Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 57 references

The HiSPARC Experiment

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A school-based network of cheap scintillator stations can reconstruct cosmic-ray showers to about 6 degrees.

desk verdict A solid instrument report for a long-running school-based array: the KASCADE cross-calibration makes the direction reconstruction credible, but the energy spectrum rests on a proton-only simulated LDF and should be treated as preliminary. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01622 v2 pith:4ZV7MJ3D submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

K. van Dam , B. van Eijk , D.B.R.A. Fokkema , J.W. van Holten , A.P.L.S. de Laat , N.G. Schultheiss , J.J.M. Steijger , J.C. Verkooijen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords cosmicraysextensiveairshowersscintillationdetectorHiSPARCrayenergyspectrumshowerdirectionreconstructionNKGlateraldistributionoutreach
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper makes the case that a network of small, inexpensive scintillator stations run largely by high schools can do real cosmic-ray physics, not just outreach. It argues that a single four-detector HiSPARC station reconstructs the arrival direction of an extensive air shower with an average 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty of about 6.1 degrees, as checked against the much more precise KASCADE experiment, and can estimate the primary energy by fitting a simplified Nishimura-Kamata-Greisen lateral distribution to the particle densities at four detector positions. Using two nearby stations, the reconstructed energy spectrum between $10^{14.8}$ and $10^{15.5}$ eV has fitted slopes of 2.85 and 2.86, close to the accepted value of 2.7. The paper's broader claim is that such stations are scientifically viable detectors, not just teaching tools.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified NKG lateral distribution function with all shape parameters fixed, so that fitting the four measured particle densities determines only the core position and one energy scale. Around it, the paper builds a CORSIKA-based simulation chain for shower generation, a GEANT4 detector response simulation validated against single-muon measurements, and a flat-front triangulation algorithm for directions. The fixed LDF turns a four-point measurement into a one-parameter energy fit, which is what makes single-station energy reconstruction possible.

What would settle it

Take a four-detector station whose showers are also seen by a high-precision array with accurate core positions, and compare energy estimates for events with cores inside versus outside the station; if the fixed LDF is correct, the two classes agree after efficiency corrections, while a composition or shape bias would make them disagree systematically.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a four-scintillator station, with detectors a few metres apart, samples enough of an air-shower footprint to reconstruct both direction and energy with useful accuracy. Direction reconstruction by flat-front triangulation of arrival times yields an average 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty of $6.1^\circ$ when validated against KASCADE, and the same algorithm applied to four closely spaced stations gives pairwise differences between $5.93^\circ$ and $6.37^\circ$. Energy reconstruction uses a modified NKG formula $N(r) = A (r/r_0)^a (1 + r/r_0)^b$ with fixed parameters $r_0=29.6$, $a=-0.566$, $b=-2.57$, an obliquity correction $A_\perp = A \exp[p(1/\cos\theta - 1)]$ with $p=6.937$, and $\log E = c(\log A_\perp + d)$ with $c=0.797$, $d=17.62$; the resulting spectrum has slopes 2.85 and 2.86 between $10^{14.8}$ and $10^{15.5}$ eV, close to the known 2.7, with a flux offset attributed to detection efficiency and analysis cuts.

Load-bearing premise

The energy reconstruction assumes that a lateral distribution function fitted to proton-only simulated showers, with its age parameter fixed, describes real showers of mixed composition when sampled at just four detector positions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A four-detector station can serve as a standalone cosmic-ray observatory, producing direction and energy information for showers above roughly $10^{14.5}$ eV.
  • The energy spectrum slope measured by such stations, 2.85-2.86, is consistent with the canonical value of 2.7 within the stated systematic simplifications, suggesting the method captures real spectral information.
  • The trigger efficiency parametrisation in eq. (10) allows a station's effective exposure to be computed, so rates can be converted into fluxes.
  • Clusters of stations, such as the Science Park cluster, can resolve the core-position ambiguity by comparing energy estimates from multiple stations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the fixed proton-only LDF is applied to mixed-composition real showers, the energy scale will carry a composition-dependent bias; a natural extension is to include separate proton and iron templates and treat composition as a nuisance parameter.
  • The same four-detector geometry could be used to test shower-front curvature: the 6-degree resolution is dominated by timing jitter and the flat-front assumption, so adding curvature parameters would be a direct, testable extension.
  • The paper's validation method generalises: any small array can certify itself by embedding one station in a high-precision array or by cross-comparing overlapping stations, as done here with stations 501 and 510.
  • A classroom network with this calibration path could in principle monitor transient phenomena, such as solar-particle events or lightning-related modulation, using the existing trigger and GPS infrastructure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents the HiSPARC extensive air shower experiment, a distributed network of low-cost two- and four-scintillator stations hosted largely at high schools. It describes the detector hardware, GEANT4-based single-muon and EAS response simulations, DAQ and GPS timing, trigger efficiency parametrization, direction reconstruction, and a single-station energy reconstruction based on a modified NKG lateral distribution. The main quantitative claims are that a four-detector HiSPARC station reconstructs EAS directions with an average 1-sigma uncertainty of about 6.1 degrees (validated against KASCADE), that the same station can estimate primary energies using the modified NKG function, and that the resulting energy spectrum has fitted slopes of 2.85 and 2.86 between 10^14.8 and 10^15.5 eV, close to the expected value of 2.7.

Significance. The paper provides a detailed, honest characterization of a low-cost air-shower detector and demonstrates meaningful scientific validation: the GEANT4 detector model is checked against table-top and single-muon measurements; the direction reconstruction is compared with KASCADE (0.3-degree accuracy) and with independent station pairs; and the trigger efficiency is studied with CORSIKA. The open software and data access are genuine strengths for an education-linked project. If the energy-reconstruction claims can be supported against composition and systematic uncertainties, the paper would show that even a single four-detector HiSPARC station yields scientifically useful energy information. The authors also clearly state several limitations, which is commendable but does not by itself resolve the load-bearing issues described below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7, Eqs. (7)-(9), Fig. 26] The authors should either add a systematic study of LDF variation (e.g., mixed-composition CORSIKA showers, several hadronic interaction models, varied age parameters), or explicitly reframe the energy spectrum as an illustrative demonstration and remove the implication that it validates the absolute energy scale.
  2. [Section 7, Fig. 28] As written, Fig. 28 gives the impression of a spectral-shape measurement, but the analysis is a relative demonstration whose selection efficiency has not been folded in or shown to be energy-flat.
  3. [Section 8.2, Eqs. (10)-(13), Figs. 32-33] This is closely related to the previous comment, but it identifies a specific missing ingredient in the chain from simulated efficiency to observed flux.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)] The PMT response function in Eq. (1) is presented without units for the parameters a, b, c, d and for x; please specify the domain and units (volts, inferred pulse heights, etc.) so the parametrization is unambiguous.
  2. [Fig. 10] The y-axis label 'Measured MIP-peak value [mVns]' and the x-axis label 'Simulated MIP-peak value [# photons]' mix units; please clarify how the simulated photon count is converted to the measured mVns scale.
  3. [Section 6, Figs. 24-25] The sentence 'the uncertainty obtained from the simulations slightly underestimates the real direction reconstruction performance' can be misread; since 7.7 degrees is larger than 6.1 degrees, the simulation gives a larger (more conservative) uncertainty. Please rephrase to make the direction of the comparison explicit.
  4. [Section 7, analysis cuts] The criterion 'If the best chi2 value of one of the two stations is below 5, the event is discarded' should be accompanied by the number of degrees of freedom in the fit, otherwise the cut value is not interpretable.
  5. [References [27] and [53]] Several quantitative statements (energy-dependent detection efficiencies, mini-shower contributions, and the four-station pair analysis) rely on unpublished or internal notes [27], [53]. Please either summarize the relevant numbers in the text or add a note that these results are preliminary.
  6. [Section 8.2] For the trigger-efficiency parametrization in Eqs. (10)-(13), the fitted values of alpha, sigma, lambda, chi, and rho are listed but without uncertainties or the number of simulated showers; please provide these details so readers can assess the fit quality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: direction and energy claims rest on external KASCADE and known-spectrum benchmarks; the only tuning step is disclosed and does not reduce a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are validated against external benchmarks rather than against its own fitted inputs. The direction-reconstruction accuracy is checked against KASCADE, which has 0.3-degree accuracy (Section 6, Figs. 24-25), and against independent inter-station pair differences (Table 1). The energy reconstruction is tested against the known cosmic-ray spectrum slope of 2.7, an external reference (Section 7, Fig. 28). The only calibration step is the GEANT4 aluminum reflectivity increase from 0.88 to 0.93 to match single-muon data, which the paper explicitly states "This only scales the number of photons" (Section 2.3); this is a disclosed fit, not a hidden prediction, and the EAS pulse-height comparisons in Section 8 use data not used for that tuning. The paper also honestly concedes in Section 7 that the KASCADE energy comparison was "too limited for a decisive analysis," which is a validity limitation, not circularity. No equation reduces to another by construction, and no load-bearing claim rests on an author self-citation. The proton-only CORSIKA lateral distribution function is model-dependent, but applying it to real data and comparing the derived spectrum with the known spectrum is an external test, not a tautology. The modest score of 1 reflects only the minor, disclosed detector-simulation tuning; overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a modest set of fitted calibration and simulation parameters, not on new physical entities. The most consequential fit parameters are the modified NKG LDF constants and the trigger-efficiency constants, both derived from simulations rather than from first principles.

free parameters (4)
  • Aluminum reflectivity in GEANT4 detector model = 0.93 (raised from 0.88)
    Adjusted so the simulated single-muon light yield matches the table-top measurement in Sec. 2.3; the tuning scales photon number.
  • Modified NKG LDF parameters r0, a, b, p, c, d = 29.6, -0.566, -2.57, 6.937, 0.797, 17.62
    Fitted to CORSIKA proton shower averages in Sec. 7, eqs. 7-9, and used to convert particle densities into primary energy.
  • Trigger-efficiency parametrization constants alpha, sigma, lambda, chi, rho = 2.15, 20.9, 7.22e-2, 7.84, 129
    Fitted to simulated EAS detection efficiencies in Sec. 8.2, eqs. 10-13, no uncertainties reported.
  • PMT response function parameters a, b, c, d for two bases = Nikhef: 0.237, 13.5, 9.34e4, 0.918; commercial: 1.42, 2.74, 4.13, 0.150
    Fitted to LED pulse data in Sec. 2.2, eq. 1, to convert pulse integrals to inferred pulse heights.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GEANT4 with the tuned aluminum reflectivity models light transport in the detector accurately enough for efficiency studies.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.3 and 2.5; the model is tuned to match data and then used to derive detection efficiencies for electrons, muons, and gamma rays.
  • domain assumption CORSIKA with QGSJET-II, GHEISHA, and EGS4 reproduces real air showers for the energies studied.
    Used throughout Secs. 6-8 to generate EASs, define the LDF, compute effective areas, and derive trigger efficiencies.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified NKG lateral distribution with fixed age parameter describes the average particle density around the core for real showers.
    Sec. 7, eq. 7; fitted to proton-only CORSIKA showers and applied to mixed-composition data, with no independent validation of the functional form.
  • domain assumption The arrival directions of EASs are isotropic on the timescales used for timing-offset and acceptance calculations.
    Stated in Sec. 3.4 and 4.2; used to derive detector and GPS timing offsets from time-difference distributions.
  • standard math Single muons reaching the surface follow the parameterized momentum and angle spectrum of ref. 29.
    Used in Sec. 2.4, eqs. 3-4, to simulate the single-muon pulse-height spectrum; parameters are taken verbatim from external literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The HiSPARC Experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZV7MJ3D

@misc{pith2026190801622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The HiSPARC Experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZV7MJ3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01622}
}
read the original abstract

