Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

PAPER

Triggering of the breakdown in a discharge tube by visible-spectrum light

pulses
To cite this article: A V Meshchanov et al 2018 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 335202

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 195.70.223.102 on 24/07/2018 at 11:30

 Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202 (12pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aad1d8

Triggering of the breakdown in a discharge

tube by visible-spectrum light pulses
A V Meshchanov , D O Ivanov, Y Z Ionikh and A I Shishpanov
St. Petersburg State University, 7-9 Universitetskaya Emb., St. Petersburg 199034, Russia

E-mail: y.ionikh@spbu.ru

Received 4 May 2018, revised 28 June 2018

Accepted for publication 6 July 2018
Published 24 July 2018

Abstract
The influence of the pulses of visible-spectrum light on the breakdown in a discharge tube was
studied experimentally. The tube of 80 cm length and 1.5 cm inner diameter contained neon at
a pressure of 0.6 Torr. High-voltage rectangular or ramp pulses were applied to the anode. The
light pulses of 0.1–100 µs duration were produced by the light-emitting diode or laser diode
at a wavelength of 460 and 407 nm, respectively. A small area of the tube wall near the anode
was illuminated at different moments after or before the voltage pulse onset.
It has been found that the light pulse exerts the strongest influence on the breakdown. In the
case of rectangular pulse, it drastically decreases the statistical delay time of the breakdown.
As a result, all the breakdowns, which did not happen before the light pulse, occur during
several microseconds after its onset. The light pulse influences the breakdown delay time even
if it terminates before the voltage pulse onset. This can be explained by the finite lifetime
of the secondary electrons produced by the light. In the case of the ramp voltage pulse, an
essential decrease in the breakdown voltage scatter is observed under illumination. The effect
is especially pronounced if the light pulse is applied at the moment when the anode voltage
is equal to or somewhat lower than the minimum breakdown voltage. For later moments,
the breakdown voltages are strictly bounded by both sides. The average breakdown voltage
decreases noticeably.
As for the mechanism responsible for the observed effect, electron photodesorption from
the tube wall is suggested. This process presumably occurs in dielectric barrier discharge at
atmospheric pressure where it can influence the breakdown voltage and provide synchronous
breakdown of micro discharges, thus causing the formation of multiple filaments.

Keywords: breakdown in a long tube, breakdown delay time, breakdown voltage, wall charge,
electron photodesorption

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction It was first formulated by Seeliger and Rock in 1938 [3].

In a conventional discharge tube, the length is usually much
larger than the diameter. In such geometry, a pre-breakdown
electric field created by the applied voltage is bunched near
the high-voltage electrode and is weak elsewhere. This case
differs markedly from that of the short discharge gaps with
large plane electrodes, where the field is nearly uniform
and breakdown occurs via either Townsend avalanches or
streamers, depending on the gas pressure and applied voltage
[1, 2]. In a long tube, both of these mechanisms are excluded.
Then Bartholomeyczeyk [4] in 1939 showed that ignition of
the discharge starts with ionization of the gas near the high-
voltage electrode, and then the area of ionization moves to the
opposite electrode, charging the tube wall. This movement is
accompanied by luminescence of the gas. This scenario was
supplemented and refined by Nedospasov and Novik 20 years
later [5]. They showed that a glow discharge ignition starts
with the initial breakdown of the gap between the high-voltage
electrode and tube wall. Plasma domain (‘plasma cloud’, is
the authors’ term) is generated, and voltage is now applied

1361-6463/18/335202+12$33.00 1 © 2018 IOP Publishing Ltd  Printed in the UK

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
between its boundary and the next part of the wall. This, in turn,
causes the appearance of a new ionization region, so that the
plasma boundary and ionization front move towards the low-
voltage electrode. The speed of this movement found in [5]
through optical and electrical measurements, was ~105 cm s−1.
After the ionization front reaches the low-voltage electrode,
plasma fills the whole tube, and the current circuit is closed.
Plasma electrons that settled on the wall create an electric
field that, together with the external field, retracts electric field
lines inwards of the plasma volume [2]. The resultant field is
directed along the tube axis and forms a glow discharge with
appropriate spatial structure.
The mechanism proposed in that work was approved in
later studies [6–20]. Of those works, [6, 8, 9, 11–20] pre-
sent the result of an experimental study, and in [6, 7, 10, 11,
13–15, 19] the modeling was performed. An interest to the
breakdown in tubes was primarily aroused by their applica-
tions in fluorescent lamps. That is why in most of these works
the tube was filled with argon, either pure or in a mixture with
mercury vapor and/or the rare gases Ne and Kr. Breakdown
in nitrogen was also studied in [14], in helium [16], neon [18]
and an Ar–N2 mixture [19]. In many cases, the discharge tube
was shielded with a grounded metal cylinder (Faraday cage),
which should exclude non-controlled electrical interference
from external equipment and could also serve as a climate-
control system. The key features of the model [5] were con-
firmed in these studies, namely the appearance of a charged
area near the high-voltage electrode and the propagation of an
ionization front (ionization, or pre-breakdown wave) and of
wall surface charge, towards the low-voltage electrode. One
more wave in the opposite direction may propagate prior to
the breakdown. However, only one wave was registered in
[12, 14–20] and three waves were observed in [6]. The authors
of [13] saw only a direct wave for the positive voltage polarity,
and direct and return waves for the negative one. Note, that the
first stage of this scenario, that is the initial breakdown, has
not been studied in detail. Nevertheless, because of the short-
ness of the discharge gap for this breakdown, it is assumed to
have a Townsend-like nature [13, 18].
In [13], it was mentioned that illumination of the tube can
affect the breakdown voltage; however, special studies of
this effect in that work have not been performed. Actually,
the effect of UV, x-rays, and gamma radiation on the break-
down is well studied [1] and its mechanism is well known;
it is the generation of secondary electrons due to either gas
photoionization or photoelectron emission from the electrode
surface. But the effect of visible radiation on the breakdown
has received little attention. There are several papers on
the study of Townsend breakdown in short discharge gaps
[21–24] where the delay time of breakdown was measured.
In [21], in which neon at a pressure of 10 Torr was studied,
the discharge gap was illuminated by a laser operating at the
wavelength of 614.3 nm, corresponding to the Ne 1s5  −  2p6
transition. In [22–24] (nitrogen at a pressure of 1 Torr), the
gap was illuminated by the emission of a nitrogen discharge.
In all cases, the irradiation changed the breakdown delay time;
however, the sign of this change was different; in [21–23],
it increased, while in [24], it decreased. The increase in the
2
A V Meshchanov et al
delay time was explained by the deactivation of the Ne 1s5 or
the N2A3 Σ+ u metastable states by the radiation, which led to
a decrease in the rates of the ionization processes involving
these states. The authors of [24] explained the decrease in the
delay time by the photoemission from the cathode surface,
presumably covered with an iron oxide microfilm, which has
a longer wavelength threshold than the metal itself.
The effect of optical radiation on the breakdown was
observed in [25] when studying a corona discharge in a point-
to-plane gap with a polished plane cathode. A considerable
increase in the generation rate of initial electrons under the
action of visible light was found. As a mechanism of this
effect, the authors consider photo-stimulated exo-electron
emission (PSEE) [26], which arises at a wavelength longer
than the threshold of the photoelectric effect. PSEE is a par­
ticular case of exo-electron emission, viz. low-temperature
electron emission from a solid surface under preliminary exci-
tation of the emitter [27]. In [25], it was supposed that such
an excitation was performed by mechanical polishing of the
electrode, which led to the formation of charged microcracks
in the surface oxide layer.
The effect of illumination by visible light on the break-
down in the tubes was observed in [28–31]. A tungsten-hal-
ogen lamp of 150 W power was used as the irradiating light
source. Standard fluorescent lamps (Hg–Ar, 50 cm in length,
28 mm in diameter) with no wall fluorescent coating were
studied. In [29], the lamp was mounted in a metal housing
with an opening for light irradiation. Voltage pulses with time
dependence U  =  U0  ×  [1  −  exp(−t/τ)], τ ~ 10 ms, and with
a repetition rate of 10 Hz, were applied to the high-voltage
electrode. The U0 magnitude was fitted so that the discharge
ignition occurred once per two or three seconds. The authors
define such U0 value as ‘ignition voltage’; it probably cor-
relates (but does not coincide [31]) with breakdown voltage.
A growth of U0 under illumination was observed; the effect
was enhanced with light intensity and for illuminance ~103 lx
saturated at the level of an almost 1.5-fold voltage increase.
For negative pulse voltage it was essentially weaker. The long-
wavelength limit of the effect was ca. 500 nm. It was found
that the efficiency of irradiation depended on the position of
the irradiated place along the tube; the points 4–6 cm from
the anode were the most sensitive to illumination. The authors
proposed two possible mechanisms of the irradiation effect.
(1) Illumination depopulates the metastable argon levels,
thereby decreasing the ionization of Hg atoms in the Penning
processes. (2) Illumination changes the charging state of the
wall surface and, as a result, influences the ionization front
movement. No quantitative treatment was proposed.
In our works [16–18], the influence of the illumination on
the dynamic breakdown voltage Ub in long tubes was studied
for tubes filled with He [16], Ar [16, 17], Ar–Hg mixture
and Ne [18] at a pressure of 1–5 Torr. In [16], the tube was
illuminated by filtered emission of the halogen lamp, in [17,
18] the light-emitting diodes (LEDs) were used. The ramp
high-voltage pulses with steepness dU/dt up to ~107 V s−1
[16, 18], or pulses with the leading edge governed by equa-
tion U  =  U0  ×  [1  −  exp(−t/τ)], τ  ≈  50 µs [17], were applied
to the anode of the tubes. In all cases, illumination lowered
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
the average breakdown voltage Ub by as much as two or three
times. Besides, statistical scatter in the Ub values decreased
or almost ceased. The long-wavelength threshold of the effect
was estimated to be 400–500 nm. In [18], it was also obtained
that illumination of the tube reduced the breakdown statistical
delay time. In this case, rectangular voltage pulses were used.
Similar to [27, 28], the points most sensitive to illumination
were placed at 5–6 cm from the anode.
As for the mechanism of the effect, in [16] it was suppos-
edly similar to [25], which is PSEE. However, in later studies
[17, 18] another mechanism was proposed, viz. electron pho-
todesorption from the wall surface. This process is assumed to
occur in dielectric barrier discharges (DBDs) at atmospheric
pressure [32–37], where electrons are presumably desorbed
from the surface of the dielectric barrier under the action of
discharge radiation. It is suggested that this is important for
discharge ignition owing to the synchronization of separate
micro-discharge pulses.
In [38], the influence of visible light on the ignition of
pulsed discharge in a flow of He, N2, O2, and He–N2, He–O2
mixtures is described. The gas pressure ranged from 2 ×
103–9 × 104 Pa, while the flow rate was 0.5–4 l min−1. The
light sources were LEDs, lasers and Xe lamps. The break-
down delay time was measured and found to be decreasing
when the tube was illuminated. In nitrogen, the effect was
especially strong; the delay time fell from more than five min-
utes to several seconds. The proposed mechanism is the PSEE
mentioned above; it can also involve the vibrational excitation
of nitrogen molecules.
In all previous research of the effect of visible-spectrum
light on the breakdown in tubes, continuous light sources were
applied. In the present work, the pulsed illumination of the
tube was studied. This allowed us to examine the temporal
characteristics of the effect and get additional information on
its features.
2. Experimental
The sealed-off discharge tube was of 15 mm in inner diameter
with an 80 cm distance between the cylinder hollow aluminum
electrodes of 2 cm in length and 10 mm in diameter. Their
front edges were coated with ceramic collars. The tube was
filled with high-purity neon at a pressure of 0.6 Torr. One of
the electrodes was grounded; the positive high-voltage pulses
were applied to the other. Pulses of two different waveforms
were used (figure 1): (1) rectangular pulse with steep leading
edge (rise time of ~1 µs); (2) the pulse with a linearly growing
leading edge (ramp pulse) U(t)  =  (dU/dt)  ×  t, with dU/dt  =
106–108 V s−1. The pulse amplitude was varied through the
range 1–5 kV, and the pulse repetition rate was 1 Hz or lower.
Such a low rate was chosen to ensure independence of the
breakdown characteristics from the influence of the previous
pulse (‘memory effect’ [14, 39]). The pulse duration was typi-
cally 10 ms. It was enough for igniting glow discharge after
the breakdown, and for discharge current to reach the steady-
state value. The ballast resistor in the discharge circuit limited
this value to a magnitude of 10–40 mA.
3
A V Meshchanov et al
For all pulse shapes, the sharp drop of the voltage was
observed at the moment of breakdown. For ramp pulses,
voltage at the point preceding this drop was considered as
the breakdown voltage Ub. For rectangular pulses, when all
breakdowns occurred at amplitude voltage, the breakdown
delay time td was determined as an interval between the pulse
leading edge and point of the voltage drop.
Light pulses were produced at different time shifts relative
to the voltage pulse onset. In figure 2, their possible mutual
positions are shown schematically. Two light sources were
used. (i) An LED of ~50 mW input power and ~1 cd luminous
intensity. The irradiation was diaphragmed and narrowed, so
that the 5 mm spot on the tube wall was illuminated. The lumi-
nous flux through this area was  ≈3·10−5 W. (ii) Laser diode
of ~500 mW input pulse power. The irradiated spot was also
5 mm in diameter and the luminous flux was ca. 10 mW. For
both light sources, the light beam was nearly parallel and
crossed the axis of the tube at a right angle. Two positions
of the illuminated spot could be used: (1) close to the anode
end, so that the light beam passed next to the anode ceramic
collar; (2) at a distance of 5 cm from the anode towards the
cathode. The spectral distributions were measured for both
sources using the calibrated spectrometer (figure 3). All other
light sources including the room lighting were switched off.
It was noted above that in some of the previous works where
the breakdown in tubes was studied, they were surrounded by
the grounded shield (mostly aluminum tube of about 5 cm in
diameter). The main purpose of the shielding is usually to
exclude the non-controlled electrostatic interaction with the
environment. But instead, interaction with the shield arises.
It seems evident that this interaction can also influence the
breakdown. In our recent studies [18, 20], we have detected
such an influence in experiments with Ar–Hg mixture, when
the tube was placed inside the grounded cylindrical shields
of varied diameter d. In particular for d  =  5 cm, the ioniz­
ation wave average velocity was more than 3-fold higher than
that with no shielding. The shield also drastically distorted
waveforms of the anode voltage and current. The idea of this
work was to study the breakdown in tubes under conditions of
their conventional applications (light sources, gas-discharge
lasers, plasma research, etc) where no special shielding is usu-
ally used. Therefore, the discharge tube in this work was not
screened. For minimizing electrical impact on the environ­
ment, the tube was fixed on dielectric holders at a distance
larger than 7–10 cm from all small-sized metal components of
the setup, and at more than 40 cm from its larger components.
The absence of such an impact was proved by the fact that no
rearrangement in laboratory equipment had had any effect on
the measured parameters of the breakdown. No change was
observed when relocating the tube to another laboratory room.
It was also found that the presence of small-scale metal (even
grounded) objects affected the breakdown characteristics only
if they were located closer than 2‒3 cm from the tube. It is also
worth noting that in experiments with Ar–Hg mixture [18, 20]
where the tube was placed inside the shields of varied diam-
eter d, the breakdown characteristic distortions waned when
increasing the d value and almost disappeared at d  ≈  70 cm.
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202 A V Meshchanov et al

