Advertisement

Phase Diagram of Helium Monolayers

  • J. G. Dash

Abstract

In the past few years there has been increased interest in the physics of thin films, stimulated largely by the technical achievements and promise in solid state electronics and in superconductivity. Another important stimulus comes from surface science research, which has brought new and highly detailed insights into the properties of the top few atomic layers of solids. The field of adsorption can be considered as a part of “thin films,” with a subdivision for physisorption and a further subdivision for adsorbed helium films. But there has been very little communication between the helium film subfield and the other parts of the parent field, even though there appear to be some extremely important areas of overlap and much can be learned from each. The reason for this lack of communication is that those who work on helium films have been primarily interested in the films as special cases of the bulk phases. To some extent they are: Certainly there is a range of film thickness in which a film behaves mainly as a thin slice of the bulk. But when they become thin enough this approximation no longer holds: A film begins to take on such different character that one must treat the layer as a new regime. This change does not occur suddenly; furthermore, the thickness at which it occurs depends on what properties are being considered. But where it does occur, there one must take account of specific properties of the substrate. In the limit of a single monolayer the substrate properties can become supremely important; and one must be at least as concerned with the characteristics of the substrate and the surface-helium interactions as with the helium-helium interactions. We speak as new converts to this view, which was forced on us by work done in the past couple of years.

Keywords

Heat Capacity Fermi Liquid Graphite Substrate Exfoliate Graphite Graphitized Carbon Black 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    H.P.R. Frederickse, Physica 15, 860 (1949).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.F. Brewer, A.J. Symonds, and A.L. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 182 (1965).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.F. Brewer, J. Low Temp. Phys. 3, 205 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.D. McCormick, D.L. Goodstein, and J.G. Dash, Phys. Rev. 168, 249 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.A. Stewart and J.G. Dash, Phys. Rev. A2, 918 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.A. Stewart and J.G. Dash, J. Low Temp. Phys. 5, 1 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D.W. Princehouse, J. Low Temp. Phys. 8, 287 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.G. Daunt and E. Lerner, J. Low Temp. Phys. 8, 79 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.E. Campbell and M. Schick, Phys. Rev. A 3, 691 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Schick and C.E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. A 2, 1591 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.D. Novaco and F.J. Milford, J. Low Temp. Phys. 3, 307 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N.N. Roy and G.D. Halsey, J. Low Temp. Phys. 4, 231, (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.B. Huff, unpublished.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Bretz and J.G. Dash, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 963 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Bretz and J.G. Dash, Phys. Rev. Lett. 27, 647 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Bretz, G.B. Huff, and J.G. Dash, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 729 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.C. Hickernell, E.O. McLean, and O.E. Vilches, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 789 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Thorny and X. Duval, J. Chim. Phys. (Paris) 66, 1966 (1969);Google Scholar
  19. A. Thorny and X. Duval, J. Chim. Phys. (Paris) 67, 286 (1970);Google Scholar
  20. A. Thorny and X. Duval, J. Chim. Phys. (Paris) 67, 1101 (1970).Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    D.L. Goodstein, private communication.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    R.J. Rollefson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 410 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 21.
    D.E. Hagen, A.D. Novaco, and F.J. Milford, in Intern. Symp. on Adsorption—Desorption Phenomena, Florence, Italy, 1971 (to be published).Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    C.E. Campbell, J.G. Dash, and M. Schick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 966 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 23.
    H.M. Guo, D.O. Edwards, R.E. Sarwinski, and J.T. Tough, Phys. Rev. Lett. 27, 1259 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 24.
    G. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. A 2, 1505 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 25.
    J.G. Dash and M. Bretz, J. Low Temp. Phys. 9, 291 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 26.
    M. Bretz, J.G. Dash, D.C. Hickernell, E.O. McLean, and O.E. Vilches, Phys. Rev. A8, August 1973.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. G. Dash
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations