Measurement of Ionic Mobilities in Liquid 3He by a Space Charge Method

  • P. V. E. McClintock


The behavior to be expected of a charged impurity moving in a Fermi fluid was first discussed in detail by Abe and Aizul and independently by Clark.2 They concluded that, although mobility should be inversely proportional to viscosity at high temperatures (classical limit), a T −2 law should be obeyed in the low-temperature (degenerate) limit. Davis and Dagonnier have discussed the situation at intermediate temperatures in terms of quantum mechanical Brownian motion.3 These predictions were not borne out by experiment.4,5 In a more recent theoretical investigation Josephson and Lekner6 show that, although the T −2 law may still be expected at sufficiently low temperatures, some form of weaker dependence should be observed at higher temperatures. Since there seems to be little consensus as to the form of this weaker dependence or as to the characteristic temperature at which one regime might give way to the other, it is important that accurate experimental mobility data should be obtained. For negative ions such data are now available down to 17 m°K.5 However, for positive ions data below 1°K,4 measured by a time-of-flight method, suffer from severe inconsistencies and hysteresis effects, apparently experimentally based. In this paper we describe mobility measurements down to 0.25°K by a completely different technique: space-charge-limited emission of ions from a sharp metal point. This method appears to be more accurate than earlier space charge techniques7 and avoids the complication of thermal gradients due to heating at a radioactive source.


Space Charge Ionic Mobility Charged Impurity Short Current Pulse Fermi Fluid 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Abe and K. Aizu, Phys. Rev. 123, 10 (1961).MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. C. Clark, Proc. Phys. Soc. 82, 785 (1963).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. T. Davis and R. Dagonnier, J. Chem. Phys. 44, 4030 (1966).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. C. Anderson, M. Kuchnir, and J. C. Wheatley, Phys. Rev. 168, 261 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Kuchnir, P. R. Roach, and J. B. Ketterson, Phys. Rev. A2,:62 (1970).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. D. Josephson and J. Lekner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 111 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. de Magistris, I. Modena, and F. Scaramuzzi, in Proc. 9th Int.’rn. Con/ on Low Temp. Phys. /964, Plenum Press, New York (1965), p. 349.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. V. E. McClintock, Phys. Lett. 35A, 211 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. V. E. McClintock, J. Low Temp. Phys. 11, 15 (1973).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Halpern and R. Gomer, J. Chem. Phys. 51, 1031 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. S. Betts, B. E. Keen, and J. Wilks, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 289, 31. (1966).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Kuchnir, Private communication; M. Kuchnir, J. B. Ketterson, and P. R. Roach, this volume.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. R. Atkins, Phys. Rev. 116, 1339 (1959).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. O. Edwards, J. L. Baum, D. F. Brewer, J. G. Daunt, and A. S. McWilliams, in Proc. 7th Intern. Conf. on Low Temp. Phys. 1960, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1961), p. 610.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. V. E. McClintock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of LancasterLancasterEngland

Personalised recommendations