Optoelectronics with Carbon Nanotubes
Optoelectronics with Carbon Nanotubes Optoelectronics with Carbon Nanotubes
Polarized measurements were taken with a linear polarizer, i.e. a Glan-Taylor prism in the infrared, in the parallel section of the beam bath as indicated in figure 3. The polarizer was rotated normal to the beam path to specific angles with respect to the tube orientation. The CNT orientation was determined by an optical microscope (not shown in figure) using the metal contacts as reference and comparing them to an SEM image of the device. In low-temperature experiments, the sample stage was first cooled down as much as possible (~20 K). For physical stability, the liquid helium transfer line was subsequently disconnected from the stage in order to mechanically decouple the measurement system from the environment. The probe needles were then lowered onto the contact pads, allowing the temperature to rise and then stabilize around 90 K for the first set of measurements. Since in this set-up, the temperature returns slowly to room temperature over several hours, it was possible to contact probe needles to the contact pads periodically to take a measurement at a given temperature. A resistor heater attached to the cold pad of the sample stage was used to raise the temperature when necessary. Only the sample stage was cooled, while the rest of the optical path remained at room temperature. 37
Chapter III Unipolar, High-Bias Emission 1. Introduction Chapter I showed that both ambipolar and unipolar emission has been demonstrated with CNTFET devices 10, 71-74, 76, 85, 97 . In a sense, ambipolar emission gives greater experimental control; one can manage the relative electron and hole injection rates by setting the drain (VDS) and the gate biases (VGS) appropriately 74 . In contrast, in the unipolar scheme we do not know the electric field strength of an emission spot, or the distribution of carrier kinetic energy. Nevertheless, certain features of ambipolar emission pose practical experimental problems that make it less appropriate for our purposes; to study the electrically-induced emission by investigating intensities and spectra from CNT devices and to build more efficient and robust devices. In order to have a symmetric device with respect to both carriers, the Fermi level needs to align mid-gap, and the device needs to be operated in the “off” state (i.e., at the bottom of the “V” shape in the gate sweep; see Figure III-3 for example) with a large source- drain bias in order to inject enough carriers. In addition, the radiative efficiency of electrical excitation has been shown to be about 10 -6 at best 76 . Because of the high blackbody background noise from the optical components at ambient temperature (see Method), the long-wavelength limit of the detection window is around 2100 nm, or 0.590 eV. Ambipolar emission requires larger diameter tubes of at least 2 nm or larger for sufficiently thin Schottky barriers, and the corresponding E11 energy is around 0.55 to 0.56 eV or lower 15 which lies outside the detection window. In addition, a large source-drain bias means a large stress on the device, leading to heating and/or oxidation/destruction of the device. Since it needs to operate in the “off” state where VGS ~ VDS/2, it is difficult to pass large enough currents to obtain intensity-dependent spectra. For these reasons, for this study the unipolar scheme was chosen where multiple electron- hole pairs can be created from a single injected carrier type. Since only one type of carriers needs to be injected, to facilitate transport the Fermi level of the metal can be aligned to either the conduction or valence band edge. In order to obtain emission intensity comparable to that from an ambipolar device, a larger bandgap tube and therefore a larger E11 energy can be used, 38
- Page 1 and 2: Stony Brook University The official
- Page 3 and 4: Stony Brook University The Graduate
- Page 5 and 6: diodes nonetheless show a rectifyin
- Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Abstract ........