Figure 1.  Waveforms of voltage and current for the rectangular (a) and ramp (b) pulses. Breakdown delay time td and breakdown voltage
Ub are shown.

Figure 2.  Relative positions of voltage and light pulses. Bold lines show the voltage pulse waveforms. Bar depicts the light pulse.

3.  Experimental results

3.1.  Influence of illumination on the breakdown delay time

This effect was studied by applying the voltage pulses with

short (~1 µs) rise time. Delay time td was determined as an
interval between the pulse leading edge and moment of break-
down (figure 1). In figure  4, the breakdown delay times are
depicted for a series of 300 voltage pulses of 1.5 kV ampl­
itude. Plot 1 shows the data collected with no illumination.
The other two with illumination by emission of the 5 µs LED
pulses applied at different moments t0 (see figure 2(a)) after
the voltage pulse leading edge. The area at the anode was
irradiated. Without illumination, the td values show very wide
scatter (figure 4(a)), between 20 and almost 1000 µs. The light
pulses sharply limit the upper boundary of these values at the
level close to t0 (figures 4(b) and (c)).
Figure 3.  Spectral characteristics of the LED (a) and laser diode
Alternative and more informative presentation of these (b). Upper scales show associated photon energy.
data is as follows. For breakdown of the short discharge gaps,
the delay time is the sum of two components, statistical time ts interval between the appearance of effective electron and the
and formative time tf [1, 2] sharp rise of the discharge current. Statistical time has a sto-
chastic nature, so the same is true for the whole td value. Two
td = ts + tf .
(1)
components of the latter are the parameters of the delay time
Statistical time is an interval between the moment of voltage distribution function (Laue distribution)
application and the (random) moment of appearance of the Å ã
electron, which creates the avalanche initiating the break- n(td ) td − tf
(2) = exp − ,
down (so-called effective electron [39]). Formative time is an N t̄s

4
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202 A V Meshchanov et al

Figure 4.  Breakdown delay times for sequences of 300 pulses with no illumination (a) and with the 5 µs LED pulses illuminating the area
next to the anode end at different delay time t0 after the voltage pulse onset (b) and (c). Lines mark the t0 values.

