throbber
Epitaxially grown monocrystalline garnet cathode‐ray tube phosphor screens
`J. M. Robertson and M. W. van Tol
`
`Citation: Applied Physics Letters 37, 471 (1980); doi: 10.1063/1.91728
`View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.91728
`View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/37/5?ver=pdfcov
`Published by the AIP Publishing
`
`Articles you may be interested in
`The Cathode‐Ray Tube: Technology, History, and Applications
`Am. J. Phys. 61, 669 (1993); 10.1119/1.17190
`
`The fine‐beam cathode‐ray tube
`Phys. Teach. 22, 80 (1984); 10.1119/1.2341472
`
`Measurement of the Screen Potential of Cathode‐Ray Tubes
`Rev. Sci. Instrum. 26, 1201 (1955); 10.1063/1.1715221
`
`Method of Measuring the Screen Potential of Cathode‐Ray Tubes
`Rev. Sci. Instrum. 26, 647 (1955); 10.1063/1.1715276
`
`Illumination of Cathode‐Ray Oscillograph Screen for Photography
`Rev. Sci. Instrum. 19, 271 (1948); 10.1063/1.1741244
`
`
`
` Reuse of AIP Publishing content is subject to the terms at: https://publishing.aip.org/authors/rights-and-permissions. Download to IP: 198.65.204.101 On: Wed, 23 Nov
`2016 16:41:12
`
`VIZIO 1009
`
`

`
`Epitaxially grown monocrystalline garnet cathode-ray tube phosphor
`screens
`J. M. Robertson and M. W. van Tol
`Eindhoven Research Laboratories. Eindhoven. The Netherlands
`
`(Received 10 March 1980; accepted for publication 17 June 1980)
`
`The technique of liquid phase epitaxy has been used to produce single-crystal garnet phosphor
`screens for cathode-ray tubes. The films were rare-earth-doped yttrium aluminum garnets
`(Y AG's) grown onto Y AG substrates using a PbO:B20 3 flux. We have studied the light output of
`these layers as a function of film growth temperature, rare-earth activator concentration, and
`incident power density. With Ce:Y AG layers it was possible to use beam power densities up to 108
`W 1m2 and this produced a radiance of over lOS W Icm2 sr.
`PACS numbers: 68.55. + b, 78.60.Hk
`
`One of the limiting factors in obtaining a bright cathode
`luminescent device is the heat conductivity ofthe phosphor
`screen. As the incident electron beam density increases, ther(cid:173)
`mal quenching occurs when the phosphor is heated to a tem(cid:173)
`perature at which the efficiency decreases. Eventually the
`phosphors "burn out" and become permanently degraded.
`The actual temperature of the phosphor layer depends not
`only on the incident beam energy, but also on the manner in
`which the phosphor screen was fabricated. Normally the lu(cid:173)
`minescent powder is deposited on a glass substrate. Such a
`structure suffers from both a low heat conductivity of the
`powder and a poor thermal contact between phosphor and
`the substrate. The present work was undertaken to over(cid:173)
`come these drawbacks in order to obtain higher-brightness
`cathode ray tubes (CRT's). I We have chosen yttrium alumi(cid:173)
`num garnet (Y 3AIsOd as a substrate material because it is a
`good host material for various luminescent ions and because
`of its high thermal conductivity.
`We used the method ofliquid phase epitaxy (LPE)2-4 to
`grow Y 3AIsO 12 layers onto Y AG substrates, because this
`ensured a perfect heat contact between phosphor and the
`substrate. The solvent was PbO:B20 3, in which the constitu(cid:173)
`ent garnet oxides are dissolved. A typical melt composition
`used for the growth ofYAG was PbO:B203:Y203:Alz03
`:Re20 3 = 450.0:11.65:3.85:6.52:0.02 (g). This was premelt(cid:173)
`ed into a 90-ml Pt/5% Au crucible using a rf generator and
`then placed into a standard LPE furnace. 3 The activator ox(cid:173)
`ides used in this study were Th40 7, Eu20 3, Pr 203' Tm20 3,
`and ce02. The substrates were Czochralski-grown YAG,
`usually [111] and 2.54 cm in diameter.
`The efficiency of the layers was determined in a de(cid:173)
`mountable cathode ray tube. The samples were given an Al
`coating of about 0.08 pm in order to define the energy of the
`incident electron beam and to carry off the current. The sam(cid:173)
`ples were excited by a continuous current of 10 pA at 10k V
`in a stationary spot of 4 mm diameter. The light output was
`measured in transmission. After correction for the energy
`absorbed in the Al layer (3 k V) and for the refractive index of
`the phosphor (n = 1.83), the measurements yield the inter(cid:173)
`nal energy efficiency 1]. This is only true for films of good
`quality, i.e., in the absence of surface scattering. In our case
`this was ensured, because the lattice parameter mismatch
`between film and substrate was always less than 0.018 A and
`
`no cracking or facetting occurred. 5
`The chemical composition of the layers was determined
`by an electron-probe microanalysis where the x-ray line in(cid:173)
`tensities were compared with those for standard materials.
`The energy efficiency 1] can be correlated to the chemi(cid:173)
`cal composition of the layers. It appears that both the Pb ions
`which are incorporated in the garnet lattice from the flux as
`well as the Re activator ions in the layers influence the effi(cid:173)
`ciency. It is well known from the LPE of iron gl\rnets that the
`amount ofPb incorporated from the flux increases when the
`growth temperature is lowered. 6 This holds to a lesser extent
`for the noniron garnets,7 and in the present case this is also
`observed.
`The influence of the activator ion concentration is
`strongly dependent on the Re ion actually used. In Fig. 1 the
`energy efficiency 1] is plotted as a function of the concentra(cid:173)
`tion per formula unit for [111] Y AG films doped with Ce3 + ,
`Eu3 + , Th3 + , and Tm3
`'I- • It is clear that Tm-doped Y AG
`has its maximum at a lower concentration than Eu or Th.
`This is in accordance with other work on the concentration
`9 Europium and
`quenching ofTm in different host lattices. 8
`.
`terbium show an almost identical behavior, except that the
`overall efficiency ofTh is higher. The cerium ion is a special
`case. The efficiency rises steeply with concentration, which
`shows that the Ce ion is a very efficient energy absorber. It
`
`%
`10
`
`5
`
`o~------------~--------------~~o
`o x-
`01
`0.2
`
`FIG. I. Light output as a function of the activator ion concentration. The
`stationary exciting electron beam of 10 J.iA 10 kV had a diameter of 4 mm.
`
`471
`
`Appl. Phys. Lett. 37(5), 1 September 1980
`
`0003-6951/80/170471-02$00.50
`
`© 1980 American Institute of Physics
`
`471
`
` Reuse of AIP Publishing content is subject to the terms at: https://publishing.aip.org/authors/rights-and-permissions. Download to IP: 198.65.204.101 On: Wed, 23 Nov
`2016 16:41:12
`
`VIZIO 1009
`
`

`
`300
`
`~
`Q.
`
`~200
`:c
`'e'
`#
`"
`
`100
`
`/.-·-..... ..... <111>Eu
`I'
`
`o-o~
`o o ..... <111>Tm
`
`950
`
`1100'C
`Tgrowth
`
`FIG. 2. Light output asa function of growth temperatureof[lll] and [110]
`Y AG films doped with Ce, Th, Eu, and Tm. The samples were excited by a
`stationary electron beam oflow energy density.
`
`seems to have a better coupling to the lattice than the other
`rare-earth ions. The highest measured energy efficiency is
`higher than that reported by Blasse and Brilto for Ce: Y AG
`powder (3.5%). It proved to be impossible to increase the
`cerium concentration above x = 0.03, because at higher con(cid:173)
`centrations..a second phase ofCe02 appeared in the melt and
`the incorporation of cerium into the layer did not increase
`further. A similar effect was observed by Gibbons et al., II
`who found that the maximum amount of cerium accepted in
`a garnet powder amounts to 2 mol. % when the powder is
`prepared under oxidizing conditions.
`In Fig. 2 we show the light output as a function of the
`growth temperature for Ce: Th: Eu:, and Tm:Y AG films. It
`is clear that the films grown on [Ill] substrates are more
`efficient than those grown on [110] substrates for the Ce and
`Th activator ions. In the case of [Ill] films the maxima may
`be explained by the fact that at low growth temperatures the
`increase in Pb ion concentration quenches the efficiency,
`while at the higher growth temperatures the activator ion
`concentration decreases. These effects are borne out by
`chemical analysis of the layers.
