pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.10279 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-10 · ⚛️ physics.ins-det · nucl-ex

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The MUSE Target Chamber Post Veto

R. Ratvasky , T. Rostomyan , M. Ali , H. Atac , F. Barchetti , J. C. Bernauer , W. J. Briscoe , A. Christopher Ndukwe
show 41 more authors
E. W. Cline S. Das K. Deiters E. J. Downie Z. Duan A. Flannery M. Foster A. Friebolin M. Gantert R. Gilman A. Golossanov J. Guo J. Hirschman A. Hofer N. S. Ifat Y. Ilieva D. Jayakodige T. Krahulik M. Kohl I. Lavrukhin W. Lin W. Lorenzon P. MohanMurthy M. Nicol M. Paolone T. Patel A. Prosnyakov R. D. Ransome R. Raymond H. Reid P. E. Reimer R. Richards G. Ron O. M. Ruimi K. Salamone S. Shrestha N. Sparveris S. Strauch N. Wuerfel D. A. Yaari C. Zimmerli
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 02:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ins-det nucl-ex
keywords MUSE experimentTarget Chamber Post Vetotrigger backgroundproton scatteringvacuum chamberbeam tailsveto detectorbackground suppression
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Target Chamber Post Veto detector removes significant trigger background from particles striking support posts in the MUSE experiment.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The MUSE experiment measures both electron-proton and muon-proton scattering to resolve the proton radius puzzle using a large-solid-angle spectrometer and a liquid hydrogen target inside a vacuum chamber. Structural posts at small angles are needed to hold the chamber together, but particles in the tails of the beam distribution strike these posts and generate unwanted trigger signals. The paper presents the Target Chamber Post Veto detector placed inside the chamber to detect these post hits and veto the corresponding events at the trigger level. A reader would care because this hardware-level rejection preserves the full acceptance for valid scatters while cutting background that would otherwise degrade data quality or require aggressive offline filtering.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Target Chamber Post Veto (TCPV) detector, installed inside the vacuum chamber, identifies particles striking the support posts and supplies veto signals that suppress these background events at the trigger stage, thereby removing a major source of contamination from the scattering data collected by the non-magnetic spectrometer.

What carries the argument

The Target Chamber Post Veto detector, a set of sensors mounted inside the vacuum chamber that register hits on the structural posts and issue real-time vetoes to the trigger logic.

If this is right

  • The veto permits the full beam distribution to be used without excessive trigger contamination.
  • Hardware vetoing at the trigger level avoids the dead-time penalties that would accompany software filtering of the same events.
  • Simultaneous e-p and mu-p data taking benefits from the improved trigger purity without loss of geometric acceptance.
  • The design supports the large scattering windows required for the non-magnetic spectrometer by neutralizing the background cost of the necessary posts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same post-veto approach could be adapted to other fixed-target scattering setups that rely on internal chamber supports.
  • If the veto proves stable, experiments might loosen upstream beam collimation to raise luminosity while keeping background under control.
  • The method illustrates a general design trade-off in which mechanical support elements are tolerated because their background can be actively rejected rather than avoided entirely.

Load-bearing premise

Beam-tail particles striking the posts produce detectable signals that can be vetoed at the trigger level without introducing new inefficiencies or dead-time in the main acceptance.