The High School Project on Astrophysics Research with Cosmics (HiSPARC) is a large extensive air shower (EAS) array with detection stations throughout the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark and Namibia. HiSPARC is a collaboration of universities, scientific institutes and high schools. The majority of detection stations is hosted by high schools. A HiSPARC station consists of two or four scintillators placed inside roof boxes on top of a building. The measured response of a detector to single incoming muons agrees well with GEANT4 simulations. The response of a station to EASs agrees with simulations as well. A four-scintillator station was integrated in the KASCADE experiment and was used to determine the accuracy of the shower direction reconstruction. Using simulations, the trigger efficiency of a station to detect a shower as function of both distance to the shower core and zenith angle was determined. The HiSPARC experiment is taking data since 2003. The number of stations (~140 in 2019) still increases. The project demonstrates that its approach is viable for educational purposes and that scientific data can be obtained in a collaboration with high school students and teachers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Layout (early 2019) of the HiSPARC array. Each red dot represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sketch of the HiSPARC detector. The scintillator and light-guide are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The HiSPARC detector inside a roof box. Landau distribution has a pronounced tail towards higher en￾ergy losses. A vertically incident minimum ionizing particle has a most probable energy loss in 2 cm scintillation material of 3.51 MeV (≡ 1 MIP). Only a small fraction of the gamma rays in an EAS interacts with the scintillator via Compton scattering and less frequently, depending on their energy, via pair creation. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Response of two HiSPARC PMT assemblies with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: At the right the average number of muon-induced scintillation photons arriving at the PMT as a function of the position in the detector is shown. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pulse integral distributions for events collected at position 16 and 17. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The scintillator (including light-guide) light transmission is measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between measured and simulated light yield of a HiS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between single muon pulse height distributions of sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Four detectors placed in a diamond formation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Typical configuration of a two-detector station. A GPS antenna is lo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Four detectors placed in a triangle formation with the fourth detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Front (top) and back (bottom) of the HiSPARC readout unit. Two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: A schematic representation of an event. Dashed vertical lines: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Screenshot of a panel in the HiSPARC DAQ control and monitor user interface (colour online). The top three histograms show (from left to right) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Timing offset between two detectors in a two-detector station (in red). The plateau (blue horizontal line) is due to random coincidences (uncor￾related particles, PMT noise etc.). For time differences smaller than 300 ns (blue crossed region) the random coincidences a…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Location of stations at the Amsterdam Science Park cluster. One [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_22.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: gives the 1σ uncertainty in the shower direction reconstruction for a four-detector triangle shaped station ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: The 1σ uncertainty in the reconstruction of azimuth (blue dots) and zenith (blue crosses) as a function of zenith angle are calculated by comparing the direction of CORSIKA generated showers and the direction reconstructed after full detector simulation in a four-dete…
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The simulated average number of particles that fall inside a 0.5 by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_26.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The energy spectrum obtained using stations 501 (red stars) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_28.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: EAS detection efficiency of 1015 eV showers as function of distance between the shower core and station center for zenith angles of 7.5 o (dots), 30o (crosses) and 45o (stars). At 7.5 o and for small core distances the efficiency is close to 1. For larger core distanc…
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Simulated response (blue histogram) of a detector in a two-detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_31.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: EAS detection efficiency of 1015 eV showers as function of zenith angle for core distances of 10 (dots), 25 (crosses) and 50 m (stars). If the shower core is close to the center of the station (e.g. 10 m in the figure) the EAS detection efficiency stays close to 1 up …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. K. Gaisser, R. Engel, E. Resconi, Cosmic rays and particle physics, Cambridge University Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    A. J. Hundhausen, Coronal expansion and solar wind, V ol. 5, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Klein, S

    K.-L. Klein, S. Dalla, Acceleration and propagation of solar energetic particles, Space Science Reviews 212 (2017) 1107–1136

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Blasi, The origin of galactic cosmic rays, The Astronomy and Astro- physics Review 21 (2013) 70

    P. Blasi, The origin of galactic cosmic rays, The Astronomy and Astro- physics Review 21 (2013) 70

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    A. Aab, P. Abreu, M. Aglietta, et al., Observation of a large-scale anisotropy in the arrival directions of cosmic rays above 8 × 1018 eV, Science 357 (2017) 1266–1270