`The lower values of the [110] films shown in Fig. 2 are
`explained by concentration quenching. Analysis shows that
`the activator ion concentrations are much higher in these
`layers than for [111] layers. Thus the maximum in the light
`output versus growth temperature is shifted to higher values
`of growth temperature where less activator ion is incorporat(cid:173)
`ed. The melt for [110] growth was not further optimized
`because hillock growth occurs on [110] substrates, analo(cid:173)
`gous to the case of iron garnets explained in great detail by
`van Erk et al. 12
`In Fig. 3 we show the radiance as a function of the
`incident power density. At high powers the behavior de(cid:173)
`pends upon the activator ion. The Ce:YAG layers show an
`almost-linear behavior up to 108 W Icm 2
`, while the Eu:Y AG
`and the Th: Y AG show saturation effects around 104
`
`10'
`
`10'
`
`10'
`
`10]
`
`10
`
`"~0~~'OT2~~--~'rf'-~"--~6--~7--~'"
`10
`10
`10
`10
`---- nCldent Power DenSIty W/m 2
`
`FIG. 3. Light output as a function of incident power density. The 0 refer to
`measurements in the demountable apparatus and 0 refer to measurements
`in the electron microprobe.
`
`W Icm 2
`• The temperature of the phosphor at the maximum
`power density of 108 W 1m2 can be calculated 13 to be less
`than 50 .c. From the known quench temperatures of the
`phosphors, thermal quenching can be ruled out for Ce, Eu,
`and Th. Thulium, with a quench temperature of about 90 ·C,
`remains an intermediate case in this respect. A more detailed
`explanationofthese effects will be given by van der Weg. 14
`In conclusion, we have shown that it is possible to grow
`cathode luminescent single-crystal thin films by the method
`ofliquid phase epitaxy. These materials have excellent ther(cid:173)
`mal properties so that they can be used with electron beam of
`high power density without thermal quenching. In particu(cid:173)
`lar, the epitaxial layers of Ce:Y AG can be used up to power
`densities of 108 W 1m2 and are capable of emitting light with
`a radiance of over 105 W 1m2 Sr.
`The authors wish to thank J. P. H. Heynen and W. H.
`Smits for their help in the growth and measurement of the
`films. P. A. Paans, M. Klerk, and Y. Tamminga are thanked
`for their analytical work. W. F. van der Weg, T. J. A. Popma,
`and A. T. Vink are acknowledged for useful discussions dur(cid:173)
`ing this study.
`
`'M. W. van Tol and J. van Esdonk, IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices (to be
`published).
`'H. J. Levenstein, S. Licht, R. W. Landorf, and S. L. Blank, Appl. Phys.
`Lett. 19, 486 (1971).
`'J. M. Robertson, W. Tolksdorf, and H. D. Jonker, J. Cryst. Growth 27,
`241 (1974).
`4R. Ghez and E. A. Giess, J. Cryst. Growth 27, 221 (1974).
`'So L. Blank and J. W. Nielsen, J. Cryst. Growth 17, 302 (1972).
`"J. M. Robertson, M. J. G. van Hout, J. C. Verplanke, and J. C. Brice,
`Mater. Res. Bull. 9,555 (1974).
`'B. Andlauer, J. Schneider, and W. Tolksdorf, Phys. Rev. B 8 I, 1 (1973).
`HR. A. Buchanan, K. A. Wickersheim, J. L. Weaver, and E. E. Anderson, J.
`Appl. Phys. 39, 4342 (1968).
`9G. Blasse, J. Luminescence 1,2 766 (1970).
`lOG. Blasse and A. Bri1, J. Chern'. Phys. 47,5139 (1967).
`liE. F. Gibbons, T. Y. Tien, R. G. Delosh, P. J. Zacmanidis, and H. L.
`Stadler, J. E1ectrochem. Soc. 120, 835 (1973).
`I2W. van Erk, H. J. G. J. van Hoek-Martens, and G. Bartels, J. Cryst.
`Growth (to be pubslished).
`"L. G. Pittaway, Brit. J. Appl. Phys. 15 (1964) 967.
`I·W. F. van der Weg and M. W. van Tol (unpublished).
`
`472
`
`Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 37, No.5, 1 September 1980
`
`J. M. Robertson and M. W. van Tol
`
`472
`
` Reuse of AIP Publishing content is subject to the terms at: https://publishing.aip.org/authors/rights-and-permissions. Download to IP: 198.65.204.101 On: Wed, 23 Nov
`2016 16:41:12
`
`VIZIO 1009

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket