The pressure regime in which sputtering occurs, in the sense I refer to it, is immensely relevant. [For clarification this is relevant to the erosion of planetary atmospheres.] Since calculations of the magnitude of this effect involve Monte Carlo simulations computing a ratio of a mean free path for escaping species over a mean free path for momentum transfer to the atmospheric species by incident ions, then I think you can see that the density of the medium will be crucial. Now, I have no problem with arauca being unaware of this form of sputtering. I do have a problem with his snide remarks directed at prometheus, which implied that promeheus should have known what he was talking about. That was the issue I was seeking to address. I have considerable sympathy with someone working in a foreign language. I've just spent the last week trying to make myself understood by a mixed group of Spanish and Portugese speakers. However, when I have not been understood I see that as my fault, not theirs. I would welcome a similar approach from arauca. I just noted your point about the use of the word work, which seems to imply an artificial setting, hence leaning one to the technical interpretation. (Which until this thread I was wholly unaware of.) However, given arauca's limited English the use of 'work' here is easily taken in the same sense as, for example, "How does plate tectonics actually work". That was how I was took it. Edit: I've just noticed I've given the incorrect author names on my prior post for the referenced paper: it was by Johnson.
Hi Ophiolite. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for the clarification, mate! All understood. Cheers! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .
Why are you trying to make an issue and then you have to justify yourself .this is not a legal issue it is about science . Probably you went so South America and had problem so you are attempting to get even . On science we don't need lawyer we need people who do experimental work.
. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! OK guys, let's nip this potential tit-for-tat in the bud, eh? It's been clarified and no-one is left out to dry over the possible misunderstandings and the possible reasons for same. So how about we all smile once more and 'shake hands over the internet' and just forget about it and go from there? Yes, guys? Thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good luck and good discussing, everyone! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cheers! .
I am making an issue because you were frigging arrogant and rude. If you wish to focus on science do so and lose the high and mighty attitude which does not sit well on you. To Reality Check: I appreciate your efforts to bring calm to the thread and get everyone to play nice. Your intentions are honourable and I genuinely salute them. However, I've had enough of this dickhead and his ego, so will be out of here and on my way. Thanks again. Good luck.
I have no personal experience with sputtering. I do know that it goes back to at least the 1940's and before. That it predates vapor depositation and produces coatings that are considered infereor. It is cheaper as the vacuum requirements are much more lax than vapor depositation. Most of what I know about sputtering comes from a series of books, "Amatuer Telescope Making" which is a compilation of articles from the 30's and 40's from Scientific American magazine.
