4: Thermionic Emission

Purpose

While we think of quantum mechanics being best demonstrated in processes that show
discontinuous change, historically quantum mechanics was first revealed in systems where
a large number of particles washed out the jumps: blackbody radiation and thermionic
emission. In this lab you will investigate these two phenomena in addition to classical
space-charge limited electron emission: Child’s Law.

Introduction

Metals, as demonstrated by their ability to conduct an electric current, contain mobile

electrons. (Most electrons in metals, particularly the “core” electrons closest to the nucleus,
are tightly bound to individual atoms; it is only the outermost “valence” electrons that are
somewhat “free”.) These free electrons are generally confined to the bulk of the metal. As
you learned in E&M, an electron attempting to leave a conductor experiences a strong force
attracting it back towards the conductor due to an image charge:

e2
Fx = − (4.1)
4π0 (2x)2

where x is the distance the electron is from the interface and e is the absolute value of the
charge on an electron. Of course, inside the metal the electric field is zero so an electron
there experiences zero (average) force. You can think of these valence electrons as bouncing
around inside a box whose “walls” are provided by the image-charge force. (Odd to think:
the “walls” are non-material force fields; the “inside” of the box is filled with solid metal.)
Since temperature is a measure of random kinetic energy, if we increase the temperature of
the metal, the electrons will be moving faster and some will have enough energy to overcome
the image-charge force (which after all becomes arbitrarily small at large distances from the
interface) and escape. This is electron “evaporation”. The higher the temperature the
larger the current of escaping electrons. This temperature induced electron flow is called
thermionic emission. Starting in 1901, Owen Richardson studied this phenomenon and in
1929 he received the Nobel prize in Physics for his work.

A hot wire will be surrounded by evaporated electrons. An electric force can pull these
electrons away from the wire — the larger the electric force, the larger the resulting current
of electrons. The precise relationship between the voltage and the resulting current flow

55
56 Thermionic Emission

electric current
density JA
V=0 VA










cathode











vacuum anode






















metal











accelerating
electrons











x
x=0 x=b

Figure 4.1: A planar cathode and a planar anode are separated by a distance b. A positive
potential difference VA attracts electrons from the cathode to the anode, so the speed of the
electrons v(x) increases as they approach the anode. The moving electrons constitute an
electric current from anode to cathode. The resulting steady current density is called J A .

is called Child’s law (or the Child-Langmuir law, including Langmuir who independently
discovered it while working at G.E.). In this experiment you will measure both Child’s Law
and the Richardson Effect.

Child’s Law

Consider a planar interface between a metal (x < 0) and “vacuum” (x > 0). Electrons
form a cloud of escaped electrons surrounding the hot metal filament (called the cathode,
which we take to be at zero potential). Thus the “vacuum” adjacent to the metal is not
empty, rather it is filled with electrons (with number density n(x)—i.e., a space charge).
A positive potential, VA , on the anode plane located at x = b provides a force pulling
these electrons from the vicinity of the cathode towards the anode. The negatively charged
electrons moving to the right constitute a steady electric current density to the left, i.e., a
steady electric current from the anode to the cathode:

J = −en(x)v(x) = −JA (4.2)

where v(x) is the electron velocity. Since the electrons leave the metal with (nearly) zero
speed at zero potential, we can calculate their speed along the path to the anode using
conservation of energy:
1
mv 2 − eV (x) = 0 (4.3)
2
r
2e
v= V (x) (4.4)
m
where V (x) is the potential difference (“voltage”) at x and m is the mass of an electron.
Because the accelerating electrons constitute a steady current (i.e., J A doesn’t depend
on position), n(x) must decrease as the electrons speed toward the anode. The varying
space charge density affects the electric potential in the “vacuum” according to Poisson’s
 Thermionic Emission 57

equation1 :
∂2V ρ(x) en(x)
=− = (4.5)
∂x2 0 0
Putting these pieces together with have the differential equation:
d2 V JA JA
2
= = q (4.6)
dx 0 v(x) 0 2e
m V (x)

Since the electric field will be zero at the interface, we have a pair of initial conditions:

∂V 
= 0 (4.7)
∂x x=0
V |x=0 = 0 (4.8)

This differential equation looks a bit like Newton’s second law:

d2 x 1
2
= F (x(t)) (4.9)
dt m
as you can see if in Newton’s second law you substitute:

t −→ x
x(t) −→ V (x)
1 JA
F (x(t)) −→ q
m 0 2e
V (x)
m

Recall that force problems are often most simply solved using conservation of energy and
that conservation of energy was proved using an integrating factor of dx/dt. If we try the
analogous trick on our voltage problem, we’ll multiply Poisson’s equation by dV /dx:

dV d2 V JA 1 dV
× = V −2 × (4.10)
dx2
q
dx 0 2e dx
m
 2 !0 1
!0
1 dV JA V 2
= q 1 (4.11)
2 dx 0 2e 2
m
1
1 dV 2
 
JA V 2
= q 1 + constant (4.12)
2 dx 0 2e 2
m

The initial conditions require the constant to be zero, so

1
1 dV 2
 
JA V 2
= q 1 (4.13)
2 dx 0 2e 2
m

or v
dV u 4J
A 1
=t q V (4.14)
u 4
dx  2e
0 m

1
Poisson’s equation is derived in the Appendix to this lab.
58 Thermionic Emission

This differential equation is separable:

v
dV u 4J
A
= t q dx (4.15)
u
1
V 4
0 2e
m
3
v
V 4
u 4J
A
= t q x (4.16)
u
3
4 0 2e
m

where again the initial conditions require the constant of integration to be zero. Finally:
 2
3
9JA 4
V (x) =  q  x 3 (4.17)
40 2em

Of course, V (b) is the anode voltage V A , so we can rearrange this equation to show Child’s
law: " r #
40 2e 3
JA = V A
2
(4.18)
9b2 m

