For gold (110), the 1982 paper compared an untreated surface with one prepared by argon sputtering and annealing. Repeated cleaning reproduced the corrugation; the gap-modulation signal checked work function variation. This supported a structural interpretation while exposing the danger of confusing work function contrast with geometric relief.[ref]
The authored lecture describes resolving the surface reconstruction on gold (110), alongside ribbons of other periodicities. It also reports gold transfer to the tip on contact and fluctuating resolution, attributed tentatively to migrating tip chemical atoms. The probe could change during observation: an image was evidence requiring controls, not an unambiguous map of atomic positions.[ref]
Ion milling 2026-10-20
Removal of material by bombardment with energetic ions. Directional sputtering can transfer a mask pattern with less undercut than an isotropic wet etch; mask erosion, redeposition and surface damage remain possible.
Expect appreciable but nonuniform sidewall coverage, rounded upper edges and possible narrowing near the opening mouth. In sputtering, gas collisions and the extended source distribute arriving material over a broader range of directions than simple high-vacuum evaporation. At the specified pressure, the extent of that redistribution also depends on source-to-substrate distance and particle energies; pressure alone does not determine a unique sidewall thickness.
The top surfaces receive the nominal film. Oblique rays coat accessible walls, while the tall opening shadows some directions from its lower portions. Growth at the mouth can further shadow the floor or form an overhang. The sidewall film is therefore neither guaranteed zero nor guaranteed as thick as the horizontal film. This step coverage is generally unfavorable for clean lift-off process if it connects the film on the resist to the film on the substrate.
Figure 1.
Original schematic process outcomes for deposition and etching through a resist opening; sidewall coverage and erosion are qualitative where not fixed by the question
. Details.
The arrangement is diode sputter deposition: the Au target, a, is attached to the upper cathode assembly c; positive Ar ions bombard it and sputter Au onto the wafer. The lower wafer-holder electrode b is the anode in the simple two-electrode arrangement shown.
Unlike evaporation, sputtering needs enough inert gas to sustain a discharge. Over a low-pressure operating interval, raising Ar pressure can increase ionization and ion current and hence the sputtering rate at comparable applied voltage. This is not a universal monotonic law: at higher pressure, scattering and thermalization of sputtered Au reduce the fraction reaching the wafer; at fixed regulated power, target voltage and current also adjust. A pressure increase can initially increase the rate, but excessive pressure lowers transport efficiency.
In physical vapor deposition, material is physically released from a source and transported to the substrate, where it condenses. Three examples are thermal evaporative deposition, electron-beam evaporation and sputtering. Their angular distributions, source heating and energetic bombardment differ, even though all belong to the physical-deposition family.
In chemical vapor deposition, volatile reactants undergo chemical reactions that produce a solid film at or near the substrate, with gaseous products removed. Examples are atmospheric-pressure thermal CVD, low-pressure CVD and plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition. These are three established process variants, distinguished by pressure and activation method. Surface chemistry, precursor delivery and temperature determine growth, rather than condensation alone.
Atomic layer deposition is a related cyclic surface-reaction method, but need not be counted as a separate conventional CVD example to satisfy the requested three. Reactive sputtering can involve chemistry, so the boundary is best explained by the dominant source and transport mechanism rather than by claiming that a PVD chamber can contain no chemical reactions.
Zero step coverage means that a sidewall or hidden surface receives essentially no film even though a horizontal reference surface is coated. Deposition shadowing occurs when an upper edge intercepts trajectories that would otherwise reach a lower region. A directional high-vacuum evaporant flux can therefore coat a feature top while leaving vertical or reentrant walls uncoated.
Sputtering generally releases material from an extended target with a broad angular distribution; gas collisions can further redistribute arrival directions. More oblique trajectories can reach sidewalls, so the extreme zero-coverage behavior of an ideal collimated evaporant beam is reduced.
