## 3 Results and Discussion
### Optoelectrical Properties of Embedded Cu Mesltes  
The analysis of the optoelectric parameters of micro and nanomeshes is quite simple. The analysis of the spectral transmission for meshes with path sizes much larger than the wavelength is reduced to the fact that the mesh elements create a shadow. As a result, the transmission of the coating is proportional to the metallization area. According to [31], the transmission of a metal mesh can be expressed by the formula  
\[T=1-FF=\frac{(p-b)^{2}}{p^{2}} \tag{3}\]  
where \(p\) is the period of the mesh and \(b\) is the path width. Figure 8a shows the spectral dependences for e-LCM and e-SCM coatings with different times of copper electroplating. In the case of e-LCM 0, there is an integral optical transmission in the considered range of \(\sim\)92.5%. The deposition of copper for 30 s does not lead to a significant decrease in transparency, which is 91.2%, while sheet resistance (Figure 8b, below we operate with averaged values) decreases significantly from 61.8 \(\Omega\)/sq to 2.43 \(\Omega\)/sq. Electroplating Cu for 180 s decreases the integral transparency to 84.3%; however, sheet resistance also decreases to 0.21 \(\Omega\)/sq. For e-SCM 0, the integral transmittance is lower due to the higher duty cycle and is \(\sim\)81.9% at a sheet resistance of 21.53 \(\Omega\)/sq. Due to the small cell size, even 30 s of electroplating reduces the integral transparency to \(\sim\)73.8%; the sheet resistance  
Figure 7: AFM image of e-LCM 30 (**a**) and e-LCM 180 (**b**). was 0.53 \(\Omega\)/sq. Copper deposition for 180 s showed a sheet resistance of 0.049 \(\Omega\)/sq with transparency of \(\sim\)63.2%. The dependence of the uniformity of sheet resistance on the average cell size is evident (Figure 8b). For e-LCM 0, 30 and 180, the maximum spread of sheet resistance from the average is 45.4, 41.1 and 19.4%, respectively. For e-SCM 0, 30 and 180, the maximum spread from the average is 24.3, 13.1 and 12.2%, respectively. It can be seen that electroplating reduces the spread of values for both types of coatings. For e-LCM, the specific number of microconductors per unit area can vary significantly due to the large cell size, which is the main reason for the significant error in sheet resistance values. Reducing the average cell size reduces this dispersion, as shown in Figure 8b. The values of optical transparency and sheet resistance for a transparent conductive coating of any nature can be linked through the function [31]. \[T=\left(1+\frac{Z_{0}}{2R_{s}}\frac{\sigma_{opt}}{\sigma_{dc}}\right)^{-2} \tag{4}\]  
where \(T\) is the optical transmission at a wavelength of 550 nm; \(R_{s}\)--specific sheet resistance; \(Z_{0}\) = 377 \(\Omega\)--vacuum impedance; and the ratio \(\sigma_{dc}\)/\(\sigma_{opt}\) is the main integral characteristic of a transparent electrode [31]. Its value is directly related to the balance between optical transparency and sheet resistance. Thus, the higher the \(\sigma_{dc}\)/\(\sigma_{opt}\) value, the lower the sheet resistance the coating will have at the same transparency. Table 2 shows comparative data of optoelectronic characteristics for various transparent conductive layers.