay said:
My questions are the following ones:
- the integral goes from [itex]E_{0}[/itex] to [itex]+ \infty[/itex]; since electrons that have energy higher than [itex]E_{0}[/itex] are "free", why are concepts like the K-space still used? Are they related to electrons bounded in a crystal, are they?

No. Every electrons will have a momentum. Even in the free-electron gas model, you have a distribution of momentum. So that is why the description is in k-space. In fact, in solid state physics, this is the most useful representation, because especially in any diffraction experiments, the results are equivalent to probing the k-space structure.

- in the integral there is no reference to any electric field applied. I can't understand how can we have a net current just by summing thermal velocities.

Thank you

Again, there is a distribution of momentum of the electrons. There will be a net flow of electrons coming out of the solid due to the fact that they have a momentum component perpendicular to the surface. So you will get a current.

BTW, a more detailed explanation on this is via the Richardson-Dushman model.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chimay
Actually, We have not studied the free-electron gas model.
Could you please give an explanation (even qualitative) without referring to it?

Thank you
 
Thank you, I will read it as soon as I can.