Much of Child’s law is just the result of dimensional analysis, i.e., seeking any possible
dimensionally correct formula for J A . Our differential equation just involves the following
constants with dimensions (units) as shown:

b : L (4.19)
E M L2 /T 2
VA : = (4.20)
Q Q
r 1 5
2e Q2 Q 2 Q2
0 ≡k : 1 = 3 (4.21)
m EL M 2 M 2 L3 /T 2
Q/T
JA : (4.22)
L2
where the dimensions are: L=length, T =time, M =mass, E=energy, and Q=charge. To
make a dimensionally correct formula for J A , we just eliminate the M dimension which we
can only do with the combination:
2
2 Q3
VA k 3 : 2 (4.23)
T3
We can then get the right units for JA with:
 2
3
2
VA k 3 k 32 Q/T
= V : (4.24)
b2 b2 A L2
Thus the only possible dimensionally correct formula is
k 32
JA ∝ V (4.25)
b2 A
The exact proportionality constant, found from the differential equation, is (as usual) is not
hugely different from 1.
 Thermionic Emission 59

cathode:
hot filament, radius a
2
anode

anode
l
cathode
1 4

Figure 4.2: Coaxial cylinders: an inner cathode (radius a) and outer anode (radius b), form
a vacuum tube diode. The cathode is heated so electron evaporation is possible, and a
potential difference VA attracts electrons from the cathode to the anode. The speed of the
electrons v(r) increases as they approach the anode. The moving electrons constitute a
steady electric current from anode to cathode. Since the same current is spread out over
larger areas, the current density, J, between the cylinders must be proportional to 1/r.

We have derived Child’s law for the case of infinite parallel plates, but you will be testing it
in (finite length) coaxial cylinders. The inner cylinder (radius a) is the cathode; the outer
cylinder (radius b) is the anode. Your cylinder with have some length `, but we will below
consider infinite length coaxial cylinders. Note that dimensional considerations require that
the anode current per length should be given by a formula like:
k 23
I/` ≡ j ∝ V (4.26)
b A
although we could have an arbitrary function of the radius ratio: b/a on the right-hand-side.

From Poisson’s equation2 we have:

J I j 1
∇2 V = = = q V −2 (4.27)
0 v(r) 2πr`0 v(r) 2πr0 2e
m

Using the Laplacian in cylindrical coordinates we find:

∂2V 1 ∂V j 1

2
+ = q V −2 (4.28)
∂r r ∂r 2πr0 2e
m

There is no known formula for the solution to this differential equation, but we can make
considerable progress by writing the differential equation in terms of dimensionless quanti-
ties:
r/a = ρ (4.29)
 2
3
ja
V =  q  f (ρ) (4.30)
2π0 2e
m
2
Poisson’s equation is derived in the Appendix to this lab.
60 Thermionic Emission

f(ρ) for ρ→1

10

60
8 f(ρ) for ρ→∞
f 50

6
40

30 4

20 f(ρ) exact
2
10

2 4 6 8 10 12 14
ρ ρ
50 100 150 200

Figure 4.3: The plot on the left displays the dimensionless voltage f obtained by numerical
solution to the differential equation. The plot on the right compares various approximations
for f to this numerical solution.

yielding:
∂2f 1 ∂f 1 1 1
+ = f 00 (ρ) + f 0 (ρ) = f − 2 (4.31)
∂ρ2 ρ ∂ρ ρ ρ
with initial conditions:

f (1) = 0 (4.32)
0
f (1) = 0 (4.33)

We can numerically solve this differential equation using Mathematica:

NDSolve[{f’’[p]+f’[p]/p==1/(p Sqrt[f[p]])}, f[1]==0, f’[1]==0, {f},{p,1,200}]

It’s actually not quite that simple. The cathode, at ρ = 1, is actually a singular point of
the differential equation (i.e., f 00 (1) = ∞). However the situation very near the cathode is
well approximated by the planar case, where we’ve shown:
 2  2  2
3 3 3  4
9J A 4 9I 4 9ja r − a 3
V (x) =  q  x 3 =  q  (r − a) 3 =  q 
40 2e 2πa`40 2e 2π40 2e a
m m m
 2
 2 3  4
9 3 ja r − a 3
=  q  (4.34)
4 2π 2e a
0 m

So, near the cathode (i.e., ρ slightly larger than 1):

 2
9 3 4
f (ρ) ≈ (ρ − 1) 3 (4.35)
4

We can use this approximation to start our numerical differential equation solution at a
non-singular point (like ρ = 1.00001).
 Thermionic Emission 61

Real devices are designed with b/a  1. The behavior of f for large ρ can be determined
by finding A and α for which f = Aρα is a solution to the differential equation. One finds:
 2
9 3
f= ρ (4.36)
4

A useful approximation for the range: 100 < b/a < 1000 is:
 2
9 3
f= ρ +2 (4.37)
4

(For example, the device used in lab has b/a = 121.5. For this value, the differential
equation gives f = 44.136; the above approximation gives: f = 44.130.)

We recover Child’s law by rearranging (4.30):

q
2π0 2em

VA
3
2
= j = I/` (4.38)
a f (b/a)

Note: Langmuir’s original work (Phys. Rev. 22, 347 (1923)) on this subject is expressed in
terms of β where:  −→
3
4 f2  ρ→1 (ρ − 1)2
2
β (ρ) ≡ = (4.39)
9 ρ  −→
ρ→∞ 1
So: q
2e
8π0 m 3
VA2 = j = I/` (4.40)
9bβ 2
β 2 = 1.072 for the device used in lab.

Richardson’s Law

Most any thermal process is governed by the Boltzmann factor:

 
∆E
exp − = e−∆E/kT (4.41)
kT

where k is the Boltzmann constant. Approximately speaking the Boltzmann factor ex-
presses the relative probability for an event requiring energy ∆E in a system at (absolute)
temperature T . Clearly if ∆E  kT , the probability of the event happening is low. If an
electron requires an energy W (called the work function) to escape from the metal, The
Boltzmann factor suggests that this would happen with relative probability e −W/kT . Thus
you should expect that the current emitted by a heated metal would follow:

I ∼ e−W/kT (4.42)

Clearly you should expect different elements to have different work functions, just as differ-
ent atoms have different ionization potentials. What is surprising is that the proportionality
factor in the above equation includes a universal constant — that is, a constant that just
62 Thermionic Emission

depends on the properties of electrons (and, most importantly, Planck’s constant, h) and
does not depend on the type of material. (This situation is similar to that of blackbody radi-
ation, in which photons rather than electrons are leaving a heated body, which was Planck’s
topic in discovering his constant. We will take up this topic on page 68.) Thermionic emis-
sion probes the quantum state of the electrons statistically, whereas the photoelectric effect
probes much the same physics electron by electron. (The next level problem is to explain
why this universal constant (the Richardson constant, A) in fact does depend a bit on the
material.) To show:
J = AT 2 e−W/kT (4.43)
where
4πemk 2
A= = 1.2 × 106 A/m2 K2 (4.44)
h3

Quantum Theory: Free Electron Gas

Instead of thinking about electron particles bouncing around inside a box, de Broglie invites
us to consider standing waves of electron probability amplitude:

ψ = N exp(ikx x) exp(iky y) exp(ikz z) = N eik·r (4.45)

Recall 3 that vector ~k is the momentum, p = mv, of the electron and ~ = h/2π. Periodic
boundary conditions on the box (which we take to be a cube with one corner at the origin
and the diagonally opposite corner at the point r = (L, L, L)) require each component k i
to satisfy:
2π ni
ki = (4.46)
L
where each ni is an integer. Thus each wave function is specified by a triplet of integers: n =
(nx , ny , nz ), the n-vector. Applying Schrödinger’s equation, we find that this wavefunction
has energy:
~2 k2 (2π~)2 n2 (2π~)2 (n2x + n2y + n2z )
E(n) = = = (4.47)
2m 2mL2 2mL2
Notice that there is a definite relationship between the velocity vector of the electron and
the n-vector.
2π~
v= n (4.48)
mL
Another way of saying the same thing is that allowed quantum-state velocities form a cubic
lattice with cube-side 2π~/mL. The number of states with electron velocities in some
specified region (for example a velocity-space parallelepiped with sides: ∆v x ∆vy ∆vz ) can
be found from the number of 2π~/mL sided cubes that fit into the region, which is the
volume of that velocity-space region divided by (2π~/mL) 3 . Hence:
∆vx ∆vy ∆vz
number of states with velocity between v and v + ∆v = (4.49)
(2π~/mL)3
∆vx ∆vy ∆vz
number of states per volume with velocity between v and v + ∆v =
(2π~/m)3
 m 3
= ∆vx ∆vy ∆vz = N ∆vx ∆vy ∆vz (4.50)
2π~
where N is the (constant) density of states in velocity space.
3
For a review see: http://britneyspears.ac/physics/dos/dos.htm
 Thermionic Emission 63






















vacuum






















metal vacuum











image−charge
potential

U W
 0
unoccupied 
levels 

 occupied
 levels

EF
zero−force (flat)
potential inside metal

Figure 4.4: Electrons in the metal experience a constant confining potential of depth U .
Possible quantum mechanical states for these electrons are displayed as horizontal lines.
Electrons fill all the available states up to the Fermi energy, E F . The work function, W ,
is defined at the minimum energy needed to remove an electron from the metal. As shown
above: W = U − EF .

Quantum Theory: Fermi Energy

Fermions (half-integer spin particles), in contrast to bosons (integer spin particles), cannot
group together. Since the electron is “spin 12 ”, each of the above states can hold at most 2
electrons: one spin up and one spin down. The probability that a particular fermion state
with energy E will be occupied is given by a generalization of the Boltzmann factor called
Fermi-Dirac statistics:
1
f (E) =   (4.51)
1 + exp E−E kT
F

where EF is called the Fermi energy. The Fermi energy is basically a disguise for the number
of electrons, as, approximately speaking, it is the dividing line between occupied states and
unoccupied states. (If the Fermi energy is high, there must be lots of occupied states and
hence lots of electrons.) Note that if E  E F , the exponential factor is huge and we can
neglect the “+1” in the denominator so

E − EF
 
f (E) ≈ exp − (4.52)
kT

that is, if E  EF Fermi-Dirac statistics approximate the Boltzmann factor.

Classical Theory: Electron Escape

The density of states combined with the Boltzmann factor gives us the number of free
electrons per unit volume with a particular velocity. In order for an electron to escape
during some time ∆t, it must have vx sufficient to overcome the image-charge
p barrier and it
must be sufficiently close to the wall. All the electrons with v x > 2U/m within a distance
64 Thermionic Emission

vx ∆t













































































A












Figure 4.5: Consider just those electrons with some particular x-velocity, v x . In order to
hit the wall during the coming interval ∆t, an electron must be sufficiently close to the
wall: within vx ∆t. The number of such electrons that will hit an area A will be equal to
the number of electrons in the shaded volume (which is the perpendicular extension of A
a distance vx ∆t into the volume). Note that many electrons in that volume will not hit A
because of large perpendicular velocities, but there will be matching electrons in neighboring
volumes which will hit A. To find the total number of hits, integrate over all possible v x .

vx ∆t, will escape, where U is the depth of the potential well for the electrons. Thus the
number of electrons escaping through area A during ∆t is:
Z ∞ Z ∞ Z ∞
√ dvx dvy dvz 2N f (E) Avx ∆t
2U/m −∞ −∞
Z ∞ Z ∞ Z ∞
EF /kT −mvx2 /2kT −mvy2 /2kT 2
= 2N e A∆t √ e vx dvx e dvy e−mvz /2kT dvz
2U/m −∞ −∞

4πm(kT )2
 
(U − EF )
= A∆t exp − (4.53)
(2π~)3 kT

where we have used the Gaussian integral:

∞
r
π
Z
−αz 2
e dz = (4.54)
−∞ α

The electric current density is the electric charge escaping per time per area:

4πem(kT )2
 
e × number escaping W
J= = exp − (4.55)
A∆t h3 kT

which is Richardson’s equation, with work function W given by U − E F .

Experiment: Richardson’s “Constant” is Material Dependent!

Experimentally it is found that Richardson’s constant depends on the material 4 Why?

4
This should remind you a bit of the material dependent emissivity, T , for blackbody radiation to be
discussed on page 68.
 Thermionic Emission 65











 E




metal vacuum




image−charge
potential

0  reduction in
 energy required
electric field  to escape
potential

total
potential
zero−force (flat)
potential inside metal

Figure 4.6: When an electric field E is present, the total potential outside of the metal will
be the sum of the image-charge potential and the electric field potential (−eEx). The result
is a reduction in the energy needed to escape the metal. If the classically disallowed barrier
is sufficiently thin, quantum mechanical tunneling through the barrier can be measured.

1. The work function depends on temperature (due to, for example, thermal expansion
of the lattice of atoms). If the data analysis assumes it’s constant, the resulting A
will be grossly in error.