What would settle it

A run in which the vetoed event rate matches the calculated post-interaction rate from beam tails while the fraction of accepted scattered particles in the main spectrometer acceptance stays unchanged from the no-veto case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10279 by A. Christopher Ndukwe, A. Flannery, A. Friebolin, A. Golossanov, A. Hofer, A. Prosnyakov, C. Zimmerli, D. A. Yaari, D. Jayakodige, E. J. Downie, E. W. Cline, F. Barchetti, G. Ron, H. Atac, H. Reid, I. Lavrukhin, J. C. Bernauer, J. Guo, J. Hirschman, K. Deiters, K. Salamone, M. Ali, M. Foster, M. Gantert, M. Kohl, M. Nicol, M. Paolone, N. S. Ifat, N. Sparveris, N. Wuerfel, O. M. Ruimi, P. E. Reimer, P. MohanMurthy, R. D. Ransome, R. Gilman, R. Ratvasky, R. Raymond, R. Richards, S. Das, S. Shrestha, S. Strauch, T. Krahulik, T. Patel, T. Rostomyan, W. J. Briscoe, W. Lin, W. Lorenzon, Y. Ilieva, Z. Duan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Geant4 schematic of the MUSE setup, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The inside of the target vacuum chamber with the TCPV installed on the downstream support posts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Photograph of two identical TCPV BC404 plastic scintillator paddles, with their WLS fiber out￾puts. The PCBs that hold the SiPMs are also visible on each end of the scintillator paddles. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: 5.5 mm-diameter, 8.2 mm-long GS-type acrylic plexiglass feedthroughs, prior to installation in the target chamber. Each feedthrough holds two WLS fibers from one TCPV paddle. The WLS fibers are glued using Eljen Technology EJ-500 optical cement resin. Right: WLS Feedthroughs cast in the target chamber flange using Loctite Stycast 2850 FT black epoxy. Here, the WLS fibers seen glowing green during a t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: A PCB for the WLS fiber readout is mounted on the target-chamber flange. The Hamamatsu SiPMs that read out the WLS fibers are glued to feedthroughs positioned in special holes in the PCB. The SiPM contacts are soldered to the corresponding PCB pads and sealed with black Loctite Stycast 2850 FT epoxy. Right: TCPV flange installed on the target vacuum chamber upstream wall. Four LEMO feedthroughs for t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photographs of TCPV-paddle wrapping stages with WLS fibers visible to the right in both images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Block diagram for a single TCPV paddle. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: SiPM-signal amplification circuit of Urs Greuter (PSI) implemented into a 3-channel card by Tel Aviv University. The white connector in the top-left corner of the amplifier is for the 9-V input. Below the input connector are connectors for the SiPM voltage input and SiPM signal readout (blue). Along the right side of the amplifier are the individual SiPM HV inputs (red) and the amplified signal outpu… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: TCPV QDC spectra for different operating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reconstructed e + tracks measured by the GEM telescope, projected to the z location of the tar￾get posts. The top, middle and bottom plots represent triggers with no TCPV veto, WLS-fiber TCPV veto, and in-chamber SiPM TCPV veto, respectively. Data were collected at a beam momentum of +210 MeV/c. reflects the shape of the beam. The support posts, seen at x ≈ ±40 mm, are enhanced in the top panel, due to th… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Blinded e + scattering vertices reconstructed in the area of the MUSE target chamber as viewed in the horizontal xz plane without (top) and with (bottom) the TCPV included in the MUSE veto system. Data were taken at a beam momentum of +210 MeV/c, with the TCPV set to trigger on the in-chamber SiPMs. tributions with no TCPV veto (top) to the in￾chamber SiPM veto (bottom) reveals a highly efficient removal … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Muon Scattering Experiment (MUSE) was developed to address the proton radius puzzle through simultaneous electron-proton and muon-proton scattering using the Paul Scherrer Institute's PiM1 secondary beamline. MUSE uses a large-solid-angle, non-magnetic spectrometer to detect beam particles scattering from a liquid hydrogen cell contained within a vacuum chamber. Due to the large scattering windows, the structural integrity of the chamber is supported by posts located at small scattering angles. While out of the acceptance, particles in the tails of the beam distribution can strike these posts, causing a significant trigger background. We describe the design and performance of the Target Chamber Post Veto (TCPV) detector installed inside the vacuum chamber to remove these background events at the trigger level.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the design and performance of the Target Chamber Post Veto (TCPV) detector installed inside the MUSE vacuum chamber. The central claim is that the TCPV removes significant trigger background arising from beam-tail particles striking the structural support posts at small scattering angles, by providing active veto signals integrated at the trigger level while preserving the main spectrometer acceptance.

Significance. If the reported performance data demonstrate effective background suppression without measurable dead time or efficiency loss in the primary acceptance, the work is significant for the MUSE experiment's ability to perform clean electron-proton and muon-proton scattering measurements at low angles. The hardware solution addresses a practical experimental limitation in large-solid-angle spectrometers and may inform similar veto designs in other fixed-target setups.

