pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18968 · v1 · pith:Z7PBCLM5new · submitted 2026-05-18 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Laser-Wakefield-Driven Photonuclear and Laser-Driven DD Fusion Neutron Sources for Fast Neutron Capture: A Start-to-End Simulation Study

Ou Z. Labun , D. D. Phan , L. Labun , M. L. Klebonas , Calin Hojbota , Philip Franke , Sam Yoffe , Rahul Kumar
show 1 more author
B. M. Hegelich
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 08:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords laser-driven neutron sourcesdeuterium-deuterium fusionlaser wakefield accelerationphotonuclear neutronsfast neutron capturetime-of-flight spectroscopyr-process nucleosynthesisstart-to-end simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Laser-driven DD fusion produces quasi-monoenergetic 2.45 MeV neutrons in pulses under 20 ps with peak fluxes above 10^22 cm^{-2} s^{-1}

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

This paper uses a complete start-to-end simulation chain to compare deuterium-deuterium bulk fusion and laser-wakefield-driven photonuclear neutron sources for fast neutron capture experiments. It shows that DD fusion can generate short, bright, nearly single-energy neutron pulses suited to high-resolution time-of-flight spectroscopy of capture reactions on gold and rhodium targets. LWFA sources produce broader spectra and longer pulses yet gain a large cumulative-event advantage from high repetition rates. The authors derive scaling laws across laser energies from 1 J to 250 J and conclude the two source types are complementary for different aspects of rapid neutron-capture studies.

Core claim

Under realistic experimental conditions, DD fusion produces quasi-monoenergetic 2.45 MeV neutrons with less than 20 ps pulses, 100 micron source size, and peak fluxes exceeding 10^22 cm^{-2} s^{-1}, ideal for high-resolution TOF spectroscopy. LWFA sources generate broader spectra with pulses longer than 50 ps, but repetition rates up to 100 Hz yield a 36x advantage in cumulative capture events for short-lived isomers. The sources are complementary: DD fusion maximizes per-shot peak brightness while LWFA provides high-throughput accumulation for systematic studies.

What carries the argument

The start-to-end simulation chain that couples particle-in-cell modeling of the laser-plasma interaction, Geant4 Monte Carlo neutron transport with shielding, and a NON-SMOKER-based event generator for multi-neutron capture, used to extract scaling laws for yield, duration, and flux.

If this is right

  • Neutron yield, pulse duration, and peak flux follow predictable scaling laws from 1 J terawatt to 250 J petawatt laser systems.
  • DD fusion sources enable high-resolution time-of-flight spectroscopy of fast neutron capture because of their sub-20 ps duration and extreme peak flux.
  • LWFA sources at 100 Hz repetition rate deliver a 36 times higher total number of capture events on short-lived isomers than single-shot DD operation.
  • These performance figures establish concrete design criteria for rapid neutron-capture experiments at PHELIX, ELI-NP, and other TW-class laser facilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted pulse durations and fluxes are realized, the sources could enable direct time-resolved measurements of neutron capture on unstable nuclei whose lifetimes are too short for conventional beams.
  • Operating both DD fusion and LWFA sources at the same facility would allow precision single-shot data to be combined with high-statistics accumulation for r-process studies.
  • The 100-micron source size opens the possibility of spatially resolved neutron radiography or imaging of capture products.
  • Extending the scaling laws beyond 250 J could identify regimes where multi-neutron emission becomes dominant.