2. Classically reflection requires a turning point (where v x = 0), whereas quantum me-
chanical reflections are possible just due to sharp changes in potential. Quantum
mechanical reflection at the metal boundary was not included in our calculations; we
assumed every energetic electron headed toward the wall went through the wall.

3. Surface contamination can affect emission probability. In fact, it was originally

thought that thermionic emission was 100% due to surface contamination. (You can
think of surface contamination as a locally varying work function.)

4. Even in the absence of surface contamination, in typical experiments, the metal is

polycrystalline and different crystal surfaces have different work functions.

5. Real experiments may only approximate the idealized theory. For example, since
the hot cathode needs to be supported and heated, it is generally not at a uniform
temperature.

Schottky Emission

For “small” anode voltages, the space charge partially shields the cathode, and the current is
specified by Child’s law. At higher voltages, the anode collects every electron emitted, and
the current is specified by Richardson’s law. This current is set by the electron evaporation
rate and is therefore largely independent of voltage. At higher fields yet, the strong electric
field reduces the barrier to emission effectively reducing the work function. This is Schottky
emission. At very strong fields the electrons can quantum mechanically tunnel through the
66 Thermionic Emission

Table 4.1: G.E. FP-400 Specifications

Filament (W) length 3.17 cm (1.25”)

Filament diameter 0.013 cm (0.005”)
Anode (Zr coated Ni) I.D. 1.58 cm (0.620”)
Maximum filament voltage 4.75 V
Maximum filament current 2.5 A
Maximum anode voltage 125 V
Maximum anode current 55 mA
Maximum anode dissipation 15 W

barrier even though they lack the energy required classically to overcome the image-charge
force. We seek to estimate the extent to which Schottky emission affects our determination
of the work function.

In the presence of an electric field, the potential near the cathode is given by:

−e2
U (x) = − eEx (4.56)
4π0 4x
where E is the electric field. We seek the amount the electric field reduces the barrier-top
potential. The maximum potential is found by finding where dU/dx is zero:

dU (x) e2 p
= − eE = 0 ⇐⇒ x m = e/16π0 E (4.57)
dx 4π0 4x2
The potential at this maximum is:
s
e3 E
U (xm ) = − (4.58)
4π0

For most vacuum tubes this shift in work function is “small”. However, microscopic peaks on
the surface of the metal will enhance the electric field near the peak beyond that calculated
for a smooth surface, resulting in locally enhanced Schottky emission.

Experiment

This experiment involves thermionic emission from the hot tungsten filament of a G.E.
FP-400 vacuum tube.

Temperature Determination

Often temperature measurement in physics experiments is easy. In the “normal” range of

temperatures there are many types of transducers which convert temperature to an electrical
quantity (e.g., Pt resistance thermometers, thermocouples, thermistors, ICs). However at
the extremes of high and low temperature, measurement becomes tricky. Questions like
 Thermionic Emission 67

2
anode

Keithley 2400
source−meter FP−400

4 1 cathode
GND Keithley 2420
source−meter
Keithley 192
voltmeter

Figure 4.7: Circuit diagram for thermionic emission experiment.

“What exactly defines temperature?” must then be answered. This experiment requires
“high” temperatures in a vacuum, so we do not have direct contact with the material whose
temperature we seek. In addition the FP-400 tube was not built by us, so we have limited
direct information about the device.

One common way to measure temperature is by using the temperature dependence of resis-
tance. The resistance of metals is approximately proportional to temperature. Jones and
Langmuir5 have published a table of resistance vs. temperature for tungsten filaments, from
which Kirkman has found an approximating formula:
Tr = 112 + 202x − 1.81x2 (4.59)
where x is the ratio of the hot resistance to that at 293 K.

The problem with this approach is that the measured resistance, R measured , will include
both the resistance of the filament and the wires supporting it in the vacuum tube. (Take
care that your measurement of it does not include further complicating factors, like the
resistance in the external wires.) Unfortunately the wire-support resistance, R support , is
nearly as large as the filament resistance at low temperatures. Thus the quantity we seek
(filament resistance, RW ) must be calculated as the small difference between two numbers:
RW = Rmeasured − Rsupport (4.60)
a situation that produces big relative errors. Additionally, we have no independent way
of measuring Rsupport (we can’t take the tube apart), so we can only calculate it based
on Equation 4.60 and the calculated value for R W at room temperature. (This calculated
value for RW will depend on the spec sheet values for the dimensions of the filament and the
resistivity of W-filament material at room temperature: ρ 293 = 5.49 µΩ · cm.) You should
be quite uncomfortable that so much of this measurement depends on “book values” rather
than things you can directly check. In addition we have no choice but to assume that the
found Rsupport is a constant. This is surely false as the filament will heat the ends of the
support, and the resistance of essentially every material depends on temperature.

There is a further problem with any measurement of voltage when parts of the system are
at different temperatures: thermally induced emfs (thermocouples). If the ends of the tung-
sten filament are at different temperatures, there will be a voltage induced approximately
5
GE Rev 30, 310 (1927)
68 Thermionic Emission

Temperature Dependence of Resistance: W

3000

2500

Temperature (K)
2000

1500

1000

500

0 5 10 15
Resistance Ratio: R/R293

Figure 4.8: The temperature dependence of tungsten-filament resistance from the data of
Jones & Langmuir with an approximating curve. The x-axis is the ratio of the hot resistance
to that at 293 K.

proportional to the temperature difference between the two ends. This additional voltage
source confuses the resistance determination. The phenomena can be detected and cor-
rected by reversing the direction of current flow (which reverses the Ohm’s law voltage, but
does not affect the sign of the thermal voltage.) Thermal voltages are generally less than a
mV, and so are negligible once our measured voltages approach a Volt.

