## 4 Result and Discussion
### Heat Flux Calculation  
Table 2 shows the energy influx calculation results obtained by applying electron density and electron temperature obtained by the measured SLP data to Equation (12). Our  
Figure 8: Ar intensity of OES data.  
Figure 9: Normalization (**a**) electron density and (**b**) electron temperature calculated from Equation (16).  
results showed that energy influx has a tendency to increase with the radial position as the pressure increases. In addition, the energy flux at the edge is lower than the value at other radial positions. When the pressure in the ICP tether is 30 mTorr, the energy influx was found to be 5580.8 W/m\({}^{2}\), 7255.0 W/m\({}^{2}\), 8851.9 W/m\({}^{2}\), and 10,179.4 W/m\({}^{2}\) at the source power of 300 W, 400 W, 500 W, and 600 W, respectively [31]. The energy influx value of the center, 4908.1 W/m\({}^{2}\), showed a similar tendency under the conditions of 30 mTorr and 200 W.  
The energy influx value was derived by applying the ETSW data to Equation (1). The OES data was used to derive the plasma parameter in a 12-inch environment through the line-ratio method. The energy influx value according to the radial position was derived by applying the SLP data obtained at 6 inches. We measured the increase in plasma energy influx due to bias power using a wafer-type temperature sensor because there were limitations in using OES to extract plasma parameters with respect to changes in bias power. However, five of the 65 sensors were used, as shown in Figure 10, since the 12-inch radial position differs from the existing 6-inch radial position depending on the ETSW sensor position. The temperature sensor data was used at the 0 mm, 37 mm, 74 mm, 110 mm, and 147 mm positions. The ETSW temperature uniformity data by pressure variation is shown in Figure 11, and the temperature data by bias variation is shown in Figure 12.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Energy Influx (\(\textbf{j}_{\text{in}}\)) [W/m\({}^{2}\)]**} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Radial Position**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Pressure [mTorr]**} \\ \cline{2-6}
**[mm]** & **30** & **40** & **50** & **60** & **70** \\ \hline
0 & 4908.1 & 6335.6 & 8176.4 & 10,388.2 & 12,521.3 \\
15 & 5888.1 & 8232.9 & 10,399.7 & 13,579.1 & 17,169.1 \\
30 & 3257.1 & 6487.4 & 9597.5 & 12,069.7 & 14,253.7 \\
45 & 6779.4 & 8565.2 & 11,013.8 & 12,829.6 & 14,647.5 \\
60 & 3678.3 & 5977.2 & 7715.7 & 9270.9 & 10,758.5 \\
75 & 3234.5 & 5094.0 & 6738.0 & 8136.9 & 9402.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: The energy influx calculation result.  
Figure 10: ETSW data analysis enabled sensors. Numeric expression on 1–5 in the right hand side are showing the five different locations of the measurement.  
Figure 13 shows the pressure variation energy influx derived from OES data equipped with 12 inches without applying bias power. Pressure and bias power variation energy influx with Equation (1) applied in ETSW data is shown in Figures 14 and 15.  
Figure 11: ETSW temperature uniformity data by pressure variation (a) 30 mTorr (b) 40 mTorr (c) 50 mTorr (d) 60 mTorr and (e) 70 mTorr.  
Figure 12: ETSW temperature uniformity data by bias power variation at 30 mTorr (a) no bias (b) 10 W (c) 30 W and (d) 50 W.