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    P. K. F. Grieder, Extensive Air Showers: High Energy Phenomena and Astrophysical Aspects - A Tutorial, Reference Manual and Data Book, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Antoni, W

    T. Antoni, W. D. Apel, F. Badea, et al., The cosmic-ray experiment KAS- CADE, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 513 (2003) 490–510

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    W. D. Apel, J. C. Arteaga, A. F. Badea, et al., The KASCADE-Grande experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 620 (2010) 202–216

    work page 2010

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Chiba, K

    N. Chiba, K. Hashimoto, N. Hayashida, et al., Akeno giant air shower array (AGASA) covering 100 km2 area, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 311 (1992) 338–349

    1992

  2. [10]

    Abu-Zayyad, R

    T. Abu-Zayyad, R. Aida, M. Allen, et al., The surface detector array of the Telescope Array experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 689 (2012) 87–97

    2012

  3. [11]

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, The Pierre Auger cosmic ray observatory, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 798 (2015) 172–213

    2015

  4. [12]

    HiSPARC website, https://www.hisparc.nl

  5. [13]

    D. B. R. A. Fokkema, The HiSPARC Experiment, Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of Twente, ISBN: 978-90-365-3438-3, https://www.nikhef. nl/pub/services/biblio/theses_pdf/thesis_D_Fokkema.pdf (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Nikhef website, https://www.nikhef.nl

  7. [15]

    T. Wada, N. Ochi, T. Kitamura, et al., Observation of time correlation in cosmic air shower network, in: Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supple- ments, V ol. 75, 1999, pp. 330–332

    1999

  8. [16]

    Hofverberg, Imaging the high energy cosmic ray sky, Ph.D

    P. Hofverberg, Imaging the high energy cosmic ray sky, Ph.D. thesis, KTH (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Brobeck, Measurement of ultra-high energy cosmic rays with CHICOS, Ph.D

    E. Brobeck, Measurement of ultra-high energy cosmic rays with CHICOS, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Abbrescia, A

    M. Abbrescia, A. Agocs, S. Aiola, et al., The EEE experiment project: status and first physics results, The European Physical Journal Plus 128 (2013) 62

    2013

  11. [19]

    Timmermans, J

    C. Timmermans, J. Schotanus, B. van Eijk, et al., Wetenschappelijk on- derzoek voor scholieren, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Natuurkunde 69 (2003) 230–234

    2003

  12. [20]

    BC408 Data Sheet, Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    9107B series data sheet, ET Enterprises Ltd (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    R6094 data sheet, Hamamatsu (1996)

    1996

  15. [23]

    Landau, On the energy loss of fast particles by ionization, J

    L. Landau, On the energy loss of fast particles by ionization, J. Phys.(USSR) 8 (1944) 201–205

    1944

  16. [24]

    HV3020 series data sheet, ET Enterprises Ltd (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Timmer, E

    P. Timmer, E. Heine, H. Peek, Very low power, high voltage base for a Photo Multiplier Tube for the KM3NeT deep sea neutrino telescope, Journal of Instrumentation 5 (2010) C12049–C12049. 20

    2010

  18. [26]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, et al., Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 835 (2016) 186–225

    2016

  19. [27]

    van Dam, et al., in preparation

    K. van Dam, et al., in preparation

  20. [28]

    Jetter, D

    S. Jetter, D. Dwyer, J. Wen-Qi, et al., PMT waveform modeling at the Daya Bay experiment, Chinese Physics C 36 (2012) 733

    2012

  21. [29]

    Reyna, A Simple Parameterization of the Cosmic-Ray Muon Momen- tum Spectra at the Surface as a Function of Zenith Angle, arXiv preprint: arXiv:hep-ph/0604145

    D. Reyna, A Simple Parameterization of the Cosmic-Ray Muon Momen- tum Spectra at the Surface as a Function of Zenith Angle, arXiv preprint: arXiv:hep-ph/0604145

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika 57 (1970) 97–109

    1970

  23. [31]

    D. Heck, J. Knapp, J. N. Capdevielle, et al., CORSIKA: a Monte Carlo code to simulate extensive air showers., Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, Karlsruhe (Germany), 1998

