Current density vs. electric field

The current density vs electric field curves and the emitted light intensity vs current density for the three LED devices fabricated from P-1 and P-4 are com-... 

Fig. 25.1-V characteristics (i.e., current density vs electric field relationship) for sol-gel-derived Zr02 thin films fired at 350, 450, 550, and 700 °C in air. The reverse biases are plotted as absolute values (Shimizu et al, 2009).

Figure 105 Electron injection current density vs. average electric field (F U/d) for a Mg/Alq3/Mg sandwich device with a 300 nm— thick Alq film (circles). The dash-dotted line corresponds to a j U2 dependence the dashed line represents a linear plot j U. After Ref. 470. Copyright 2002 American Institute of Physics.

Figure 7. Current density vs. time for samples treated under direct and inverse electric field. The initial field polarization is (a) outside to inside, (b) inside to outside...

Figure 10 Critical current criteria as described in Ref. 29. The electric field vs. current density is shown as a function of magnetic field. The electric field criterion is set and the tangent at that intersection to the field vs current curve is extrapolated to obtain the offset Jc.

Table 1. Spin-coated CPB thin film (<20 nm) deposition condition and pentacene-based TFT device performance (mobility and on/off ratio) - polymer/crosslinker concentration ratio (mg/ml mg/ml), solvent, film thickness (D, nm), RMS roughness (p, nm), leakage current density at an electric field of 2 MV/cm (J, A/cm2), mobility (ji, cm2/Vs), and Current On/off Ratio (/<, /< ) ...

S/m (see Figure 19). The ER effect of the polyaniline particle of different conductivity dispersed into silicone oil was studied and the largest ER effect was found to occur in the suspension of polyanilinc particle of conductivity 10 S/m [621. Besides the influence on the ER effect, the particle conductivity also determines the current density of the whole suspension and the response time of the ER fluid. The current density of the oxidized polyacrylonitrile(OP)/silicone oil suspensions obtained at 2.5 kV/mm as a function of particle conductivity is shown in Figure 20 [61]. The current density almost linearly increases with the conductivity of particle. The response time was found to be inversely proportional to the particle conductivity both experimentally [63] and theoretically [64]. The response time can be determined from the relationship between the shear stress and the frequency of applied electric field. Such an example is shown in Figure 21, in which the shear stress of two aluminosilicate/silicone oil suspensions is plotted vs. frequency, fhe suspension with particle of conductivity 6.0 x 10 S/m displays a response time 0.6 ms, much shorter than that of the suspension of the particle conductivity 8.4 xlO S/m, 0.22s (42]. 

For the permutite/silicone oil suspension, the shear stress vs. temperature is shown in Figure 55, obtained at the particle volume volume fraction 35 vol% and electric field 1.5 kV/mm. In this case, the shear stress peaks at 40 C, different from the molecular sieve/silicone oil suspension, the shear stress of which peaks at 80 C. il suspension. Also, the shear stress data of tlie permutite/silicone oil suspension obtained in the elevated temperature and reduced temperature don t overlap, similar to the molecular sicvc/siliconc oil. The difference between those two suspensions arc that the shear stress of permutite/silicone oil suspension obtained in the reduced temperature process is less than that in the elevated temperature process, contrary to the situation in the molecualar sieve/silicone oil suspension, fhe current density of permutite/silicone oil suspension vs. temperature is shown in Figure 56. The current density values of those two ER fluids obtained in the reduced temperature process are all less than that in the elevated temperature process. The shear stress of permutite/silicone oil vs. the current density is shown in... 

---