Another approach is suggested by Jones & Langmuir. In a vacuum the temperature of a

current-carrying wire is the result of an equilibrium between electrical power dissipated in
the wire and energy lost in the form of radiation. (We assume that energy lost through
conduction — either through the wire-supports or residual air in the “vacuum” — is neg-
ligible.) According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the power radiated from the surface of a
hot black-body is given by:
P = σT 4 A (4.61)
where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature of the body, and A is the
surface area of the body. (In fact tungsten is not a black-body, so when applied to tungsten
the above should be multiplied by a “fudge factor”, the total emissivity  T , about 0.3.)
Using just crude approximations, we equate the electrical power dissipated to the power
radiated:
` `
I 2 T 2 ∼ I 2 T π 2 ∼ I 2 R = T σT 4 πd` ∼ T 4 d` (4.62)
d 4d
where d is the diameter of the wire and ` is the length of the wire. On the right hand side
we’ve assumed that the resistivity of tungsten is proportional to temperature, and on the
left hand side we’ve assumed T doesn’t depend on temperature. We conclude:
I 2 ∼ T 3 d3 (4.63)
 2
I 3
3 ∼T (4.64)
d2
 Thermionic Emission 69

Temperature vs. Current for W Filaments

3000

2500

Temperature (K)
2000

1500

1000

500

0 500 1000 1500 2000

a=I/d^1.5 (A/cm^1.5)

Figure 4.9: The temperature of an in-vacuum tungsten filament as a function of current

from the data of Jones & Langmuir with an approximating curve. The x-axis is the current
divided by the diameter of the wire (in cm) raised to the 23 power.

3
Absent the above approximations we can hope that temperature is a function of a ≡ I/d 2 .

Once again Jones & Langmuir provide us with calibrating data for this expected relation-
ship. For temperatures 400 K < T < 3000 K, Kirkman finds:

Ti = 117 + 56a0.5 + 0.00036a1.8 (4.65)

Finally, attaining thermal equilibrium is a problem that affects most any temperature
measurement. The balance between electrical power in and heat lost is not immediately
achieved. The parts of the system with large heat capacities (particularly the filament sup-
ports and other large structures in the tube), will only gradually approach equilibrium. Thus
“soak” time is required following each jump in heating power. The effect of this “thermal
inertia” is seen in “hysteresis”: temperatures obtained while increasing the temperature
disagree with those found while decreasing the temperature. This will be an important
source of uncertainty.

Electrical Measurements

As shown in Figure 4.7, the filament is powered by a Keithley 2420 source-meter. The
filament voltage is measured directly at the socket with a Keithley 192 voltmeter. By
combining a current measured from the 2420 with the voltage from the 192, the resistance
of the tube alone an be determined. Of course, only part of the tube resistance is filament
resistance. The room temperature filament resistance (R W ∼ .1 Ω) can be calculated from
the specifications of the FP-400 tube. Using a four-terminal measurement, measure the
room temperature resistance of the tube (R measured ∼ .2 Ω). (If Rmeasured is substantially
larger than this confirm that you have firm, low-resistance contacts between the socket and
70 Thermionic Emission

the tube. Working the socket-tube contact may be required to find the lowest resistance
spot.) Confirm this measurement by sourcing 1 mA and 10 mA into the tube and reading
the resulting voltage on the 192. Use these measurements to determine a value for R support .
At the same time the resistance of the external wires can be found. The voltage difference
between the 192 and the 2420 must be dropped across the wires. From the voltage across
the external wires and the current flowing through them, calculate the wire resistance. Use
this resistance to calculate the 2420 voltage limit, that is, the voltage the 2420 would need
to produce to have have the maximums (4.75 V, 2.5 A) on the filament. Using the 2420,
successively source filament currents of 2.0 A, 2.1 A, 2.2 A, . . . to directly determine the
maximum current you can use without exceeding the 4.75 V limit across the tube’s filament.

You will be collecting two types of data at the same time: thermal characteristics of the
filament and the thermionic properties of the tube. Starting at a filament current of 0.9 A,
increase the current flowing through the filament in steps of 0.1 A to a near-maximum
current (e.g., 2.4 A) and then reverse those steps down to 1.0 A. The up-sweep in filament
current followed by the down-sweep will allow you to test for hysteresis. At each step in
current, allow the filament to approach thermal equilibrium (wait, say, 15 seconds) and then
measure the voltage across and current through the tube. Calculate filament temperature
two ways (Equations (4.59) and (4.65)). Average the two to estimate the temperature, and
use half the absolute value of the difference to estimate the uncertainty.

You see above a classic example of systematic error. The temperature is measured two differ-
ent ways. Direct application of error propagation formulas to these calculated temperatures
would suggest small uncertainties. However the two temperatures in fact disagree. If only
one method had been used to measure temperature, we would have badly underestimated
the error.

T 4 vs. Power: Testing Stefan-Boltzmann

By conservation of energy we know that the power dumped into the filament (mostly from
electrical heating, but also from other sources like radiation from the room temperature
environment to the filament) should equal the power out of the filament (from black-body
radiation and other factors like conduction down the supports). Thus:
T σAT 4 = I 2 RW + constant (4.66)
1
T4 = I 2 RW + constant (4.67)
T σA
y = ax + b (4.68)
A graph of T4 vs. power should be a straight line from which you will determine  T . (Note
that the error in power is quite small, so we have properly used it as an x variable.) In
order to test this relationship you will want to make a file containing the filament power,
T 4 (use the average of the two temperatures: (T i4 + Tr4 )/2), and the error in T 4 (use half
the difference from the two temperatures: |T i4 − Tr4 |/2).

IA vs. VA : Testing Child and Richardson

You will collect anode current vs. voltage curves for each different cathode temperature.
Use the Keithley 2400 to sweep the anode voltage logarithmically from 2 V to 120 V. (Note
 Thermionic Emission 71

the maximum limits for the anode: 0.055 A or 125 V. Do not exceed either!) According
3
to Child’s law, the anode current, I A , should increase in proportion to V A2 . Of course, at
sufficiently high voltage the current will be limited by the maximum electron evaporation
rate, and a current plateau forms at a level given by Richardson’s law. At the maximum
filament current (corresponding to the maximum filament temperature and evaporation
rate), plateau formation occurs at very high voltage and you have the longest run of data
following Child’s law. Make a file containing V A , IA , and δIA which you can use to fit to
the Child’s law functional form:
3
IA = k1 (VA − k2 ) 2 (4.69)

In addition, you will want to make a big continuous file containing: V A , IA at every temper-
ature tested. The current plateaus can be extracted from this file and fit to the Richarson
relationship:
IA = k1 AT 2 e−k2 /T (4.70)

Computer Data Collection

As part of this experiment you will write a computer program to control the experiment.
Plagiarism Warning: like all lab work, this program is to be your own work! Programs
strikingly similar to previous programs will alarm the grader. I understand that this will
often be a difficult and new experience. Please consult with me as you write the program,
and test the program (with tube disconnected!) before attempting a final data-collecting
run.