    1998

  24. [32]

    davisinstruments.com

    Davis Vantage Pro, Davis Instruments, see https://www. davisinstruments.com

  25. [33]

    Kokkeler, Improvement of the pulse reconstruction and arrival direction estimation at the hisparc experiment, Bachelor thesis (2019)

    T. Kokkeler, Improvement of the pulse reconstruction and arrival direction estimation at the hisparc experiment, Bachelor thesis (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Resolution T GPS Embedded Board User Guide, Trimble (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Elliott, V

    C. Elliott, V . Vijayakumar, W. Zink, et al., National instruments Lab- VIEW: a programming environment for laboratory automation and mea- surement, JALA: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Automation 12 (2007) 17–24

    2007

  28. [36]

    MySQL Reference Manual, Oracle Corporation, available at https:// www.mysql.com

  29. [37]

    Python Language Reference, version 2.7, Python Software Foundation, available at https://www.python.org

  30. [38]

    Nagios Core Documentation, Nagios Enterprises, LLC, available at https://www.nagios.org

  31. [39]

    openvpn.net

    OpenVPN Documentation, OpenVPN Inc., available at https://www. openvpn.net

  32. [40]

    TightVNC Documentation, GlavSoft LLC, available at https:// tightvnc.com

  33. [41]

    J. G. Wilson, Progress in Cosmic Ray Physics, V ol. 3, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1956

    1956

  34. [42]

    N. G. Schultheiss, The acceptance of the HiSPARC experiment, arXiv preprint: arXiv:1602.06799

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    The HDF5 library & file format, The HDF Group, available at https: //www.hdfgroup.org/solutions/hdf5

  36. [44]

    Django Documentation, Django Software Foundation, available at https://www.djangoproject.com

  37. [45]

    D. B. R. A. Fokkema, A. P. L. S. de Laat, T. Kooij, SAPPHiRE, https: //github.com/HiSPARC/sapphire (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    jSparc website, https://docs.hisparc.nl/jsparc

  39. [47]

    Jupyter Notebook Documentation, Jupyter Team, available at https:// www.jupyter.org

  40. [48]

    A. M. Hillas, , in: Proceedings International Cosmic Ray Conference, V ol. 1, 1981, p. 193

    1981

  41. [49]

    Ostapchenko, QGSJET-II: towards reliable description of very high energy hadronic interactions, in: Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Sup- plements, V ol

    S. Ostapchenko, QGSJET-II: towards reliable description of very high energy hadronic interactions, in: Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Sup- plements, V ol. 151, 2006, pp. 143–146

    2006

  42. [50]

    Fesefeldt, GHEISHA The Simulation of Hadronic Showers, Tech

    H. Fesefeldt, GHEISHA The Simulation of Hadronic Showers, Tech. rep., RWTH Aachen, PITHA-85/02 (1985)

    1985

  43. [51]

    W. R. Nelson, D. W. O. Rogers, H. Hirayama, The EGS4 code sys- tem, Tech. rep., Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, California (1985)

    1985

  44. [52]

    J. M. C. Montanus, The Observability of Jets in Cosmic Air Show- ers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, ISBN: 978-94-028-0549- 9, https://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/theses_pdf/ thesis_H_M_Montanus.pdf (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    J. J. M. Steijger, Het kwartet, Internal note (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    N. M. Gerasimova, G. T. Zatsepin, Disintegration of cosmic ray nuclei by solar photons, JETP 38 (1960) 1245–1252

    1960

  47. [55]

    Beekman, T

    R. Beekman, T. Aldus, J. Steijger, Speelt kosmische straling een rol bij initiatie bliksem?, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Natuurkunde 84 (2018) 18

    2018

  48. [56]

    Schools at 10 20 eV and beyond, Nature 429 (2004) 685

    2004

  49. [57]

    org/fileadmin/medias/1.fondation/documents/Foundation_ 2004_Award.pdf

    2004 Altran award summary, http://www.altran-foundation. org/fileadmin/medias/1.fondation/documents/Foundation_ 2004_Award.pdf. 21

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.