Figure 2.

Electrostatic deflection and comparison to FEM modeling. (a) Copper lines showing waviness as a result of electrostatic deflection with a triangular waveform. The amplitude of the deflection directly follows the signal amplitude (30, 60, and 90 V). (b) Deflection amplitude as a function of the distance from the steering electrode for a 60 V signal amplitude, as obtained experimentally and derived from FEM modeling for droplets with various radius·charge (r·q) products. The error bars are an estimation of the confidence interval for the deflection measurement from SE micrographs. (c,d) 2D maps of the electric potential distribution predicted by the 3D FEM COMSOL Multiphysics model showing the electric field lines and the simulated droplet path for a deflection voltage of (c) −60 and (d) +60 V. The droplet in these maps has a 90 nm radius and carries a charge of 167e. (e) Model predictions for the deflection amplitude, taken as half the peak-to-peak value between −60 and +60 V deflection voltage, and (f) coefficient of determination (r²) showing the degree of agreement between the model predictions and experimental data for various droplet radii and number of elementary charges. The results unveil the relationship that links the droplet deflection to its r·q product.