where n(td) is a number of breakdowns that occurred at the

moments later than td, and N is the total number of break-
downs. Equation (2) is valid for td  >  tf, otherwise n(td)  =  N.
In the former case, the plot of the logarithm of n(td)/N versus
td is a straight line (Lauegram [39]), for which the slope is
equal to t̄s−1 and the point of intersection with the td axis is
tf. Such dependence was really observed [1, 39]. For dis-
charge tubes, according to the above described scenario, the
first stage is an initial Townsend-like breakdown between the
high-voltage electrode and nearest section of the tube wall.
For this breakdown, the above approach may be applicable.
For the breakdown of the whole discharge gap, ionization
wave propagation is still required; therefore equation  (1)
must be replaced by
td = ts + tf + tw ,
(3)
where tw is the passage time for the wave (or waves). For
given conditions, tw is a fixed (not a random) value, as well as Figure 5.  Breakdown delay time distributions for sequences of 300
tf, and therefore they may be summarized. Then, equations (1) voltage pulses with the illumination area next to the anode end by
and (2) transform into 5 µs LED pulses for different light pulse delays t0. Figures near the
curves show the t0 values in microseconds.
td = ts + tfw ,
(4)
outside this interval. A more detailed consideration of these
Å ã curves will be presented in section 4.1.
n(td ) td − tfw
(5) = exp − , Figures 6 and 7 demonstrate the data of experiments with
N t̄s
the light pulses of varying duration δt applied at the fixed
where tfw  =  tf  +  tw may be considered as formative time for moment (t0  =  200 µs) after the voltage pulse onset (pulse
the breakdown in the whole tube. Such dependence was really amplitude is 1.5 kV). One can see that the efficiency of illu-
observed in [18]. In that work, the same tube as in the present mination grows with the light-pulse duration but saturates
study was irradiated with the emission of LEDs operating in at δt  ≈  10 µs (points for 10 and 100 µs in figure  7 lie on a
continuous mode. Irradiation increased the Lauegram slope, common line).
which turned out to be in linear dependence on the light The lifetime of electrons emitted by irradiation is obviously
intensity. finite. Therefore, the light pulses should affect the breakdown
In figure 5, the experimental points of line 9 demonstrate even if they are applied somewhat before the voltage pulse
the Laue distribution with the darkened tube. The param­ (as shown in figure 2(b)). The appropriate experiments were
eters of the distribution found from this line are tfw  ≈  15 µs performed with the laser diode as a light source, which pro-
(marked in the figure) and t̄s   ≈  200 µs. The other curves in vided increased sensitivity of measurement owing to higher
this figure show the effect of the illumination of the tube next light power. For the same purpose, the irradiated spot was
to the anode end with light pulses of 5 µs duration applied at shifted from the anode in the direction towards the cathode
different delays t0 relative to the onset of the voltage pulse. It by 5 cm, to the point that ensured the strongest impact of
can be seen that after the light pulse, with 15–20 µs delay there illumination on the breakdown [18]. The laser pulse dura-
is a sharp bend in the curves and during 10–15 µs interval, tion was 100 ns. For these measurements, the voltage pulse
the slope of the curves is about 30–50 times steeper than that generation was improved to reduce the pulse leading edge to

5
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
Figure 6.  Breakdown delay times for sequences of 300 pulses under illumination of the area next to the anode end with the LED pulses of
different duration δt applied at t0  =  200 µs after the voltage pulse onset.
Figure 7.  Breakdown delay time distributions for sequences of 300
voltage pulses with the illumination area next to the anode end by
the LED pulses of different duration δt applied at t0  =  200 µs delay
after the voltage onset. Figures near the curves are the δt values in
microseconds.
0.1 µs. Lauegrams obtained in these experiments are plotted
in figure 8 for different time gaps Δt between the light and
voltage pulses. The plots show that the effect certainly exists
for Δt  ⩽  150 ns but becomes negligible for 200 ns and more.
Note that these values do not take into account the electron-
transit time in the photomultiplier. When accounting for it,
they should be increased by 50–100 ns.
3.2.  Influence of illumination on the breakdown voltage
In these studies, the voltage pulses with ramp leading edge
of different slopes dU/dt were applied. The influence of illu-
mination on the breakdown, which had appeared as a change
in the td value for the rectangular pulse, now showed itself
as changing the breakdown voltage Ub. Fluctuations of delay
times ts and td caused scatter of the Ub values. The breakdown
voltage in this case should be referred to as dynamic break-
down voltage, being the opposite to the static one, which is
realized for dU/dt  →  0 (see section 4.2).
6
A V Meshchanov et al
Figure 8.  Breakdown delay time distributions for sequences of 300
voltage pulses with the illumination area at 5 cm from the anode
end by the laser pulses of 100 ns duration applied earlier than the
voltage pulse. Time gaps between the light and voltage pulses Δt
(nanoseconds) are shown near the curves.
Figure  9(a) depicts the data for a sequence of 50 break-
downs by ramp voltage pulses with dU/dt  = 5  ×  106 V s−1
(5 kV ms−1). A very wide scattering is observed from ca.
1–5 kV. The other panels show similar data for measurements
when the spot at 5 cm distance from the anode is irradiated
with the LED pulses of 10 µs duration and different lags τ
from the voltage pulse onset (see figure 2(c)). The thick shorter
horizontal lines show the voltage U at the moment of light
pulse. The thin longer lines in figure 9 are drawn through the
points with the minimum Ub = Ubmin = 1210 V values, which
are equal for all the panels. One can see that the light pulses
decrease point scattering; the effect is most noticeable when
τ is equal to or somewhat less than τ*, where the τ* value
(242 µs) is such that voltage U = Ubmin (figure 9(d)). In this
case, the scatter almost disappears. For τ  >  τ*, all the break-
downs occur inside the interval between τ* and τ.
Because of stochasticity of the dynamic breakdown voltage
its value averaged over the large number of pulses is more val-
uable. In figure 10, dependence of Ubav on τ is plotted. Every
point is a result of averaging the Ub values over 50 pulses.
Error bars are standard deviations (thin lines) and standard
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
Figure 9.  Breakdown voltage measured for sequences of 50 ramp voltage pulses with the illumination point at 5 cm from the anode end by
10 µs LED pulses. Time gap between the voltage pulse onset and light pulse τ (µs) is depicted in a frame; dU/dt  = 5 kV ms−1. For other
details, see in the text.
Figure 10.  Average dynamic breakdown voltage as a function of
the time gap between the voltage pulse onset and light pulse found
by averaging over 50 pulses. dU/dt  = 5 kV ms−1. Horizontal line
shows the average data with no illumination. Longer error bars are
the standard deviations, shorter ones are the standard errors of mean
values. τ* marks the moment at U = Ubmin .
errors of the mean values (bold lines). The horizontal line is
Ubav obtained with no illumination. Figure  10 reveals again
that the strongest effect of illumination on the breakdown
is achieved when the light pulse is produced at the moment
7
A V Meshchanov et al
τ  =  τ* (marked on the plot) corresponding to the minimum of
Ub, or a bit earlier.
4. Discussion
It is important to note at the outset that apart from the mea-
surements described in this paper, we performed a number of
experiments with discharge tubes of other sizes, at different
pressures and parameters of the voltage pulse, and with other
rare gases. In all cases, the basic qualitative features of the
effect under study were similar.
4.1.  Influence of illumination on the breakdown delay time
The illumination effect on the breakdown delay time td is
clearly seen in figures  4 and 5. In figure  5, it is manifested
by a sharp bend of Lauegram at the moment t0  +  t1, where
t0 is an interval between the voltage and light pulse onsets
and t1  =  15–20 µs. Then, during the t2  ≈  10 µs, the Lauegram
slope is about 30–50 times steeper than outside this interval.
The Lauegram slope is the reciprocal of the average statis-
tical delay time t̄s (equation (5)), so the t̄s value changes
from  ≈  200 µs with no illumination to a few microseconds
with it. This results in most (more than 90 per cent) of the
breakdowns, which have not happened before, occurring in
this interval. The latter may evidently be made still shorter by
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
increasing light intensity. The t̄s value in turn is determined
by the appearance rate Z of the effective electrons, this value
being equal to t̄s−1  [1, 18, 39]. In this way, the Z value during
illumination may be estimated as  ≈(2–3)  ×  105 s−1, which
agrees with the data of experiments carried out for similar
conditions with continuous-mode illumination [18].
The time shift t1 between the light pulse and breakdown
response to it is evidently due to the existence of the formative
component of delay time τfw. The duration of the t1 interval
(15–20 µs) coincides with the tfw value. One can conclude that
the light pulses of this rather moderate intensity drastically
reduce the statistical component of the delay time, but do not
affect the formative time.
It is clear that the minimal td value must be equal to tfw
both with and without illumination. Indeed, the td minimum
is equal to 19 µs for figure  4(a) and 17 µs for (b) and (c)
(because of stochasticity of breakdown time, the difference
between these magnitudes is insignificant).
With no illumination, the td values are scattered widely,
between tfw and  ≈1000 µs, with an indefinite upper bound.
With the light pulses, the upper boundary becomes sharp.
From the above analyses, this boundary should be between
(tfw  +  t0) and (tfw  +  t0  +  t2), which differ by 10 µs only. This
agrees well with the experimental points of figure 4.
Note that although the portion of Lauegram corresponding
to the formative time lies before the portion describing the
statistical delay time, actually the statistical processes of
appearance of effective electrons precede those of electron
multiplication and formation of initial discharge between the
anode and the wall. Therefore, the apparent t1  =  tfw delay of
the light pulse impact implies in fact that photo-emitted elec-
trons appear from the very onset of this pulse.
Figures 6 and 7 show that the light influence increases
with the light pulse duration δt. For δt  =  0.2 µs, the effect
is weak; it must be so because with the Z value given
above (Z  ≈  (2–3)  ×  105 s−1), the average number of effec-
tive electrons per light pulse is less than 0.1. This number
grows with δt increasing, is about 1 for δt  =  5 µs and for
10 µs reaches several units, which implies that each light
pulse initiates the breakdown. In other words, almost all
the breakdowns that without illumination would have hap-
pened after the light pulse, occur within the first several
microseconds of the pulse, so further pulse widening does
not change the picture (curves for δt  =  10 and 100 µs in
figure 7 coincide).
It should be stressed that the electrons in question are
effective ones, that is those of secondary electrons that
manage to initiate the breakdown [18, 30, 39]. The lifetime
of these electrons can be estimated from the experiments with
the light pulses applied before the voltage pulse, as shown in
figure  2(b). The plots of figure  8 show that the light effect
is manifested in increasing the slope of the initial portion of
Lauegrams, while their rest part remains unchanged. To eval-
uate the action of the light pulse, one should therefore con-
sider the difference
−1
(6)
Z = t̄s−1 − ts0 ,
8
A V Meshchanov et al
Figure 11.  Appearance rate of effective electrons Z (see
equation (6)) as a function of the interval between the light and
voltage pulses
where Z is the rate of light-stimulated effective electron emis-
−1
sion, and t̄s−1 and ts0 are slopes of the two parts of Lauegram
(figure 8). The Z values found from equation  (6) with the
use of the distributions plotted in figure 8, decrease with Δt
exponentially with a time constant of 46  ±  2 ns (figure 11). It
seems evident that at extremely low density of charged par-
ticles before the voltage pulse, the electrons are removed from
the volume mainly due to free diffusion to the wall. With the
diffusion coefficient from [40], the free diffusion time is equal
to 33 ns, which agrees reasonably with the estimated value.
4.2.  Influence of illumination on the breakdown voltage
4.2.1.  General consideration.  Consider first the case of very
slow voltage growth
(dU/dt) × td  Ub ,
(7)
where td is the average delay time. Here, the breakdown occurs
when the voltage reaches what is known as static breakdown
voltage US, and Ub  =  US, or very close to it. In the opposite
case when
(dU/dt) × td  U0 ,
(8)
where (U0 is the pulse amplitude) the breakdown is possible
if U0  >  US, and then Ub   =  U0. In both cases, the breakdown
voltage is fixed (or almost fixed in the first case), and stochas-
ticity of breakdown appears as fluctuations of delay time. In
order for breakdown to definitely happen, the pulse duration
must be much longer than the average td value. In the inter-
mediate case, when the pulse leading edge is longer, but not
much longer than td and the breakdowns occur mainly on the
slope part of the pulse, the existence of delay time results in
increasing breakdown voltage as against the static value
U b = US + (dU/dt) × td = US + (dU/dt) × (ts + tfw ).
(9)
Fluctuations of statistical delay time ts causes scatter in the
Ub values. This scatter may be very wide (from 1–5 kV in
figure 9(a)). The light pulses narrow it, essentially lowering the
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
upper limit, but not changing the lower one Ubmin = 1210 V.
The latter is marked in figures 9(a)–(f) with thin lines and obvi-
ously corresponds to the ts equal to 0 (or at least to ts  ≪  tfw).
Therefore,
Ubmin − US = (dU/dt) × tfw .
(10)
Under the conditions of this work, US  =  930 V. It was esti-
mated by measuring Ubmin for different slopes and extrapo-
lating these values to dU/dt  = 0 [39]. Then, from (10) one
obtains tfw  =  56 µs. This value differs from that found in
experiments with rectangular pulse (15–20 µs, figures 5 and
7). This can be explained by the difference in anode voltage
for these two cases (≈1 kV in the former and 1.5 kV in the
latter). Both tfw values agree with those received in [18] under
similar conditions.
The thick shorter horizontal lines in figure  9 show the
voltage at the moment of the light pulse. The effect is most
noticeable at the moment τ  =  τ* when the voltage of the light
pulse is equal to Ubmin or somewhat less (figure  9(d)). For
τ  >  τ*, all the breakdowns occur strictly inside the interval
between τ* and τ (between two horizontal lines). The lower
limit of this interval is determined by the obvious fact that
the light pulse cannot affect breakdowns that have already
occurred. The existence of the clear upper limit proves the
high efficiency of the light pulse in triggering the breakdown.
Figure 10 also reveals that the strongest effect of illumi-
nation on the breakdown is achieved when the light pulse
is produced at the moment τ  =  τ*  =  242 µs corresponding
to the minimum of Ub (1210 V), or a bit earlier. At longer
τ, the effect weakens, which is explained by the increasing
number of breakdowns that occurred before the light pulse;
they cannot be affected by the illumination.
4.2.2.  Short delays of the light pulse.  Weakening of the effect
for shorter τ also seems clear, because in this case the electrons
are emitted at lower voltage, which reduces the probability for
them to initiate the breakdown. Moreover, if the light pulse is
radiated before the voltage has reached the static breakdown
voltage US, breakdown seems impossible. For dU/dt  =  5 kV
ms−1, it takes 185 µs for the voltage to reach the US value
(930 V). One might expect that for shorter τ, illumination is
inefficient. In fact, however, the effect is clearly noticeable
even at τ  =  50 µs (figures 9(b) and 10).
When studying breakdown by rectangular voltage pulses
(figure 8) it was found that the light pulse being applied before
the voltage onset can affect the breakdown if the interval
between them does not exceed Δt ~ 100 ns. From these meas-
urements the lifetime of photo-emitted electrons was estimate
to be 46 ns (figure 11), which is much less than the just men-
tioned 50 µs. However, there is a difference between these two
cases. In the case of ramp voltage, an electric field exists at the
instant of laser pulse, while it is absent in the case of rectan-
gular pulse. To check if this difference matters, we repeated
the experiment with the illumination which preceded the
rectangular pulse, but with additional voltage pulse applied
simultaneously with the light burst (see figure  2(d)). This
9
A V Meshchanov et al
Figure 12.  Processing of the data obtained for 300 voltage pulses
of 1.5 kV amplitude with illumination of the tube by the 50 µs LED
pulse and simultaneous application of a 60 µs voltage pulse of 400
V amplitude. LED and additional pulses are applied at Δt before
−1 −1
the main pulse. Z = t̄s−1 − ts0 , where ts0 , is the slope of the
Lauegram for no illumination and t̄s−1 is that with illumination at
appropriate Δt.
voltage was lower than US and could not produce the break-
down. The Laue distributions plotted for different Δt showed
that the reciprocal average statistic delay time decreases with
Δt exponentially, similar to that of figure 11, but with a time
constant of ca. 300 µs (figure 12). This time cannot be attrib-
uted to electron diffusion time, the latter being four orders of
magnitude less.
A possible explanation for the result of this experiment may
be as follows. Although the additional pulse voltage is too low
for the breakdown, the electric field created by this voltage
may be high enough to excite atoms. Metastable atoms that
appeared in this process have a lifetime of the order of a hun-
dred microseconds. They can live till the voltage reaches the
breakdown value and at collision with the wall produce sec-
ondary electrons initiating the breakdown. Metastable Ne(s5)
diffusion lifetime under conditions in this study is just about
300 µs (diffusion coefficient is taken from [41]).
An additional experiment was performed to test this
hypothesis. Decay of the Ne(s5) level population in the post-
discharge period was studied by the absorption method [42].
The optical absorption was measured for the Ne 1s5–2p9, λ
640.2 nm line emitted by the DC discharge in the tube iden-
tical to the main tube and placed beyond and parallel to it.
Supposing a Doppler line profile both for emission and
absorption, the metastable 1s5 density averaged over the tube
radius was determined in the post-discharge (figure 13). The
similarity of the time dependencies for the values plotted in
figures 12 and 13 is evident.
In the same way, it is possible to explain the results
described above, when the light pulse affected the breakdown
