Talk:Sputtering

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sputter cleaning was copied or moved into Sputtering with this edit on 16 June 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Comments

I restructured the article since there was confusion between the sputtering process and its applications (which are articles in themselves such as sputter deposition, ion milling, reactive ion etching etcetera). Some images and graphs should be added soon as well. Since this edit takes care of several suggestions I removed those from the talk page to keep the page clean.

—Maybe someone should put in a reactive sputtering section. I know a little, but I might take a while to get around to it.--Joel 19:13, 11 May 2005

no, that is part of sputter deposition

I agree, there is a misleading statement that sputtering always produces thin films with the same composition as the source material. This is not the case as lighter elements may be lost through the "sputering gas" in the diagram, a particular example of this is sputtering of non stoichiometric silicon oxide SiOx, where you can use various silicon compounds and contol the amount of oxygen by controling the flow of oxygen through the sputtering chamber.

should be done in the sputter deposition article

Markthompto (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)In this section: >>Preferential sputtering can occur at the start when a multicomponent solid target is bombarded and there is no solid state diffusion. If the energy transfer is more efficient to one of the target components, or it is less strongly bound to the solid, it will sputter more efficiently than the other. If in an AB alloy the component A is sputtered preferentially, the surface of the solid will, during prolonged bombardment, become enriched in the B component, thereby increasing the probability that B is sputtered such that the composition of the sputtered material will ultimately return to AB.<<[reply]

I know very little about sputtering which is why I went to this page. The first two sentences seem to have a closely related concept with the second restating the first and they fail to use the AB concept.

In the first sentence I read; "Preferential sputtering can occur at the start when a multicomponent solid target is bombarded," might be better worded; 'Preferential sputtering can occur when a multicomponent solid target, say an alloy AB is bombarded" The sentence continues with a line I view with skepticism.; "and there is no solid state diffusion.". My sense is that there is some diffusion but that diffusion is inadequate such that this wording would more accurately express the concept; 'and there is insufficient solid state diffusion to absorb the energy without disruption of the structure.'

This wording would then pretext a second sentence more like this: 'If this poorly diffused energy is more efficiently captured by a component, A in the target alloy AB,' The second sentence then continues; "or it is less strongly bound to the solid" I think this is meant to state 'or this component, A is less strongly bound to the solid target alloy AB,' which may be wordy but more clearly captures the meaning if I understand the meaning correctly.

The second sentence then finishes; " it will sputter more efficiently than the other." which I believe would be more exactly worded as; 'then this component A of the target alloy AB will sputter more efficiently than the surrounding solid target alloy AB or the component B'.

This then leads into the third sentence currently; "If in an AB alloy the component A is sputtered preferentially, the surface of the solid will, during prolonged bombardment, become enriched in the B component" so we can state: 'Therefore when the component A experiences prolonged preferential sputtering the alloy AB will become majority Component B.'. a new sentence can then be started.

This yields this paragraph as;

>>'Preferential sputtering can occur when a multicomponent solid target, say an alloy AB is bombarded and there is insufficient solid state diffusion to absorb the energy without disruption of the structure. If this poorly diffused energy is more efficiently captured by a component, A in the target alloy AB, or this component A is less strongly bound to the solid target alloy AB, then this component A of the target alloy AB will sputter more efficiently than the surrounding solid target alloy AB or the component B. Therefore when the component A experiences prolonged preferential sputtering the alloy AB will become majority Component B. Thus the probability that B is sputtered is greatly increased such that the composition of the surface of the sputtered material will ultimately return to AB.'<<

Again a lot more words but as someone who had to reread this section several times this is more explicit. I am not an expert in this material please review this suggestion Markthompto (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations?

This article could use some illustrations.

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia and have had great help from user A.B. who has helped me get used to the etiquette of Wikipedia and has advised me to talk to you involved in this particular subject. I am part of a team at the forefront of the sputtering process I have added to this article (HiTUS) and will be adding content to other similar areas in due course. I look forward to being of assistance in due course on this subject and other topics closely linked to sputtering and thin film deposition.

Antony Addy

Chemical sputtering, preferential sputtering

This article puts too much emphasis on 'chemical sputtering' which is basically reactive ion etching and not sputtering, since the process is not purely driven by momentum transfer. Reactive sputtering can be discussed in the deposition article. I would recommend deleting it all.

- I disagree, chemical sputtering is not identical to ion etching since it may be endothermal and occur also for neutral bombardment, even by helium, and can in fact be driven by momentum transfer (see references on swift chemical sputtering). Knordlun (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge to Sputter deposition

The two article cover more or less the same subject matter. They should be merged but it won't be easy due to the amount of overlap. Iepeulas (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note discussion taking place in Talk:Sputter deposition#Proposed merger from Sputtering. -Verdatum (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

electrode/contact erosion -- caused by sputtering?

What is the specific cause of electrode erosion in electrical devices? Is this a form of uncontrolled sputtering? If yes, then this would be a useful link in article like spark plug to explain the cause of electrode erosion. I'm not an expert so I don't want to make an invalid association in case the cause is something else. DMahalko (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LLS

LLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.58.210 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

radioactive sputtering

what i do miss in the article is the effect of intrinsic ejection of atoms of a radioactive source - i am not an expert, but this should be somehow linked to to the part of spontanious dust formation of lava-like structures in chernobyl as it seems to be a similar process —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.189.10 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced by What If - xkcd (webcomic blog)

I noted that the talk page on Money laundering which was shown in an episode of Breaking Bad has a tag that it was used in media. Here is an unformatted quote of it:

"News This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:

   "Half Measures". Breaking Bad, Season 3, Episode 12. June 6, 2010. (details)"

I was wondering what level of popularity said media has to have for it to be worth noting on the talk page. Obviously this is a physics blog that frequently links wikipedia pages, but I was interested in the relevance of such to wikipedia.

Thanks, JoshuaMiller0 (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Merger proposal

Rejected. However, per Dschwen, sputter deposition is a better target, so I'll merge it there. (NAC) No such user (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think it shouldn't cause a large debate that sputter coating should be merged into this article, or simply be deleted. Comment of an unknown user on sputter coating's talk: "nomination for worst article on Wikipedia". --Polis Tyrol (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather improve sputter coating. The two processes are seemingly opposite. Sputtering removes material from a surface and sputter coating adds it (of course, it removes material from the sputter target). I think both concepts in the same article would be confusing. --Dschwen 17:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a definite no. sputter coating should be merged with sputter deposition, not this article. --Dschwen 17:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.