- Page 9 and 10: Chapter I List of Figures Figure
- Page 11 and 12: Figure V-3 Source-drain electric
- Page 13 and 14: My parents have been steadfast supp
- Page 15 and 16: This work explores both fundamental
- Page 17 and 18: In fact, we typically have no knowl
- Page 19 and 20: (a) (b) Figure I-2 (a) Energy dispe
- Page 21 and 22: (a) (b) metallic Figure I-4. One-di
- Page 23 and 24: optical absorption peaks for differ
- Page 25 and 26: elax rapidly to lower non-radiative
- Page 27 and 28: The disorder-induced band (D-band)
- Page 29 and 30: The saturation limit for semiconduc
- Page 31 and 32: (a) (b) Figure I-7. (a) A schematic
- Page 33 and 34: assisted tunneling through Schottky
- Page 35 and 36: majority carriers that gain enough
- Page 37 and 38: conventional ambipolar emission. Th
- Page 39 and 40: on quartz, which remains a signific
- Page 41 and 42: Chapter II Methods 1. Materials One
- Page 43 and 44: diameter (< 2 nm) SWNTs at IBM T. J
- Page 45 and 46: devices were annealed in vacuum at
- Page 47 and 48: 3. Experimental set-up The optical
- Page 49: off wavelengths of 2150 nm, 2000 nm
- Page 53 and 54: Figure III-1. Semi-log plot of drai
- Page 55 and 56: wetting with CNTs 57 and a relative
- Page 57 and 58: Figure III-4. (Main panel) Electrol
- Page 59 and 60: By plotting the current as a functi
- Page 61 and 62: phonon temperature in broadening. S
- Page 63 and 64: found multiple tubes bound together
- Page 65 and 66: where i is the phonon mode, Tsub is
- Page 67 and 68: The main panel of Figure III-10 sho
- Page 69 and 70: the effect following Perebeinos’
- Page 71 and 72: the optical phonon population is no
- Page 73 and 74: (a) Figure III-13. (a) Spectra from
- Page 75 and 76: DOP = I║ / (I┴ + I║) = 0.77.
- Page 77 and 78: inding energy for perpendicular exc
- Page 79 and 80: 3. Conclusions We have examined the
- Page 81 and 82: In a split-gate scheme, a new level
- Page 83 and 84: 3. Electroluminescence mechanism an
- Page 85 and 86: After calibrating our detection sys
- Page 87 and 88: (a) (b) Figure IV-3. Electrolumines
- Page 89 and 90: observed by increasing the VGS valu
- Page 91 and 92: We claimed in Chapter III that in t
- Page 93 and 94: Let us finally comment on the effic
- Page 95 and 96: Chapter V The Polarized Carbon Nano
- Page 97 and 98: (a) (b) Figure V-1. (a) SEM image o
- Page 99 and 100: oth electrons and holes can be inje
Chapter III Unipolar, High-Bias Emission<br />
1. Introduction<br />
Chapter I showed that both ambipolar and unipolar emission has been demonstrated <strong>with</strong><br />
CNTFET devices 10, 71-74, 76, 85, 97 . In a sense, ambipolar emission gives greater experimental<br />
control; one can manage the relative electron and hole injection rates by setting the drain (VDS)<br />
and the gate biases (VGS) appropriately 74 . In contrast, in the unipolar scheme we do not know<br />
the electric field strength of an emission spot, or the distribution of carrier kinetic energy.<br />
Nevertheless, certain features of ambipolar emission pose practical experimental<br />
problems that make it less appropriate for our purposes; to study the electrically-induced<br />
emission by investigating intensities and spectra from CNT devices and to build more efficient<br />
and robust devices. In order to have a symmetric device <strong>with</strong> respect to both carriers, the Fermi<br />
level needs to align mid-gap, and the device needs to be operated in the “off” state (i.e., at the<br />
bottom of the “V” shape in the gate sweep; see Figure III-3 for example) <strong>with</strong> a large source-<br />
drain bias in order to inject enough carriers. In addition, the radiative efficiency of electrical<br />
excitation has been shown to be about 10 -6 at best 76 .<br />
Because of the high blackbody background noise from the optical components at ambient<br />
temperature (see Method), the long-wavelength limit of the detection window is around 2100<br />
nm, or 0.590 eV. Ambipolar emission requires larger diameter tubes of at least 2 nm or larger<br />
for sufficiently thin Schottky barriers, and the corresponding E11 energy is around 0.55 to 0.56<br />
eV or lower 15 which lies outside the detection window. In addition, a large source-drain bias<br />
means a large stress on the device, leading to heating and/or oxidation/destruction of the device.<br />
Since it needs to operate in the “off” state where VGS ~ VDS/2, it is difficult to pass large enough<br />
currents to obtain intensity-dependent spectra.<br />
For these reasons, for this study the unipolar scheme was chosen where multiple electron-<br />
hole pairs can be created from a single injected carrier type. Since only one type of carriers<br />
needs to be injected, to facilitate transport the Fermi level of the metal can be aligned to either<br />
the conduction or valence band edge. In order to obtain emission intensity comparable to that<br />
from an ambipolar device, a larger bandgap tube and therefore a larger E11 energy can be used,<br />
38