Talk:Nottingham effect

Initial Author Notes

There are a number of known ways to improve this page, such as adding formulas from some of the relevant research, adding history of discovery and research discoveries over time, etc.

In particular, I have not attempted to describe the Nottingham Inversion Instability outlined in the paper by Mofakhami et al, which is an interesting phenomenon caused by the confluence of joule heating thermal runaway that stimulates rapid growth of thermionic emission currents, ultimately counterbalanced at a certain peak temperature by surface cooling from the Nottingham effect. This phenomenon also causes the peak temperature of an emitting tip to move away from the surface and into the body of the tip; one could envision a regime wherein this internalization of the peak caused the tip to explode if the internal temp exceeded the boiling point of the tip material while the surface temp remained in the solid range. Field emitter tips have been reported to explode at high current, but I've not seen any research making the connection to this effect, so that connection is speculative on my part.

There is an additional reference I am missing that describes the evolution of tips from well-defined geometry at startup to melting under Joule and Nottingham heating, to deformation in high fields which forms structures like Taylor cones, to emitting microclusters of tip material which reshapes and blunts the tip, reduces the field, reduces the emission current, and restores equilibrium. I've seen the paper before, but can't find it now; this is the physical process whereby emitter tip performance evolves and ultimately stabilizes over time, but during the evolution the microclusters can impact downstream anodes, spall off anode material, and cause vacuum arcing, which can destroy these devices completely..

I've also not attempted formulas, because I am new at this editor, not particularly skilled at math to begin with, and don't have high confidence in my ability to write them out correctly. JMHuffman (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This is a good start, but you have to repair the references. Currently only the first is a "good" source from a high reputation source, the others are marginal. For instance neither 3 nor 4 are reviewed by the look of it. Please find better sources which are well cited -- use Google Scholar or similar. Plus you should certainly cite the original work. If you do this the page may survive. As written it is not completely clear whether it is notable enough. Physics experts may well question it. If you need more advice ping me.

Ldm1954 (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)