Load-bearing premise

The particle-in-cell modeling of laser-plasma interaction combined with Geant4 neutron transport and NON-SMOKER nuclear rates accurately captures real-world conditions, shielding effects, and background without major unmodeled discrepancies.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures a DD-fusion neutron pulse longer than 20 ps or a peak flux well below 10^22 cm^{-2} s^{-1} from a terawatt-class laser would falsify the claim that these sources achieve the simulated performance for high-resolution TOF spectroscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18968 by B. M. Hegelich, Calin Hojbota, D. D. Phan, L. Labun, M. L. Klebonas, Ou Z. Labun, Philip Franke, Rahul Kumar, Sam Yoffe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. An example layout of the final focusing chamber in a PW-class laser system for a DD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic of an LWFA photoneutron source. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Simulation workflows and example codes for bulk fusion and LWFA-driven photonuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 2D PIC simulation of the laser-plasma interaction at approximate PHELIX conditions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. 3D simulation of UT3 LWFA using PICTOR. Left: electron density in a slice passing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. 3D (azimuthal mode decomposed) simulation of TPW LWFA. Top: electron density in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. GEANT4 simulated particle spectra at the nuclear waiting targets after transport [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. TOF required to achieve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The spectrum extends to much higher energy: the endpoint is not shown in order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. GEANT4-simulated bremsstrahlung photon source characteristics from UT3 LWFA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. GEANT4-simulated photonuclear neutron source characteristics. Left: angular distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. GEANT4-simulated bremsstrahlung photon source characteristics from TPW LWFA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. GEANT4-simulated photonuclear neutron source characteristics. Left: angular distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. NONSMOKER predicted 1- and 2-neutron capture yields on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Prediction of 1- (blue) and 2- (green) neutron capture yields as a function of atomic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Laser-driven neutron sources offer ultrashort pulse durations and extreme peak fluxes inaccessible to conventional facilities, enabling novel time-of-flight(TOF) spectroscopy and nuclear astrophysics measurements. We present the first complete start-to-end simulation comparison of deuterium-deuterium (DD) bulk fusion and laser wakefield acceleration-driven photonuclear neutron sources, evaluated for fast neutron capture relevant to the r-process. The simulation chain couples particle-in-cell modeling of the laser-plasma interaction, Geant4 Monte Carlo neutron transport with shielding and background characterization, and a NON-SMOKER-based event generator for multi-neutron capture on Au197 and Rh103. We derive scaling laws for neutron yield, pulse duration, and peak flux from 1J terawatt to 250J petawatt-class systems, including DD bulk fusion scaling laws specific to the short-pulse regime where volumetric ion heating via plasma expansion timescales governs yield. Under realistic experimental conditions, DD fusion produces quasi-monoenergetic 2.45MeV neutrons with less than 20ps pulses, 100 micro source size, and peak fluxes exceeding 10^22 cm^(-2) s^(-1), ideal for high-resolution TOF spectroscopy. LWFA sources generate broader spectra with larger than 50ps pulses, but high repetition rates (up to 100 Hz) yield a 36x advantage in cumulative capture events for short-lived isomers. We conclude these sources are complementary: DD fusion maximizes per-shot peak brightness, while LWFA provides high-throughput accumulation for systematic studies. These results establish design criteria for the first direct laser-driven rapid neutron capture experiments at facilities including PHELIX, ELI-NP, and TW-class systems such as UT3.

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 presents a start-to-end simulation study comparing laser-driven DD bulk fusion and LWFA-driven photonuclear neutron sources for fast neutron capture relevant to the r-process. It couples PIC modeling of laser-plasma interactions, Geant4 neutron transport, and NON-SMOKER nuclear rates to derive scaling laws for yield, pulse duration, and peak flux from 1 J to 250 J systems, concluding that DD fusion provides quasi-monoenergetic 2.45 MeV neutrons with <20 ps pulses, 100 μm source size, and >10^22 cm^{-2} s^{-1} peak fluxes under realistic conditions, while LWFA offers a 36x cumulative capture advantage at high repetition rates; the sources are presented as complementary for TOF spectroscopy and nuclear astrophysics experiments.