The absolute claim that these effects never occur in sputtering is too strong. Low-pressure directional sputtering and high-aspect-ratio or reentrant features can still exhibit shadowing and poor coverage. Broader incidence improves access; it does not make a physical deposition process universally conformal.
Ancient Martian valley networks, lake basins, deltas, rounded or transported sediments and water-altered minerals show that liquid water was once more widespread than the present cold, low-pressure surface permits. Such evidence motivates a denser early atmosphere and different greenhouse conditions. It does not uniquely establish a continuously warm global ocean: episodic warming, local hydrology and several greenhouse compositions are alternatives that must be tested.
Over time, volatile loss to space, declining interior activity and changing surface storage altered the atmosphere. Early intense solar ultraviolet radiation could drive escape of light species; ion pickup, sputtering and photochemical processes removed additional material. Reduced dynamo activity changed solar-wind interaction, while water and carbon-bearing material could also be sequestered in ice, adsorbed material or minerals. Impacts can both remove and deliver volatiles. The balance is not reducible to one process or to the simple assertion that a magnetic field perfectly retains an atmosphere.
Surface ages are estimated mainly by crater size-frequency statistics, calibrated through radiometric ages and an assumed impact history. More heavily cratered ancient highlands and younger, resurfaced volcanic plains demonstrate substantial age differences on Mars. Lunar sample calibration must be transferred cautiously; erosion, burial and secondary craters complicate counting. Martian meteorites and the pre-2018 Curiosity potassium-argon measurement add radiometric constraints, but a mineral age need not equal the age of its final sedimentary deposition.[ref]
Let denote the printed atmospheric mass per area. An impactor's projected area intercepts a column . The requested model assigns energy to atmospheric removal, and equates it to . Thus
This uses a thin atmosphere, a uniform column, surface escape energy, complete useful coupling of that column-energy estimate, and negligible radiative or other losses. It is not a general consequence of the impactor's kinetic energy, which would contain the impactor mass instead of the column mass. A realistic shock/escape calculation needs a coupling model, impact geometry and atmospheric structure. The expression is evaluated as the stipulated approximate model.
At one bar, , so and the total atmospheric mass is kg. With a radius of km for the stated diameter,
corresponding to about kg. The pressure cancels from this fractional estimate. Confusing diameter with radius would overestimate it fourfold.
A single such impact therefore does not remove the bulk of the atmosphere in this model. Repeating an identical fractional loss would require roughly such events for ninety-percent removal, before allowing for volatile delivery or geological evolution. Craters and basins show that bombardment was substantial, but their presence does not establish that the necessary net loss occurred. Heavy-isotope enrichment, including argon and hydrogen isotopes, demonstrates selective escape and constrains competing processes. MAVEN had already supplied evidence for substantial space loss by 2017.[ref] These signatures are not uniquely diagnostic of impact erosion, which can be relatively bulk-like; they should not be presented as proof of impact dominance.
Scanning tunneling microscope Created 2026-10-14 Updated 2026-10-20
In the 1982 experiment, separate drives using piezoelectricity scanned a metal tip laterally and adjusted its height. A control unit held electric current fixed at constant tip-sample electric potential difference; calibrated drive voltages supplied the displacement readout. Their Fig. 1 explicitly contrasts a surface step with apparent height from contamination changing the work function.[ref]
Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer describe a later vibration isolation system using two spring stages and eddy current damping inside a vacuum chamber, with sputtering and annealing for surface preparation. These measures addressed unwanted motion and surface condition separately.[ref]
Figure 1.
How a scanning tunneling microscope turns current feedback into an image
. Original functional schematic of constant-current scanning tunneling microscopy. The loop retracts the tip when measured electric current exceeds its target. Recorded includes electronic contrast in scanning tunneling microscopy; the diagram is not to scale. Details.
Sputtering 2026-10-18
Sputtering ejects surface chemical atoms from a solid through bombardment by energetic incident particles, often ions.