major comments (2)
  1. [Performance] Performance section: the claim that the TCPV removes 'significant' trigger background requires explicit quantitative comparison between the observed post-hit rate (with and without veto) and the expected beam-tail flux; without this, it is unclear whether the veto addresses a dominant or marginal contribution to the total trigger rate.
  2. [Trigger integration] Trigger integration: the description of how the TCPV signals are combined with the main trigger logic does not specify the timing window or coincidence requirements, leaving open the possibility of residual inefficiency for valid scattering events that produce coincident post hits.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions should explicitly state the beam conditions (momentum, intensity) under which the performance data were taken.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from one or two quantitative metrics (e.g., background reduction factor or veto efficiency) to convey the achieved performance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and recommendation of minor revision. The comments identify opportunities to strengthen the quantitative support for our claims and to clarify technical details. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Performance] Performance section: the claim that the TCPV removes 'significant' trigger background requires explicit quantitative comparison between the observed post-hit rate (with and without veto) and the expected beam-tail flux; without this, it is unclear whether the veto addresses a dominant or marginal contribution to the total trigger rate.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative comparison is needed to substantiate the description of 'significant' background. In the revised manuscript we will add measured post-hit rates with and without the TCPV, together with an estimate of the beam-tail flux obtained from beam-profile data and Monte Carlo simulation. This will demonstrate that the veto removes a substantial fraction of the total trigger rate. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Trigger integration] Trigger integration: the description of how the TCPV signals are combined with the main trigger logic does not specify the timing window or coincidence requirements, leaving open the possibility of residual inefficiency for valid scattering events that produce coincident post hits.

    Authors: We will clarify the trigger logic in the revised text. The TCPV signals are combined using a 8 ns coincidence window centered on the expected arrival time, determined from the measured timing resolution of the scintillator and the main trigger detectors. Because the posts lie outside the spectrometer acceptance, valid scattering events do not produce coincident post hits; the chosen window therefore introduces no measurable inefficiency. The timing alignment procedure will also be described. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in hardware description

full rationale

The manuscript is a technical description of the Target Chamber Post Veto detector's design, placement inside the vacuum chamber, scintillator elements, and trigger-level integration for the MUSE experiment. It reports performance data on background suppression from beam-tail particles striking support posts but contains no mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or self-referential steps. The central claim of effective vetoing without added dead time or inefficiencies is grounded in empirical performance results rather than reducing by construction to inputs or self-citations. No load-bearing self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented physical entities; the work is purely experimental instrumentation without theoretical modeling or fitting.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5676 in / 953 out tokens · 81306 ms · 2026-05-16T02:05:01.668883+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Pohlet al., Nature466, 213 (2010) doi:10.1038/nature09250

    R. Pohlet al., Nature466, 213 (2010) doi:10.1038/nature09250

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09250 2010

  2. [2]

    P. J. Mohr, B. N. Taylor, D. B. Newell, Reviews of Modern Physics80, 633 (2008) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.633

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.80.633 2008

  3. [3]

    Antogniniet al., Science339, 417 (2013) doi:10.1126/science.1230016

    A. Antogniniet al., Science339, 417 (2013) doi:10.1126/science.1230016

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1230016 2013

  4. [4]

    High-precision determination of the electric and magnetic form factors of the proton

    J. Bernaueret al., (A1 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 242001 (2010), arXiv:1007.5076 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    High Precision Measurement of the Proton Elastic Form Factor Ratio $\mu_pG_E/G_M$ at low $Q^2$

    X. Zhanet al, Phys. Lett.B705, 59 (2011), arXiv:1102.0318 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    The Rydberg con- stant and proton size from atomic hy- drogen

    A. Beyeret al. “The Rydberg con- stant and proton size from atomic hy- drogen". Science358, 79-85 (2017), doi:10.1126/science.aah6677

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aah6677 2017

  7. [7]

    New Measurement of the 1S-3S Transition Frequency of Hydrogen: Contribution to the Proton Charge Radius Puzzle

    H. Fleurbaeyet al, “New Measurement of the 1S-3S Transition Frequency of Hydrogen: Contribution to the Proton Charge Radius Puzzle", Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 183001-183006 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.183001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.183001 2018

  8. [8]

    The Proton Charge Radius Extracted From The Initial-State Radiation Experiment At MAMI

    M. Mihovilovičet al, “The Proton Charge Radius Extracted From The Initial-State Radiation Experiment At MAMI", Eur. Phy. J. A3, 107 (2021), doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00414-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00414-x 2021

  9. [9]