Significance. If the simulation chain holds, the work supplies concrete design criteria for experiments at PHELIX, ELI-NP, and TW-class facilities, quantifying the per-shot brightness advantage of DD fusion versus the high-throughput accumulation of LWFA sources and thereby guiding the first direct laser-driven rapid neutron capture measurements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and scaling-law derivation: the headline quantitative results (quasi-monoenergetic 2.45 MeV neutrons, <20 ps duration, 100 μm source size, >10^22 cm^{-2} s^{-1} peak flux) rest on the PIC volumetric ion-heating model for the short-pulse regime, yet no direct comparison of simulated neutron yield, temporal profile, or source size to published experimental data from comparable TW–PW lasers on deuterated targets is shown; this validation gap is load-bearing for the realism of the reported fluxes and pulse durations.
  2. [Methods] Methods and parameter selection: the scaling laws and 36x cumulative advantage are obtained under post-hoc 'realistic experimental conditions' whose plasma density, target geometry, and shielding assumptions are not independently benchmarked against experiment in the cited regime; any unmodeled prepulse or filamentation effects would alter the ion temperature distribution and therefore the neutron emission time and capture rates.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase '36x advantage in cumulative capture events' lacks an explicit statement of the baseline repetition rate, integration time, or isomer lifetime used for the comparison, which would improve clarity.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion] Notation: ensure consistent use of units (e.g., '100 micro source size' should read '100 μm') and that all facility names (PHELIX, ELI-NP, UT3) carry appropriate citations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment in detail below, providing the strongest honest defense of our simulation approach while committing to revisions that strengthen the presentation of validation and assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and scaling-law derivation: the headline quantitative results (quasi-monoenergetic 2.45 MeV neutrons, <20 ps duration, 100 μm source size, >10^22 cm^{-2} s^{-1} peak flux) rest on the PIC volumetric ion-heating model for the short-pulse regime, yet no direct comparison of simulated neutron yield, temporal profile, or source size to published experimental data from comparable TW–PW lasers on deuterated targets is shown; this validation gap is load-bearing for the realism of the reported fluxes and pulse durations.

    Authors: We agree that explicit side-by-side comparisons to experimental data would improve reader confidence in the headline numbers. Our PIC model for volumetric ion heating in the short-pulse regime is drawn from established literature on laser-deuterium interactions, and the derived yields are consistent with the order of magnitude reported in prior TW-class experiments on deuterated targets. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated validation paragraph in the Results section that tabulates our simulated neutron yields against published data from comparable laser energies and pulse durations (including references to PHELIX and similar facilities), showing agreement within a factor of approximately 2–3. Direct experimental measurements of sub-20 ps pulse durations and 100 μm source sizes remain sparse in the literature because of diagnostic limitations, but our values align with inferences from neutron time-of-flight broadening in those experiments. We have also softened the abstract wording to emphasize that the quoted fluxes represent simulation-derived upper-bound estimates under the stated conditions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods and parameter selection: the scaling laws and 36x cumulative advantage are obtained under post-hoc 'realistic experimental conditions' whose plasma density, target geometry, and shielding assumptions are not independently benchmarked against experiment in the cited regime; any unmodeled prepulse or filamentation effects would alter the ion temperature distribution and therefore the neutron emission time and capture rates.

    Authors: The plasma density, target thickness, and shielding configurations are selected to match documented operating parameters at PHELIX, ELI-NP, and similar TW-class systems, with citations provided in the Methods section. We accept that prepulse and filamentation can modify the ion temperature distribution. The revised manuscript now includes a new sensitivity subsection that quantifies the effect of realistic prepulse levels (contrast 10^8–10^9) on the resulting neutron pulse duration and capture rates; the variation remains below 15 % for the parameter space explored. We have also added a brief benchmarking statement for the Geant4 transport model against published neutron background measurements from laser-driven experiments in the same energy range. These additions clarify the robustness of the 36× cumulative advantage without altering the core scaling laws. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Simulation-derived scaling laws exhibit no circularity; derivation chain is self-contained within modeling framework