Your program will control all aspects of data collection. In particular it will:

1. Declare and define all variables.

2. Initialize the source-meters which must be told maximum voltage and current to occur
during the experiment. In particular you will need to know the external wire resistance
to estimate the maximum voltage that the 2420 can safely output at maximum current
and keep the tube voltage less than the maximum rating.

3. Display the status of all devices before starting data collection.

4. Open files:

(a) filament.dat for If , Vf , Tr , Ti of filament.

(b) stefanB.dat for power, T 4 , δT 4 of filament.
(c) VI.dat for VA , IA of anode, with comments (!) for filament I f , Tr , Ti
(d) child.dat for VA , IA , δIA of anode at maximum filament current.
(e) rich.dat for T , δT , IA — i.e., the estimated temperature and the corresponding
maximum anode current for Richardson’s Law

5. Tell the 2420 source-meter to source a filament current of 0.9 A.

6. Let the system sleep for 60 seconds to approach thermal equilibrium.

72 Thermionic Emission

7. Begin a sequence of measurements where the filament temperature is increased (i.e.,

a temperature up-sweep) by sourcing filament currents from 0.9 A to maximum (e.g.,
2.4 A).
(a) Tell the 2420 source-meter to source a filament current.
(b) Let the system sleep for 15 seconds to approach thermal equilibrium.
(c) Request a logarithmic anode voltage sweep from 2 V to 120 V.
(d) Turn off the anode voltage.
(e) Repeat (a) thus receiving an updated version of the filament current (it will be
very close to the requested current).
(f) Read the 192 to get the final voltage across the tube.
(g) Calculate the two filament temperatures. (Requires knowledge of R W and Rsupport
and use of Kirkman formulas.)
(h) Add a line to the file: stefanB.dat containing filament power, T 4 , and δT 4 .
(i) Add a line to the file: filament.dat containing I f , Vf , Tr , Ti of the tube.
(j) Add a comment (!) line to the file: VI.dat containing I f , Tr , Ti of filament.
(k) Record the anode sweep data in the file: VI.dat.
(l) Add a line to the file: rich.dat reporting T , δT , I A . Estimate the temperature
from the average of Tr and Ti and use |Ti − Tr |/2 as the estimate for δT . Use IA
at VA =120 V as the estimated plateau current. (When the experiment is over,
you will need include estimated δIA based on hysteresis, and may need to correct
IA values if, for example, cold emission has added substantially to the plateau
current.)
(m) Increment the filament current by 0.1 A and return to (a).
8. Take an additional special sweep at the maximum filament current, following all the
steps outlined in 7 above. In addition, write this anode sweep data (V A , IA , δIA ) in
the file child.dat.
9. Begin a sequence of measurements where the filament temperature is decreased (i.e.,
a temperature down-sweep) by sourcing filament currents from one step down from
maximum (e.g., 2.3 A) back to 1.0 A. Follow steps (a)–(l) used in the up-sweep and
then:
(m) decrement the filament current by 0.1 A and return to (a).
10. Turn off the output of the 2420.
11. Close all files.

Note that the 0.9 A filament current data is just trash collected so the 1.0 A filament current
data is taken on a pre-warmed filament.

Observations

1
While the computer collects the data observe the light from the filament. (There is a 16 ”
diameter hole in the anode allowing light from the mid-point of the filament to escape.)
 Thermionic Emission 73

FP–400 Vacuum Tube

.01

.001

Ia (A)
1.E–04

1.E–05

1.E–06

1.E–07
1 10 100
Va (V)

Figure 4.10: The temperature dependence of thermionic emission in a FP-400 vacuum

tube. Each curve shows the anode current-voltage relationship at a particular filament
temperature. At high filament temperatures and low anode voltages the anode current
follows Child’s law: an upward sloping straight line on this log-log plot. At sufficiently high
anode voltage, the filament current plateaus at a value given by Richardson’s law. At low
filament temperatures and high anode voltages, “cold emission” may augment (distort) the
plateau.

Initially the filament will not appear to be incandescent (i.e., not a source of light at
all: dark) so it may help to turn off the lab lights to better observe the beginning of
incandescence. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law the light energy radiated depends
on T 4 , so small changes in T produce big changes in light intensity. In addition to changes
in light intensity, you should look for the more subtle change in light color: from a dull red
to a brilliant yellow. Record your observations!

Data Analysis

The main result of this experiment is a plot similar to Figure 4.10 showing the anode
current-voltage relationship at various filament temperatures. Note that each curve is
a pair: one from the up-sweep in filament temperature, one from the down-sweep. See
that hysteresis is largest at low filament temperature. It may be difficult to determine the
plateau level for the lowest and highest filament temperatures, in which case you must edit
out those data points in rich.dat.6 Negative anode currents must also be edited out of
VI.dat for this log-log plot. In Figure 4.10, I see no sign of a plateau at the maximum
filament current, but in the range If = 1.2 to 2.3 A, plateau currents can be determined.
6
If the high-temperature V I sweep reaches a plateau, then Child’s Law will not apply so child.dat will
require editting. If it does not reach a plateau, then Richardson’s Law does not apply so rich.dat will
require editting.
74 Thermionic Emission

Richardson’s Law

.01

Anode Current (A)

.001

1.E–04

1.E–05

2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600

Temperature (K)

Figure 4.11: A Richardson Plot of thermionic emission in a FP-400 vacuum tube. Each
data point displays the plateau anode current at a particular filament temperature. The
curve through the data fits for the work function; the slightly steeper curve uses the book
value for the work function.

Child’s Law

.01
Ia (A)

.001

.0001

1 10 100
Va (V)

Figure 4.12: A plot of the space-charge limited thermionic emission in a FP-400 vacuum tube
(Child’s law). The data was taken at a filament current of 2.4 A. Every other data point has
been eliminated so the fit line is not obscured. Note that the fit line systematically misses
the data, sometimes a bit high others a bit low; the χ 2 for this fit was “large”. Nevertheless,
the law provides an excellent summary of the data over a huge range of variation.
 Thermionic Emission 75

Stefan–Boltzmann Law

4.E+13

3.E+13
T^4 (K^4)

2.E+13

1.E+13

0
2 4 6 8 10
Power (W)

Figure 4.13: A test of the Stefan-Boltzmann law: that power radiated is proportional to
T 4 . Note that the fit line hits well within each error bar. The χ 2 for this fit will be
“small”. Evidently the average temperature is a better measure of temperature than you
might expect from the deviations between T i and Tr .

