Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

The PRISMA-36 array for studying variations of the thermal neutron flux

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unshielded neutron detectors can track cosmic-ray variations as well as classical neutron monitors, as demonstrated by a Forbush decrease in March 2024.

desk verdict A solid, well-documented hardware paper with a real single-event validation; the headline claim is stronger than the evidence, but it deserves refereeing, not a desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04909 v1 pith:3NXPZNBT submitted 2024-12-06 astro-ph.IM physics.ins-det

M.B. Amelchakov (1) , A. Chiavassa (2 , 3) , D.M. Gromushkin (1) , S.S. Khokhlov (1) , E.P. Khomchuk (1) , V.V. Kindin (1) , A.Yu. Konovalova (1)
show 16 more authors
P.S. Kuzmenkova (1) E.S. Morgunov (1) N.A. Pasyuk (2) A.A. Petrukhin (1) I.A. Shulzhenko (1) E.P. Volkov (1) I.I. Yashin (1) ((1) National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute) Moscow 115409 Russia (2) Dipartimento di Fisica dell' Universita degli Studi di Torino 10125 Torino Italy (3) Sezione di Torino dell' Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare - INFN 10125 Torino Italy)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.ins-det
keywords thermalneutrondetectorsZnS(Ag)scintillator6LiFmonitorForbushdecreasepulse-shapediscriminationcosmicrayvariationsPRISMA-36array
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

The paper argues that an array of 36 unshielded thermal-neutron detectors, each using a ZnS(Ag) scintillator loaded with 6LiF, can measure variations of the near-ground neutron flux with a sensitivity at least equal to that of a classical neutron monitor. It describes the upgrade of the earlier PRISMA-32 array into PRISMA-36: new EMI 9350KA photomultipliers, integrating amplifiers, 100-MHz digitizers, and a pulse-shape selection method that isolates neutron captures from photomultiplier noise. The central evidence is the Forbush decrease of March 24, 2024, where the 12-detector cluster measured a flux drop of 12.3±0.1%, matching the 11.8±0.1% seen by the Moscow Neutron Monitor. If this comparison holds, it means compact, unshielded scintillator arrays can serve as economical substitutes for large neutron monitors in space-weather and cosmic-ray variation studies.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is pulse-shape discrimination of integrated signals. In the ZnS(Ag) scintillator, neutron capture on 6Li produces an $\alpha$ particle and a tritium nucleus whose slow luminescence decays over tens of microseconds, whereas photomultiplier noise pulses are short. The array uses an integrating amplifier with a 2.7-µs time constant, then digitizes each waveform at 100 MHz; from each waveform it computes a front rise time and a duration. A signal is classified as a neutron if its rise time is at least 400 ns and its duration at least 3500 ns. These two criteria, determined by comparing a 3-hour run with a moderated 252Cf source against a 3-hour run without a scintillator, are the filter that makes unshielded operation possible and keeps the noise counting rate constant at 0.12±0.02 $s^{-1}$.

What would settle it

Take a well-calibrated neutron monitor and a reference gamma source: if a controlled exposure shows that the PRISMA-36 selection criteria admit a significant count rate from gammas or that the array's counting rate fails to track the monitor's Forbush-decrease amplitude across several events (e.g., deviations beyond the quoted statistical errors correlate with pressure or energy), the claim of equivalent sensitivity would be falsified. A direct test is to compare the array's daily count-rate variations with the Moscow Neutron Monitor over at least six months and over several Forbush events.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that unshielded neutron detectors based on ZnS(Ag) scintillator with 6LiF, which are part of the PRISMA-36 array, are capable of measuring neutron flux variations with a sensitivity not inferior to a classical neutron monitor. This claim is made in Section 7.3 and the conclusion, based on the recorded Forbush decrease: after barometric correction, the PRISMA-36 cluster showed a drop amplitude of 12.3±0.1%, matching the 11.8±0.1% of the Moscow Neutron Monitor over the same period. Supporting measurements include a background counting rate consistent with the known near-surface thermal neutron flux, a barometric coefficient of -0.76±0.06%/mbar matching the NM-64 value of -0.723%/mbar, and a detection efficiency of about 12% derived from the scintillator's 20% capture efficiency. Taken together, these results establish the variation channel of PRISMA-36 as an observing tool for thermal-neutron variations of both cosmic and geophysical origin.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pulse-shape criteria of front rise time at least 400 ns and duration at least 3500 ns, chosen by eye from one 3-hour californium-source run and one no-scintillator run, correctly identify neutron captures and reject all other signals for all 36 detectors, with no systematic uncertainty or gain drift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the equivalence to neutron monitors holds, existing and future PRISMA-type arrays can serve as a distributed network for Forbush-decrease and space-weather monitoring without the mass and cost of conventional neutron monitors.
  • The measured barometric coefficient matching NM-64 means standard pressure corrections can be applied to unshielded thermal-neutron data, allowing straightforward comparison between arrays and monitors.
  • The demonstrated sensitivity implies that unshielded detectors could complement muon telescopes and neutron monitors in the 1–100 GeV primary-energy range for studying heliospheric modulations.
  • The array's capability to register thermal-neutron variations also extends to geophysical studies, such as tidal and seismic effects, which are hard to observe with standard monitors.
  • The detection efficiency of about 12% and the count-rate stability establish a baseline for scaling detectors or improving selection criteria to reach lower flux variations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A single Forbush event is a proof of principle, but not a systematic calibration; we would want multi-event and multi-year coincidences to test whether the two instruments' amplitudes agree across different event sizes, solar angles, and weather conditions.
  • Because the pulse-shape criteria were set by eye on one cluster, one could expect detector-to-detector variation in thresholds; a data-driven re-derivation of the criteria per detector, using machine-learning classification, might improve efficiency and reduce spurious counts.
  • The unshielded detectors are sensitive to thermal neutrons that are moderated in the local environment, so the equivalence to a neutron monitor may depend on the building's geometry and humidity; re-location could change the barometric coefficient and the response.
  • The same selection method might allow measuring the neutron background at higher time resolution, enabling searches for short transient signals, such as lightning-related neutron bursts, where the 10-ns event timing could be an advantage.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes the upgrade of the PRISMA-32 array to PRISMA-36, now comprising 36 unshielded ZnS(Ag)+6LiF scintillation detectors with EMI 9350KA photomultipliers and a dedicated 'variation' channel intended to study thermal neutron flux variations. The authors present detailed component calibrations: PMT gain and linearity, integrating amplifier conversion, ADC channel response, and a pulse-shape selection method using front rise time Tf≥400 ns and duration TD≥3500 ns to identify neutron captures. They report a thermal neutron detection efficiency of about 12%, a background neutron flux of 2×10^-3 s^-1 cm^-2, a barometric coefficient of -0.76±0.06%/mbar consistent with NM-64 monitors, and a Forbush-decrease observation on March 24, 2024 with a count-rate drop amplitude of 12.3%±0.1% compared with 11.8%±0.1% from the Moscow Neutron Monitor. The central claim is that the unshielded detectors can measure neutron flux variations with sensitivity not inferior to a classical neutron monitor.