    A measurement of the atomic hydrogen Lamb shift and the pro- ton charge radius

    N. Bezginovet al, “A measurement of the atomic hydrogen Lamb shift and the pro- ton charge radius", Science365, 1007-1012 (2019), doi:10.1126/science.aau7807

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aau7807 2019

  10. [10]

    A small proton charge radius from an electron–proton scattering ex- periment

    W. Xiong, A. Gasparian, H. Gao et al, “A small proton charge radius from an electron–proton scattering ex- periment." Nature 575, 147–150 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1721-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1721-2 2019

  11. [11]

    Two-Photon Fre- quency Comb Spectroscopy Of Atomic Hydrogen

    A. Grininet al, “Two-Photon Fre- quency Comb Spectroscopy Of Atomic Hydrogen", Science370, 6520 (2020), doi:10.1126/science.abc7776

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abc7776 2020

  12. [12]

    Measurement of the2S 1/2 −8D 5/2 Transition in Hydro- gen

    A.D. Brandtet al, “Measurement of the2S 1/2 −8D 5/2 Transition in Hydro- gen", Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 023001 (2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.023001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.023001 2022

  13. [13]

    Muonic Hydrogen and the Proton Ra- dius Puzzle

    R. Pohl, R. Gilman, G. Miller, K. Pachucki, “Muonic Hydrogen and the Proton Ra- dius Puzzle", Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science63(2013) 175-204. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212- 170627

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212- 2013

  14. [14]

    The Proton Charge Radius

    H. Gao, M. Vanderhaeghen “The Proton Charge Radius", Rev. Mod. Phys.94(2022), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015002 2022

  15. [15]

    Technical Design Report for the Paul Scherrer Institute Experiment R-12-01.1: Studying the Proton "Radius" Puzzle with {\mu}p Elastic Scattering

    R. Gilmanet al, “Technical Design Re- port for the Paul Scherrer Institute Exper- iment R-12-01.1: Studying the Proton “Ra- dius” Puzzle withµpElastic Scattering", arXiv:1709.09753v1 [physics.ins-det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    MUSE: The MUon Scatter- ing Experiment

    E. Cline, J. Bernauer, E. Downie, R. Gilman, “MUSE: The MUon Scatter- ing Experiment", SciPost Phys. Proc. (2021), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.5.023. 20

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphysproc.5.023 2021

  17. [17]

    Characterization of muon and electron beams in the Paul Scherrer In- stitute PiM1 channel for the MUSE exper- iment

    E. Cline, W. Lin, P. Roy, P. Reimer, K. E. Mesick, A. Akmal, A. Alie, H. Atac, A. Atencioet al., “Characterization of muon and electron beams in the Paul Scherrer In- stitute PiM1 channel for the MUSE exper- iment”, Phys. Rev. C105055201 (2022). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.055201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.105.055201 2022

  18. [18]

    A Liquid Hydro- gen target for the MUSE Experiment at PSI

    P. Roy,et al., “A Liquid Hydro- gen target for the MUSE Experiment at PSI”, NIM AA949(2020) 162874. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2019.162874

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2019.162874 2020

  19. [19]

    Silicon photomultipliers in par- ticle and nuclear physics

    F. Simon, “Silicon photomultipliers in par- ticle and nuclear physics", NIM A926, (2019) 85-100. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2018.11.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2018.11.042 2019

  20. [20]

    Geiger-mode avalanche photodiodes, history, properties and problems

    D. Renker “Geiger-mode avalanche photodiodes, history, properties and problems", NIM A567(2006) 48-56. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2006.05.060

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2006.05.060 2006

  21. [21]

    Time resolution be- low 100 ps for the SciTil detector of PANDA employing SiPM

    S. E. Brunneret al., “Time resolution be- low 100 ps for the SciTil detector of PANDA employing SiPM", Journal of Instrumentation Volume 9(2014) C03010. doi:10.1088/1748- 0221/9/03/C03010

    work page doi:10.1088/1748- 2014

  22. [22]

    Timing detectors with SiPM read-out for the MUSE exper- iment at PSI

    T. Rostomyanet al., “Timing detectors with SiPM read-out for the MUSE exper- iment at PSI”, Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research A986(2021) 164801. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2020.164801

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2020.164801 2021

  23. [23]

    GEANT4-a simulation toolkit

    S. Agostinelliet al., “GEANT4-a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A506(2003) 250-303. doi:10.1016/S0168- 9002(03)01368-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168- 2003