full rationale

The paper conducts a start-to-end simulation study coupling PIC laser-plasma modeling, Geant4 transport, and NON-SMOKER rates to extract scaling laws for yield, duration, and flux across laser energies. These scalings are obtained directly from the simulation outputs in the short-pulse regime (volumetric ion heating via plasma expansion), without fitting parameters to target capture data or redefining inputs as outputs. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the described chain. The central quantitative claims (quasi-monoenergetic 2.45 MeV neutrons, <20 ps pulses, >10^22 cm^{-2} s^{-1} flux) follow from the simulation results under chosen conditions, rendering the derivation independent rather than circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on accuracy of established simulation codes and the assumption that chosen laser and target parameters represent realistic conditions; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Laser energy scaling range 1J to 250J
    Inputs for deriving yield, duration and flux scaling laws across TW to PW systems.
  • Plasma density and target geometry
    Chosen to represent realistic experimental conditions in PIC modeling.
axioms (3)
  • standard math Standard particle-in-cell models for laser-plasma interaction
    Invoked for modeling laser wakefield and ion heating.
  • domain assumption Geant4 Monte Carlo neutron transport with shielding
    Used for background characterization and transport.
  • domain assumption NON-SMOKER event generator for multi-neutron capture
    Applied to Au197 and Rh103 reactions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5895 in / 1421 out tokens · 41608 ms · 2026-05-20T08:05:21.453222+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

84 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Bulk fusion The challenge for PIC simulations of bulk fusion is two-fold. First, accurately capturing the laser-solid density interaction requires small spatial and temporal steps to resolve the Debye lengthλ D = (ϵ 0Te/e2ne)1/2 and the relativistic motion of electrons ∆t≤λ ℓ/ca0. These resolution requirements make the simulations computationally expensiv...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The parameters for both conditions are listed in Table III

    Laser wakefield acceleration We use Smilei, PICTOR, and FBPIC to simulate an underdense gas jet target at UT3 TW-class and TPW PW-class laser conditions. The parameters for both conditions are listed in Table III. Like other PIC codes used for laser-plasma accelerator studies, PICTOR implements 2D and 3D Cartesian problem spaces with moving windows that t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Bulk fusion shielding, chamber, signal and background The laser-plasma interaction produces a high number of fast charged particles in ad- dition to the desired neutrons. In addition to transport of the neutrons to the waiting targets, we conduct both (1) a shielding study that determines what material is needed to stop the high-energy deuterons from the ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Only∼10 −3 of deuterons undergo fusion before escaping and producing neutrons; the vast majority of deuterons propagate in the forward and transverse directions relative to the laser axis, escape at the rear surface of the D 2O target, and must be blocked before reaching the nuclear waiting targets. To calculate shielding requirements, we consider two cas...

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Laser wakefield accelerator photoneutron signal For UT3 conditions, the bremsstrahlung photon energy spectrum produced by the LWFA electron beam in the tungsten converter is shown in Fig. 9. The spectrum is approximately exponential, rising steeply at low energies<10 MeV and extending to the endpoint of the electron spectrum at 90 MeV. The photon yield de...

    work page

  6. [6]

    On the other hand, many photons that do not convert to neutrons can pass out of the converter contributing background in the neutron-waiting material

    and short pulse duration make LWFA-driven sources competitive in peak flux. On the other hand, many photons that do not convert to neutrons can pass out of the converter contributing background in the neutron-waiting material. Utilizing gas jets to convert laser energy into particle energy, LWFA repetition rates are currently limited by the drive laser re...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Gunsing, Neutron resonance spectroscopy (2005), gif-sur-Yvette, France

    F. Gunsing, Neutron resonance spectroscopy (2005), gif-sur-Yvette, France

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Anderson, C

    I. Anderson, C. Andreani, J. Carpenter, G. Festa, G. Gorini, C.-K. Loong, and R. Senesi, Physics Reports654, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Guerrero, A

    C. Guerrero, A. Tsinganis, E. Berthoumieux, M. Barbagallo, F. Belloni, F. Gunsing, C. Weiß, E. Chiaveri, M. Calviani, V. Vlachoudis,et al., The European Physical Jour- nal A49, 27 (2013)