According to Richardson’s law, these plateau currents should satisfy:

I = AAT 2 e−W/T (4.71)

where A is the tungsten filament area. Systematic errors are again evident in the plateau
currents. Each plateau currents has been measured twice (once on an up-sweep of tem-
perature and again on a down-sweep) but different results are usually obtained. We must
estimate the errors in I from this difference (due to ‘hysteresis’). Recall that the error in
temperature was also systematic and calculated by measuring twice. A fit to the above
relationship (in the form of Eq. 4.70) allows us to estimate the work function (W = k 2 ),
expressed in units of temperature. Convert this value to joules and eV and compare to
the book7 value of 4.5 eV. Since our temperatures are so uncertain, particularly at the
low end, the best estimate for the Richardson constant A = k 1 comes from substituting
the known value of the work function and the data for the highest valid filament tem-
perature into the above equation. Do this and compare to the book value for tungsten:
A = 0.72 × 106 A/m2 K2 . See Figure 4.11 for typical results.

Examine the relative importance of hysteresis and calibration in temperature uncertainty

determination. For If = 1.2 A record the difference in Tr due to hysteresis and the difference
between Tr and Ti which is a temperature calibration uncertainty.

At sufficiently low anode voltage (and high filament temperature), Child’s law governs the
anode current-voltage relationship: Equation (4.69). Fit the highest filament temperature
data (e.g., filament current of 2.4 A) to this functional form. From the constant k 1 the
electron charge-mass ratio e/m can be found. Since the FP-400 is a finite length cylinder
7
Blakemore, Solid State Physics
76 Thermionic Emission

(rather than the infinite cylinder discussed in our theory) use the effective length 8 = 0.75×`
as the length of the cylinder. Compare to book values.

The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship provides a check on our temperature calibration (in

fact it is the definition of temperature beyond the melting point of Pt). Fit the data in
stefanB.dat to Equation (4.68). Determine  T from the fit slope.

Report Checklist

1. Calculations (no errors) of RW . Measurements (4-wire ohmmeter and direct volt-

age/current) of Rmeasured . Calculation of Rsupport .

2. Observations of the light intensity and color as a function of filament temperature.

3. Data files and computer program: Leave them in your UNIX account. Print out a
copy of your program and the file filament.dat; Tape them into your lab notebook.

4. Plots similar to Figures 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13. Note that Figure 4.10 is complex to
produce. Use a file of plot commands and feel free to talk to me about how to go
about doing this. Carefully note the use of log and inverse scales (which requires
positive data—edit to achieve this!). Also include a fit report for each fit curve.

5. Experimental values for: W (in eV), A, e/m and  T . Calculate error only in T .

6. For each of the above quantities (W, A, e/m,  T ), explain why accurate error estimates
cannot be made. (Answers will include: large systematic errors in inputs, reduced
χ2 indicating problems, unknown errors in important geometric factors. . . Consult
Chapter 0 or talk to me if you have questions.)

7. Show the missing steps leading to Equations (4.31) and (4.36). Substitute the ρ → 1
approximation Equation (4.35) into the differential equation Equation (4.31). Show
that while we do not have an exact solution to the differential equation, the singular
parts (i.e., those that approach infinity as ρ → 1) cancel.

8. Calculate the electric field at the surface of the FP-400 cathode for V A = 120 V.
Assume zero space charge for this calculation, i.e., that the vacuum has been swept
clean of electrons, so the result learned in Phys 200 for the voltage between coaxial
cylinders applies:
log (r/a)
V (r) = VA (4.72)
log (b/a)
Calculate the shift in work function (in eV) due to Schottky effects for this field (see
Eq. 4.58).

9. Show how the potential energy Equation (4.56) is consistent with the image charge
force Equation (4.1).
8
This effective length corrects for current loss through the ends of the cylinder under space-charge sit-
uations. A smaller correction should be applied when large anode voltages are designed to sweep up all
evaporated electrons, i.e., for Richardson’s Law, where 90% electron collection seems appropriate. The
details of handling such corrections to theory may be found in reference 1.
 Thermionic Emission 77

Comment: Classical vs. Quantum

I said above that the presence of an ~ in Richardson’s constant shows that the process
is governed by quantum mechanics. It is not quite so simple. The evaporation of water
is not fundamentally different from that of electrons, while the former (due to the larger
mass of a water molecule) is a classical process. Classical evaporation can be calculated
much as quantum evaporation using the Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution and the
number density (of water molecules) rather than the disguised version of this: Fermi energy
3
(EF2 ∝ number density). We can write the classical rate in terms of the quantum with no
~ visible:  3
4 EF 2
classical flux = √ × quantum flux (4.73)
3 π kT
1
The different temperature dependence 9 for the classical flux (T 2 e−W/kT vs. T 2 e−W/kT )
cannot be detected experimentally: the Boltzmann factor overwhelms all other temperature
dependences. On the other hand, since E F  kT , the expected classical rate is much larger
than the quantum rate. This played a role in the mistaken idea that thermionic emission
was due to surface contamination: the experimental rate seemed too small to be thermal
evaporation. On the other hand a more fruitful interpretation of the “low” rate was that
only a fraction (∼ kT /EF ) of the electrons were thermally active. This connected with
other observations (like the “small” specific heat of the electron gas) and provided a link to
the idea of a degenerate Fermi gas.