voltage at short pulse delay τ. Although the voltage for such
a delay is too low for the breakdown, it may be high enough
to produce metastable atoms, which afterwards generate the
effective electrons and thus initiate the breakdown.
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
Figure 13.  Decay of the Ne s5 level population averaged over
the tube radius in a post-discharge. Pulse current is 5 mA, pulse
duration is 10 ms.
4.2.3. Comparison with the data of previous works.  The
impact of the illumination on the breakdown voltage was stud-
ied by Hamamato et al [28–30] in a fluorescent lamp contain-
ing an Ar–Hg mixture. Voltage pulses with time dependence
U  =  U0  ×  [1  −  exp(−t/τ)], τ  =  6.8–11.5 ms and a repetition
rate of 10 Hz, were applied to the tube. The U0 magnitude
was fitted so that the discharge ignition occurred once per two
or three seconds. Such a U0 value was defined as ‘ignition
voltage’. It is not the same as the breakdown voltage Ub, but
evidently correlates with it. A halogen lamp was used as an
irradiating light source. Considerable U0 value increase under
illumination was observed (the authors however mention that
one specific lamp most sensitive to irradiation, was selected
for investigation). A possible explanation of the difference
between the data of those works and ours may be as follows.
The voltage rise in [28–30] was rather slow, dU/dt  ≈  100 V
ms−1 at the pulse onset and several times less near the break-
down point. It is very likely that this is the case described by
inequality (7), and then the breakdown voltage Ub is close to
the static breakdown voltage US. In such a case, statistical
delay time and its scatter does not affect the Ub, so the light
influence on the Ub through decreasing delay time as observed
in the present study, is not realized. It may explain why illu-
mination does not reduce breakdown voltage in [28–30]. The
authors of those works proposed two possible mechanisms for
its raising. The first is that the illumination depopulates argon
metastable levels, which results in diminishing the rate of the
Penning ionization of Hg atoms. This mechanism is not appli-
cable for pure rare gases. The second mechanism proposed
in [28] is that the light changes the charging state of the wall
surface, thus causing the change in the electric field in the vol-
ume and exerting the repulsive effect to the moving ionization
front. No modeling or estimations were however proposed.
4.3.  Mechanism of illumination influence on the breakdown
parameters
In fact, the parameter which is affected here by the illumi-
nation is the breakdown delay time td; to be more exact, its
10
A V Meshchanov et al
statistical component ts. For rectangular voltage pulses, it is
manifested directly in reducing averaged delay of the break-
down, or even in truncating it at the light-pulse moment.
For the ramp voltage, it appears in changing the breakdown
dynamic voltage Ub, which is related to the td value by equa-
tion (9). In turn, the statistical component of the delay time
is determined by the appearance rate Z of effective electrons.
Therefore, the problem formulated in the subtitle of this sec-
tion  has to be read as the mechanism of electron emission
under irradiation.
In previous studies, two such mechanisms were proposed.
The first is the so-called PSEE [26]. As was mentioned in sec-
tion 1, PSEE is a particular case of exo-electron emission, viz.
emission from a solid surface under preliminary excitation of
the emitter [27]. In [25], it was suggested that it was the PSEE
that initiated the burst pulses, which were observed in atmos­
phere-pressure corona discharge in air when an incandescent
lamp irradiated the cathode surface. The authors of that paper
suggested that the excitation of the surface could be per-
formed by mechanical polishing of the electrode, which led
to the formation of charged microcracks in the surface oxide
layer. For a long tube, the PSEE as a mech­anism of illumina-
tion impact on the breakdown was considered in [16, 38]. It
was supposed that in this case the emitter (glass wall surface)
could be excited by interaction with plasma of a previous
discharge pulse. There is no evidence however that such an
excitation mechanism is really possible. The other possibility
considered in [38], was vibrational excitation of N2 molecules
produced by illumination, which should result in lowering the
ionization threshold (nitrogen was present as a component of
the mixture or as an impurity). This version is evidently incor-
rect because for N2 as a homonuclear molecule, optical trans­
itions between vibrational levels are forbidden.
In [17, 18], another interpretation of the effect was consid-
ered, namely electron photodesorption from the wall surface.
This process is presumed to occur in a DBD at atmospheric
pressure [32–37]. The possibility of electron desorption from
the dielectric surface was first postulated in [43], where a fluid
model of the homogeneous barrier discharge in nitrogen was
developed. It was found that the known experimental results
can be explained with the help of the assumption that des-
orption of electrons adsorbed at the dielectric may occur.
Desorption caused by the thermal influence and the impact
of excited molecules (according to the estimations, of vibra-
tionally excited nitrogen molecules) can presumably be the
efficient process of electron production. It was suggested that
electrons are bound with the surface due to the polarization
force; therefore, the binding energy is relatively small (of the
order of 1 eV), and the processes of desorption can proceed
efficiently. In more detail, modeling of the electron adsorption
and desorption processes was performed in [44, 45]. It was
found experimentally [34, 46, 47] that electrons adsorbed on
a surface of a dielectric in the DBD may stay there after ces-
sation of plasma exposure for several minutes or even hours.
In terms of the present study, the most important point is
that desorption of electrons can occur under the impact of pho-
tons. In [46], illumination of the dielectric (BSO crystal) by
the LED at λ 632 nm (photon energy hν  =  1.96 eV) reduced
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
the lifetime of the surface charge by three orders of magni-
tude. In [48], the breakdown voltage in the DBD in helium
decreased essentially under irradiation of the di­electric
(glass) by a Nd:YAG laser at λ 532 nm (hν  =  2.33 eV); emis-
sion with λ 1064 nm (1.17 eV) induced the discharge trans­
ition from the glow mode to the Townsend mode. The light
emission initiated by the fast electrons provides synchronous
breakdown of micro discharges (filaments) [32–37, 47]. Due
to such collective effect, the first filamentary discharge trig-
gers the subsequent filamentary discharges and thus causes
the formation of multiple filaments. Similar processes occur
in a surface DBD [33].
The spectral range effective for desorption is evidently
defined by the binding energy Eb of adsorbed electrons. The
following data are available on this magnitude: for glass sur-
face Eb  <  3.5 eV [33] and 1.17 eV [48]; for quartz 0.50 eV
[47]. These data were obtained in works devoted to the study
of DBDs. In conditions of ignition of low-pressure glow dis-
charge where photoemission threshold λth was determined,
available data for the glass surface [16–18, 28] give the
interval 420–530 nm (hν  =  2.34–2.95 eV) and for quartz wall
λth  =  530 nm (2.34 eV) [38].
The above consideration confirms the hypothesis [43] of
the existence of weakly bound adsorbed electrons on the glass
and other dielectric surfaces. Their bond energy and appro-
priate wavelength threshold make it possible for these elec-
trons to be emitted under the impact of photons of visible
spectrum radiation. It seems most likely that this very process
is the mechanism of effects observed in this work.
5. Conclusion
The influence of the light pulses emitted by the LED and laser
diode at a wavelength of 460 and 407 nm on the breakdown in