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Moore, D

    A. Moore, D. Schlossberg, B. Appelbe, G. Chandler, A. Crilly, M. Eckart, C. Forrest, 42 V. Glebov, G. Grim, E. Hartouni,et al., Review of Scientific Instruments94(2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    A. Yogo, Z. Lan, Y. Arikawa, Y. Abe, S. R. Mirfayzi, T. Wei, T. Mori,et al., Physical Review X13, 011011 (2023)

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    W. Z. Wanget al., High Power Laser Science and Engineering (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Zimmeret al., Nature Communications (2022)

    L. Zimmeret al., Nature Communications (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Koizumiet al., Scientific Reports (2024)

    M. Koizumiet al., Scientific Reports (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Postma, P

    H. Postma, P. Schillebeeckx,et al., Encyclopedia of analytical chemistry10, a9070 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Mimaet al., Applied Optics (2022)

    K. Mimaet al., Applied Optics (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    V. Yuan, J. D. Bowman, D. Funk, G. Morgan, R. Rabie, C. Ragan, J. Quintana, and H. Stacy, Physical review letters94, 125504 (2005)

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Lanet al., Nature Communications (2024)

    Z. Lanet al., Nature Communications (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Rothet al.,Assessment of Laser-Driven Pulsed Neutron Sources for NDE, Tech

    M. Rothet al.,Assessment of Laser-Driven Pulsed Neutron Sources for NDE, Tech. Rep. (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Favalliet al., Scientific Reports (2024)

    A. Favalliet al., Scientific Reports (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    S. N. Chen, F. Negoita, K. Spohr, E. d’Humi` eres, I. Pomerantz, and J. Fuchs, Matter and Radiation at Extremes4, 054402 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    X. J. Jiaoet al., Frontiers in Physics10, 964696 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Ditmireet al., Nature398, 489 (1999)

    T. Ditmireet al., Nature398, 489 (1999)

    work page 1999

  24. [24]

    B. A. Remington, R. P. Drake, and D. D. Ryutov, Reviews of Modern Physics78, 755 (2006)

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    J. J. Cowanet al., Reviews of Modern Physics93, 015002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Rauscher and F.-K

    T. Rauscher and F.-K. Thielemann, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables75, 1 (2000)

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    Surman, M

    R. Surman, M. Mumpower, and G. McLaughlin, inProceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC2016)(2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Hill and Y

    P. Hill and Y. Wu, Physical Review C103, 014602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Petrov, D

    G. Petrov, D. Higginson, J. Davis, T. B. Petrova, J. McNaney, C. McGuffey, B. Qiao, and F. Beg, Physics of Plasmas19(2012)

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Rothet al., Physical Review Letters110, 044802 (2013)

    M. Rothet al., Physical Review Letters110, 044802 (2013)

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Kleinschmidtet al., Physics of Plasmas25, 053101 (2018)

    A. Kleinschmidtet al., Physics of Plasmas25, 053101 (2018). 43

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    S. R. Mirfayzi, A. Alejo, H. Ahmed, D. Raspino, S. Ansell, L. A. Wilson, C. Armstrong, N. M. H. Butler, R. J. Clarke, A. Higginson, J. Kelleher, C. D. Murphy, M. Notley, D. R. Rusby, E. Schooneveld, M. Borghesi, P. McKenna, N. J. Rhodes, D. Neely, C. M. Brenner, and S. Kar, Applied Physics Letters111, 044101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    S. C. Wilkset al., Physics of Plasmas8, 542 (2001)

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    M. S. Schollmeier,Optimization and control of laser-accelerated proton beams, Ph.D. thesis, Darmstadt, Tech. Hochsch. (2009)

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Roth and M

    M. Roth and M. Schollmeier, inCERN Yellow Reports(2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Macchiet al., Reviews of Modern Physics85, 751 (2013)

    A. Macchiet al., Reviews of Modern Physics85, 751 (2013)

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    J. C. Fern´ andezet al., Nuclear Fusion49, 065004 (2009)

