This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to take issue with the last paragraph: "Another benefit of ICP discharges is that they are relatively free of contamination because the electrodes are completely outside the reaction chamber. In a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP), in contrast, the electrodes are placed inside the reactor and are thus exposed to the plasma and subsequent reactive chemical species."
It implies that CCPs cannot be created by external antennas (when the challenge of creating an ICP is often keeping it from being capactively coupled) and also ignores one of the crucial reasons why ICPs can be cleaner than CCPs: the lower plasma potential of ICPs results in a smaller sheath potential which causes less sputtering.
But I've never really posted to wikipedia and only have a bachelors so it would be nice to be backed up on this. Maybe I'll get the guts to change it on my own if I come back and no one has said anything after a while.
Pwbrenne 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It said 1015cm-3, this made no sense, but 1015cm3 appears more appropriate.
-- Hhash ( talk) 04:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion underlies some serious technical problems with the article.
First, if it's electrons / volume, it should be 10^15 per m^3. m^-3 doesn't make sense unless you're saying that 1 cm = 10-3m.
Second, "When a time-varying electric current is passed through the coil" .. a "time-varying electric current" sounds like something partially-translated. It is not (as the opening paragraph suggests) electromagnetic induction. -- Otheus ( talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to take issue with the last paragraph: "Another benefit of ICP discharges is that they are relatively free of contamination because the electrodes are completely outside the reaction chamber. In a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP), in contrast, the electrodes are placed inside the reactor and are thus exposed to the plasma and subsequent reactive chemical species."
It implies that CCPs cannot be created by external antennas (when the challenge of creating an ICP is often keeping it from being capactively coupled) and also ignores one of the crucial reasons why ICPs can be cleaner than CCPs: the lower plasma potential of ICPs results in a smaller sheath potential which causes less sputtering.
But I've never really posted to wikipedia and only have a bachelors so it would be nice to be backed up on this. Maybe I'll get the guts to change it on my own if I come back and no one has said anything after a while.
Pwbrenne 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It said 1015cm-3, this made no sense, but 1015cm3 appears more appropriate.
-- Hhash ( talk) 04:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion underlies some serious technical problems with the article.
First, if it's electrons / volume, it should be 10^15 per m^3. m^-3 doesn't make sense unless you're saying that 1 cm = 10-3m.
Second, "When a time-varying electric current is passed through the coil" .. a "time-varying electric current" sounds like something partially-translated. It is not (as the opening paragraph suggests) electromagnetic induction. -- Otheus ( talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)