the discharge tube was studied experimentally.
It has been found that the light pulse of fairly moderate
intensity exerts the strongest influence on the breakdown. In
the case of rectangular voltage pulse, it drastically decreases
the statistical delay time of the breakdown. As a result, all
the breakdowns, which had not happened before the light
pulse, occur during several microseconds after its onset. This
interval may be made still shorter by increasing the light inten-
sity. As to the light pulse width, it should be such that at least
several secondary electrons produced by light and initiating
the discharge (so-called effective electrons), appeared during
the pulse. Further extension of the pulse does not change the
picture.
The light pulse influences the breakdown delay time even
if it terminates before the voltage pulse onset. This can be
explained by the finite lifetime of the secondary electrons.
The latter value has been estimated experimentally and can be
attributed to the free diffusion time of electrons.
In the case of the ramp voltage pulse, an essential decrease
in the breakdown voltage scatter is observed. The effect
is especially pronounced if the light pulse is applied at the
moment τ* when the anode voltage is equal to or slightly
lower than the minimum breakdown voltage. In this case, the
difference between the highest and lowest breakdown voltages
11
A V Meshchanov et al
may drop from 5-fold to 10 percent. The average breakdown
voltage decreases up to more than twice. For the moments τ
later than τ*, all the breakdowns occur in the interval between
τ* and τ, and the breakdown voltages are strictly bounded by
both sides.
As the mechanism responsible for the observed effect, the
electron photodesorption from the tube wall is suggested. This
process is proposed to occur in DBD at atmospheric pressure
where it can influence the breakdown voltage and provide
synchronous breakdown of micro discharges, thus causing the
formation of multiple filaments.
For the ramp voltage, it has been found that deferred action
of light pulse on the breakdown may be realized when meta-
stable atoms are involved as intermediates.
It seems possible to use the effects described in the paper to
improve the characteristics of the breakdown in the tubes, e.g.
to diminish jitter, to decrease breakdown voltage fluctuations
and to reduce the average value of this voltage.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to N A Dyatko for his valuable
comments and D Marinov for very helpful discussions and
information on publications on photostimulated electron
desorption. This work was supported by the Russian Founda-
tion for Basic Research, project #15-02-06191-a.
ORCID iDs
A V Meshchanov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9760-4948
Y Z Ionikh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4817-7174
A I Shishpanov https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5869-3207
References
[1] Meek J M and Craggs J D 1978 Electrical Breakdown of
Gases (New York: Wiley)
[2] Raizer Y P 1991 Gas Discharge Physics (Berlin: Springer)
[3] von Seeliger R and Bock K 1938 Zs. Phys. 110 717–26
[4] Bartholomeyczeyk W 1939 Ann. Phys. 36 485–590
[5] Nedospasov A V and Novik A E 1961 Sov. Phys.-Tech. Phys.
5 1261–7
[6] Horstman R E and Lansink F M O 1988 J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys. 21 1130–6
[7] Brok W J M, van Dijk J, Bowden M D, van der
Mullen J J A M and Kroesen G M W 2003 J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys. 36 1967–79
[8] Gendre M F, Bowden M D, Haverlag H, van den
Nieuwenhuizen H C M, Gielen J and Kroesen G M W
2003 Proc. Frontiers in Low Temperature Plasma
Diagnostics V: Proc. of Int. Workshop (Villaggio:
Cardigliano) 295–8
[9] Gendre M F, Bowden M D, van den Nieuwenhuizen H C M,
Haverlag M, Gielen J W A M and Kroesen G M W 2005
IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 33 262–3
[10] Brok W J M, Gendre M F and van der Mullen J J A M 2007 J.
Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40 156–62
[11] Brok W J M, Gendre M, Haverlag M and van der
Mullen J J A M 2007 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40 3931–6
[12] Langer R, Garner R, Hilscher A, Tidecks R and Horn S 2008
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 144011
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 (2018) 335202
[13] Gendre M F, Haverlag M and Kroesen G M W 2010 J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 43 234004
[14] Shishpanov A I, Ionikh Yu Z, Meshchanov A V and
Dyatko N A 2014 Plasma Phys. Rep. 40 467–80
[15] Meshchanov A V, Korshunov A N, Ionikh Yu Z and
Dyatko N A 2015 Plasma Phys. Rep. 41 677–84
[16] Shishpanov A I, Ionikh Y Z and Meshchanov A V 2016 Opt.
Spectrosc. 120 929–35
[17] Meshchanov A V, Ionikh Y Z, Shishpanov A I and
Kalinin S A 2016 Plasma Phys. Rep. 42 978–89
[18] Shishpanov A I, Meshchanov A V, Kalinin S A and
Ionikh Y Z 2017 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 26 065017
[19] Dyatko N A, Ionikh Yu Z, Meshchanov A V and
Napartovich A P 2018 Plasma Phys. Rep. 44 334–44
[20] Kalinin S A, Meshchanov A V, Shishpanov A I and Ionikh
Yu Z 2018 Plasma Phys. Rep. 44 345–58
[21] Bošan Dj A, Radović M K and Krmpotić Dj M 1986 J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 19 2343–9
[22] Bošan Dj A, Jovanović T V and Krmpotić Dj M 1997 J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 30 3096–8
[23] Jovanović T V, Bošan Dj A, Krmpotić Dj M and Radović M K
1998 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 31 3249–51
[24] Pejović M M, Ristić G S and Petrović Z Lj 1999 J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys. 32 1489–93
[25] Gosho Y and Harada A 1983 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 16 1047–54
[26] Kramer J 1950 Der Metallische Zustand (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht)
[27] Mintz R I, Mil’man I I and Kryuk V I 1976 Sov. Phys. Usp.
19 697–707
[28] Hamamoto M 2006 Japan. J. Appl. Phys. 45 L172–4
[29] Hamamoto M 2006 Japan. J. Appl. Phys. 45 L175–7
[30] Hamamoto M, Kai S, Haizaki T and Ishibashi M 2007 Proc.
28th Int. Conf. Phenomena in Ionized Gases (Prague,
Czech Republic) pp 1973–6
12
A V Meshchanov et al
[31] Korolev Yu D and Mesyats G A 1991 Physics of Pulsed Gas
Breakdown (Moscow: Nauka)
[32] Ambrico P F, Ambrico M, Šimek M, Colaianni A, Dilecce G
and De Benedictis S 2009 Appl. Phys. Lett. 94 231501
[33] Guaitella O, Marinov I and Rousseau A 2011 Appl. Phys. Lett.
98 071502
[34] Ambrico P F, Ambrico M, Schiavulli L and De Benedictis S
2014 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 47 305201
[35] Tay W H, Kausik S S, Yap S L and Wong C S 2014 Phys.
Plasmas 21 044502
[36] Kashiwagi Y and Itoh H 2006 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
39 113–8
[37] Allegraud K, Guaitella O and Rousseau A 2007 J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys. 40 7698–706
[38] Nie L, Xian Y, Lu X and Ostrikov K 2017 Phys. Plasmas.
24 043502
[39] Pejović M M, Ristić G S and Karamarković J P 2002 J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 35 R91–103
[40] Dutton J 1975 J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 4 577–856
[41] Suzuki S and Itoh H 2016 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 49 185202
[42] Mitchell A C G and Zemansky M W 1961 Resonance
Radiation and Excited Atoms (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
[43] Golubovskii Yu B, Maiorov V A, Behnke J and Behnke J F
2002 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 35 751–61
[44] Heinisch R L, Bronold F X and Fehske H 2012 Phys. Rev. B
85 075323
[45] Bronold F X and Fehske H 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 225001
[46] Tschiersch R, Bogaczyk M and Wagner H-E 2014 J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys. 47 365204
[47] Li M, Li C, Zhan H, Xu J and Wang X 2008 Appl. Phys. Lett.
92 031503
[48] Tschiersch R, Nemschokmichal S and Meichsner J 2017
Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 26 075006