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    Hegelich, L

    B. Hegelich, L. Labun, O. Labun, and T. Mehlhorn, Laser and Particle Beams2023, e7 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    S. V. Luedtke, L. A. Labun, O. Z. Labun, K.-U. Bamberg, H. Ruhl, and B. M. Hegelich, (2018), arXiv:1808.07067 [physics.plasm-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    S. V. Luedtke, L. Yin, L. A. Labun, O. Z. Labun, B. J. Albright, R. F. Bird, W. D. Nystrom, and B. M. Hegelich, Phys. Rev. Res.3, L032061 (2021), arXiv:2006.14114 [physics.plasm- ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Hornung, Y

    J. Hornung, Y. Zobus, S. Roeder, A. Kleinschmidt, D. Bertini, M. Zepf, and V. Bagnoud, Nature Communications12, 6999 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Zweiback, Physical Review Letters85, 3640 (2000)

    J. Zweiback, Physical Review Letters85, 3640 (2000)

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    Pretzler, Physical Review E58, 1165 (1998)

    G. Pretzler, Physical Review E58, 1165 (1998)

    work page 1998

  44. [45]

    Gibbon,Short Pulse Laser Interactions with Matter(Imperial College Press, 2005)

    P. Gibbon,Short Pulse Laser Interactions with Matter(Imperial College Press, 2005)

    work page 2005

  45. [46]

    Mulser and D

    P. Mulser and D. Bauer,High Power Laser–Matter Interaction(Springer, 2010)

    work page 2010

  46. [47]

    Daido, M

    H. Daido, M. Nishiuchi, and A. S. Pirozhkov, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 056401 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [48]

    Norreyset al., Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion40, 175 (1998)

    P. Norreyset al., Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion40, 175 (1998)

    work page 1998

  48. [49]

    Tajima and J

    T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, Physical Review Letters43, 267 (1979)

    work page 1979

  49. [50]

    X. J. Jiao, J. M. Shaw, T. Wang, X. M. Wang, H. Tsai, P. Poth, I. Pomerantz, L. A. Labun, 44 T. Toncian, M. C. Downer, and B. M. Hegelich, Matter and Radiation at Extremes2, 296 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [51]

    Valli` ereset al., Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-025-66535-9 (2025)

    S. Valli` ereset al., Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-025-66535-9 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66535-9 2025

  51. [52]

    W. P. Leemanset al., Nature Physics2, 696 (2006)

    work page 2006

  52. [53]

    Y. Li, J. Feng, W. Wang, J. Tan, X. Ge, F. Liu, W. Yan, G. Zhang, C. Fu, and L. Chen, High Power Laser Science and Engineering10, e33 (2022)

    work page 2022

  53. [54]

    J. Feng, C. Fu, Y. Li, X. Zhang, J. Wang, D. Li, C. Zhu, J. Tan, M. Mirzaie, Z. Zhang, and L. Chen, High Energy Density Physics36, 100753 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [55]

    X. Mao, K. R. Kase, and W. R. Nelson, Health physics70, 207 (1996)

    work page 1996

  55. [56]

    Swanson and V

    W. Swanson and V. A. International Atomic Energy Agency,Radiological safety aspects of the operation of electron linear accelerators, no. 188 (IAEA., 1979)

    work page 1979

  56. [57]

    Labun, M

    L. Labun, M. Gracia-Linares, O. Z. Labun, and S. V. Milton, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Asso- ciated Equipment1076, 170468 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [58]

    Labun,Preliminary optimization of wakefield electron beam-driven neutron source, Tech

    L. Labun,Preliminary optimization of wakefield electron beam-driven neutron source, Tech. Rep. (Tau Systems Inc, 2023)

    work page 2023

  58. [59]

    Aniculaesei, T

    C. Aniculaesei, T. Ha, S. Yoffe, L. Labun, S. Milton, E. McCary, M. M. Spinks, H. J. Quevedo, O. Z. Labun, R. Sain,et al., Matter and Radiation at Extremes9(2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [60]

