All field emission experiments are noisy, {\ldots} are any meaningful?

TL;DR

Field emission data analysis using Fowler--Nordheim plots is unreliable due to high uncertainty and potential misinterpretation, highlighting the need for more robust methods.

Contribution

This paper demonstrates the high uncertainty in parameter estimation from field emission data and evaluates the limitations of current analysis methods, proposing the need for improved techniques.

Findings

Uncertainty in emitter parameters can be as high as a factor of 10.

Fowler--Nordheim plots can lead to spurious parameter estimates.

Advanced differential conductance methods are impractical due to stability requirements.

Abstract

Representing field emission data on a Fowler--Nordheim plot is both very common and strongly not recommended. It leads to a spurious estimation of the emitter parameters despite a very good data fit. There is a lack of a reliable method of analysis and a proper estimation of the uncertainty in the extracted parameters. In this article, we show that the uncertainty in the estimation of the field enhancement factor or the emission area can be as high as [Formula: see text] even for a tungsten single emitter in good ultrahigh vacuum conditions analyzed by the Murphy--Good model. Moreover, the choice of the exact Murphy--Good method can have a noticeable impact. We found that advanced analysis methods, based on the measurement of the differential conductance of the emitter, are so demanding in terms of emitter stability that up to now its requirements are probably out of reach in any field emission laboratory.