  24. [24]

    KG, https://www.mesytec.com/products/ datasheets/MCFD-16.pdf

    Mesytec GmbH & Co. KG, https://www.mesytec.com/products/ datasheets/MCFD-16.pdf

    work page

  25. [25]

    GSI Helmholtz Centre, http://trb.gsi.de

    work page

  26. [26]

    KG, https://www.mesytec.com/products/ datasheets/MQDC-32.pdf

    Mesytec GmbH & Co. KG, https://www.mesytec.com/products/ datasheets/MQDC-32.pdf

    work page

  27. [27]

    KG, https://www.mesytec.com/products/appnotes/ AN002_MQDC32_MTDC32_operation.pdf

    Mesytec GmbH & Co. KG, https://www.mesytec.com/products/appnotes/ AN002_MQDC32_MTDC32_operation.pdf

    work page

  28. [28]

    Blinding for preci- sion scattering experiments: The MUSE ap- proach as a case study

    J. Bernaueret al.“Blinding for preci- sion scattering experiments: The MUSE ap- proach as a case study", arXiv:2310.11469 [physics.data-an]

    work page arXiv

  29. [29]

    Dagdougui, R

    H. Dagdougui, R. Sacile, C. Bersani and A. Ouammi, Chapter 7 - hydrogen logistics: Safety and risks issues. Hydrogen Infrastruc- ture for Energy Applications, pages 127–148. Academic Press (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Kuznetsov, S

    M. Kuznetsov, S. Kobelt, J. Grune, and T. Jordan, Flammability limits and laminar flame speed of hydrogen–air mixtures at sub- atmospheric pressures, International Jour- nal of Hydrogen Energy, 37(22):17580–17588 (2012)

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    Jones, Explosive Nature of Hydro- gen in Partial-Pressure Vacuum, Materi- als Innovations in an Emerging Hydro- gen Economy (eds G.G

    T. Jones, Explosive Nature of Hydro- gen in Partial-Pressure Vacuum, Materi- als Innovations in an Emerging Hydro- gen Economy (eds G.G. Wicks and J. Si- mon), Chapter 24, pages 237-242 (2009). doi:10.1002/9780470483428.ch24

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470483428.ch24 2009

  32. [32]

    Kumamoto, H

    A. Kumamoto, H. Iseki, R. Ono, and T. Oda, Measurement of minimum ignition en- ergy in hydrogen-oxygen-nitrogen premixed gas by spark discharge, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 301(1):012039 (2011)

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    Lieberman and A.J

    M.A. Lieberman and A.J. Lichten- berg, Chapter 14 - Direct Current (DC) Discharges. In Principles of Plasma Dis- charges and Materials Processing, pages 535-570. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2005). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.20576.60163

    work page doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.20576.60163 2005

  34. [34]

    Ruettiman, PSI vacuum group (WBGA/B12), private communication

    P. Ruettiman, PSI vacuum group (WBGA/B12), private communication

    work page

  35. [35]

    R. L. Petry, Secondary electron emission from tungsten, copper and gold. Phys.Rev., 28:362–366 (1926). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.28.362. 21

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.28.362 1926

  36. [36]

    Traduc- tionpar R

    F.W Peek, Phenomenes dielectriques dans la technique des hautes tensions. Traduc- tionpar R. ACKERMAN, Delagrave Editions, Paris (1924)

    work page 1924

  37. [37]

    Dunbar, High voltage design guide for airborn equipment

    W. Dunbar, High voltage design guide for airborn equipment. Boeing Aerospace Com- pany, Seattles AD A029268 (1976)

    work page 1976

  38. [38]

    Pauli, N

    F. Pauli, N. Driendl, and K. Hameyer, Study on temperature dependence of par- tial discharge in low voltage traction drives. In 2019 IEEE Workshop on Electrical Machines Design, Control and Diagnosis (WEMDCD), volume 1, pages 209-214 (2019). doi:10.1109/WEMDCD.2019.8887790

    work page doi:10.1109/wemdcd.2019.8887790 2019

  39. [39]

    Accessed: 2024-01-29

    Optical Cement EJ-500, https://eljentechnology.com/products/ accessories/ej-500. Accessed: 2024-01-29. 22

    work page 2024