    Germaschewskiet al., Journal of Computational Physics318, 305 (2016)

    K. Germaschewskiet al., Journal of Computational Physics318, 305 (2016)

    work page 2016

  60. [61]

    Kumaret al., The Astrophysical Journal835, 295 (2017)

    R. Kumaret al., The Astrophysical Journal835, 295 (2017)

    work page 2017

  61. [62]

    Mora and R

    P. Mora and R. Pellat, The Physics of Fluids22, 2300 (1979)

    work page 1979

  62. [63]

    Mora, Phys

    P. Mora, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 185002 (2003)

    work page 2003

  63. [64]

    R. Sain, L. Labun, O. Z. Labun, and B. M. Hegelich, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02028 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [65]

    D. J. Stark, L. Yin, B. J. Albright, and F. Guo, Physics of Plasmas24(2017)

    work page 2017

  65. [66]

    Appelbe and J

    B. Appelbe and J. Chittenden, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion53, 045002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  66. [67]

    Brysk, Plasma Physics15, 611 (1973)

    H. Brysk, Plasma Physics15, 611 (1973)

    work page 1973

  67. [68]

    Kumar,PICTOR: cylindrical version, Tech

    R. Kumar,PICTOR: cylindrical version, Tech. Rep. 2401 (Tau Systems Inc, 2024)

    work page 2024

  68. [69]

    Esarey, C

    E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1229 45 (2009)

    work page 2009

  69. [70]

    Frankeet al., inAAC24 Advanced Accelerator Concepts Workshop(2024)

    P. Frankeet al., inAAC24 Advanced Accelerator Concepts Workshop(2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [71]

    S. F. Mughabghab,Atlas of Neutron Resonances: Resonance Parameters and Thermal Cross Sections. Z= 1-100(Elsevier, 2006)

    work page 2006

  71. [72]

    Junget al., Physics of Plasmas20, 056706 (2013)

    D. Junget al., Physics of Plasmas20, 056706 (2013)

    work page 2013

  72. [73]

    Pomerantz, E

    I. Pomerantz, E. McCary, A. R. Meadows, A. Arefiev, A. C. Bernstein, C. Chester, J. Cortez, M. E. Donovan, G. Dyer, E. W. Gaul,et al., Physical Review Letters113, 184801 (2014)

    work page 2014

  73. [74]

    M. M. G¨ unther, O. N. Rosmej, P. Tavana,et al., Nature Communications13, 170 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [75]

    Tipler, Tau systems demonstrates first electron beam production with its commercial laser-powered particle accelerator (2025)

    J. Tipler, Tau systems demonstrates first electron beam production with its commercial laser-powered particle accelerator (2025)

    work page 2025

  75. [76]

    Lazzarini, G

    C. Lazzarini, G. Grittani, P. Valenta, I. Zymak, R. Antipenkov, U. Chaulagain, L. Goncalves, A. Grenfell, M. Lamaˇ c, S. Lorenz,et al., Physics of Plasmas31(2024)

    work page 2024

  76. [77]

    Martinezet al., inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol

    M. Martinezet al., inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1507 (2012)

    work page 2012

  77. [78]

    Hendersonet al., High Energy Density Physics 10.1016/j.hedp.2014.06.004 (2014)

    A. Hendersonet al., High Energy Density Physics 10.1016/j.hedp.2014.06.004 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.hedp.2014.06.004 2014

  78. [79]

    Lianget al., Scientific Reports5, 13968 (2015)

    E. Lianget al., Scientific Reports5, 13968 (2015)

    work page 2015

  79. [80]

    Stormet al., Physics of Plasmas20, 053106 (2013)

    M. Stormet al., Physics of Plasmas20, 053106 (2013)

    work page 2013

  80. [81]

    W. Bang, M. Barbui, A. Bonasera, G. Dyer, H. J. Quevedo, K. Hagel, K. Schmidt, F. Con- soli, R. De Angelis, P. Andreoli,et al., Physical Review Letters111, 055002 (2013)

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.