Comment: Uncertainty

Inspection of Figures 4.10-4.13 shows that something “funny” is going on. (I can’t say
“abnormal” or “unusual” as it is neither.) Figure 4.13 shows the unmistakable signs of
“small reduced χ2 ”: The fitted line goes nearly dead-center through all 30 error bars, never
coming even close to an edge. For error bars sized at one standard deviation (σ), you
should expect total misses of the error bar about 1/3 of the time. In addition recall that
each data point is really a double: the same cathode current was measured on an up-sweep
and then a down-sweep of the cathode current. These repeated measurement should also
frequently miss by a standard deviation, but here they are so close that the two points
often look like just one. The answer to this puzzle is that the error bars are not displaying
statistical error. Instead the temperature was measured two different ways (T i and Tr ), and
the error bar represented the deviation between these two measurement methods. When
different methods of measurement produce different answers for the same quantity, we have
a textbook example of systematic error (in contrast to statisical error). Notice that if we
had used the statistical deviation of just one measure of temperature, we would seriously
underestimated the error. Furthermore since quite accurately measured electrical quantities
were used to calculate the temperature (via Equation 4.65 or Equation 4.59), application
of the usual error propagation methods would also have produced very small errors in T .
The full range of our uncertainty in temperature is made evident only by measuring T two
different ways. (This is typically how systematic errors are detected.)
9
Saul Dushman ( Phys. Rev. 21, 623–636 (1923)), while working at G.E., provided a general thermody-
namic argument for the T 2 dependence and the universal nature of A. The resulting relationship is therefore
sometimes known as the Richardson-Dushman relationship.
78 Thermionic Emission

Having detected systematic errors, we should seek an explanation. . . In addition to the

problems previously cited (particularly use of book values for filament dimensions and
the problems associated with Rsupport ), nonuniform filament temperature due to filament
supports may be the problem. Koller (p. 89) reports the filament temperature 0.5 cm from
a support is reduced by 15% (and of course the effect is greater closer to the support).
Thermionic emission is reduced a similar amount 1.3 cm from a support. Thus the quantity
we are seeking (a filament temperature) does not even exist, so it is hardly surprising that
different measurements give different results. (It turns out the T r is something like the
average temperature; whereas Ti is something like the central temperature.) These effects
have been investigated, and Koller gives the theory to correct such measurements, but such
considerations are beyond the scope of this experiment.

Systematic errors in temperature and filament dimensions are probably behind the failure
of this experiment to accurately reproduce “book” values of W , A, e/m.

Figure 4.10 shows the opposite problem, “large reduced χ 2 ”: The fitted line systematically
misses almost every error bar. In this case, the miss might be called “small”, but the error
bar is smaller still. Once again, errors were not calculated statistically (manufacturer’s
specifications were used), so “reduced χ 2 = 1” should not really be expected. In this case,
my guess is that the problem is with our simplified theory (we assumed: infinite cylinders,
no random component to the electron velocity [zero electron temperature], uniform cathode
[temperature, voltage, emissivity, . . . ], perfect vacuum). We could of course test these
hypotheses by further experiments with different tubes, but such work is beyond the scope
of this experiment.

Summary: Very large or very small reduced χ 2 suggests significant non-statistical errors, a
very common —perhaps even the usual— situation. When this situation occurs, you must
speculate about the cause. Presumably your theory and/or analysis methods are in error.

References

1. Jones & Langmuir GE Review, The Characteristics of Tungsten Filaments as Func-

tions of Temperature 30 (1927) Part I pp. 310–19, Part II pp. 354–61, Part III pp.
408–12

2. Melissinos Experiments in Modern Physics, 1966, pp. 65–80

3. Preston & Dietz The Art of Experimental Physics, 1991, pp. 141–47, 152–61

4. Blakemore Solid State Physics, 1974, pp. 188–95

5. Koller The Physics of Electron Tubes, 1937, Ch. I, VI, VIII

6. http://phyastweb.la.asu.edu/spphy334-rez/Thermionic.htm

7. G.E. FP-400 Description and Rating FP400.pdf found at http://www.tubedata.org

 Thermionic Emission 79

thickness: ∆x

E(x)

 ∆x


Area: A
E(x+∆x)

Figure 4.14: Gauss’ Law is used to calculate the charge between two plates of area A
separated by a distance ∆x. Since (by assumption) the potential just depends on x, the
electric field is in the x direction and is given by E = −dV /dx.

Appendix—Poisson’s Equation

Equation 4.5 and Equation 4.28 made reference to “Poisson’s Equation”, which is really a
topic for next semester’s Physics 341, rather than part of Physics 200. In this appendix,
Poisson’s Equation is derived starting from two Physics 200 results: Gauss’ Law: that the
electric flux leaving a region depends just on the charge enclosed by that region:
I
~ · n̂ dA = Qenclosed /0
E (4.74)

and the relationship between electric field and electric potential (voltage):

dV
Ex = − (4.75)
dx

Poisson’s Equation is a differential equation equivalent to Gauss’ Law. It is usually written

in terms of the Laplacian (∇2 ), which in turn can most easily be expressed in terms of
second derivatives w.r.t. x, y, and z:

∂2V ∂2V ∂2V

∇2 V = + + = −ρ/0 (4.76)
∂x2 ∂y 2 ∂z 2
where ρ is the electric charge density. We need Poisson’s Equation only in cases where
the electric potential depends on just one variable (x or cylindrical r), which simplifies the
required proofs considerably.

As shown in Figure 4.14, if V is a function of x alone: V (x), we can find the charge between
two plates of area A using Gauss’ Law:
dE
Qenclosed = 0 A (E(x + ∆x) − E(x)) ≈ 0 A ∆x (4.77)
dx
Thus the charge density between the plates is given by:

Qenclosed 0 A dE
dx ∆x dE d2 V
ρ= = = 0 = −0 (4.78)
volume A∆x dx dx2
80 Thermionic Emission

thickness: ∆r
E(r+∆r)

E(r)
l

r+∆r

Figure 4.15: Gauss’ Law is used to calculate the charge between two coaxial cylinders of
length l separated by a distance ∆r. Since (by assumption) the potential just depends on
r, the electric field is in the r direction and is given by E = −dV /dr.

which provides what is needed for Equation 4.5.

As shown in Figure 4.15, if V is a function of r alone: V (r), we can find the charge between
two coaxial cylinders using Gauss’ Law:

Qenclosed = 0 l {2π(r + ∆r)E(r + ∆r) − 2πrE(r)}

= 0 l {2πr(E(r + ∆r) − E(r)) + 2π∆rE(r + ∆r)}
 
dE
≈ 0 l 2πr + 2πE(r) ∆r (4.79)
dr

Thus the charge density between the cylinders is given by:

 
Qenclosed 0 l {2πr dE/dr + 2πE(r)} ∆r dE 1
ρ = = = 0 + E (4.80)
volume 2πrl∆r dr r
 2 
d V 1 dV
= − 0 + (4.81)
dr 2 r dr

which provides what is needed for Equation 4.28.