Significance. If established, the claim that a compact array of unshielded thermal-neutron detectors can match classical neutron monitors in measuring cosmic-ray-induced variations would be practically valuable: it would lower cost and infrastructure requirements for Forbush-decrease and neutron-background monitoring, and could expand the geographical coverage of such measurements. The paper's strengths include a careful and internally consistent set of component calibrations (PMT single-electron response, gain law, linearity, amplifier conversion, ADC channel response), an explicit comparison of the Forbush-decrease amplitude with an external neutron monitor, and a barometric coefficient that matches published NM-64 values. However, the central claim rests on pulse-shape cuts that are chosen by eye from a single calibration run and are not validated against gamma or charged-particle sources, and on an efficiency estimate that is an extrapolation without a systematic uncertainty. The agreement on a single Forbush event is genuine evidence but is not yet sufficient to establish 'not inferior' sensitivity in general.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Figs. 15-17] The neutron-selection criteria Tf≥400 ns and TD≥3500 ns are determined by eye from one 3-hour 252Cf run and one no-scintillator run, with no accompanying quantitative optimization, no systematic uncertainty, and no dedicated gamma-ray or charged-particle irradiation test. Moreover, the no-scintillator run shows an accepted PMT-noise rate of 0.12±0.02 s^-1, which is about 25% of the later background neutron rate of 0.35±0.03 s^-1 in the same figure. If a similar non-neutron component persists during the background and Forbush-decrease measurements and is not modulated by pressure or cosmic rays in the same way as neutrons, the reported barometric coefficient and Forbush-decrease amplitude would be biased. Please provide a direct gamma/charged-particle rejection test, or alternatively quantify and subtract the accepted non-neutron component and show that it does not affect the variation measurements.
  2. [Section 6.2, Fig. 18] The 12% detection efficiency is derived as 58.8% (ratio of detected to captured neutrons) times 20% (capture efficiency), where the 58.8% is obtained by extrapolating an exponential fit k·exp(-bA) below the selection threshold. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted (b=0.045±0.001 lsb^-1, k=0.071±0.006); no systematic uncertainty is assessed for the fit range, the threshold position, or the possibility that the amplitude distribution deviates from an exponential at low amplitudes. Since this efficiency is used to convert measured count rates into a background neutron flux, and since it is part of the overall performance characterization, please add a systematic error estimate or, if possible, an independent direct measurement of the efficiency.
  3. [Section 7.3 and Conclusion] The statement that the unshielded detectors are 'capable of measuring neutron flux variations with a sensitivity not inferior to a classical neutron monitor' is based on a single Forbush-decrease event with amplitudes 12.3%±0.1% versus 11.8%±0.1% from the Moscow Neutron Monitor. While this single-event agreement is encouraging, it does not by itself establish equal sensitivity in general, especially given the unresolved contamination question raised above. Please either temper the conclusion to describe a demonstration on one event, or provide a multi-event statistical comparison and an explicit account of the noise contribution to the variation signal.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1] The text refers to 'BAAK12-100M blocks' in the paragraph beginning 'To study variations of the thermal neutron background', while the rest of the paper uses 'BAAC12-100M'; please unify the acronym.
  2. [Section 6.1] It would improve reproducibility to state explicitly how the 'area of neutron signals' in Fig. 15b is defined, e.g., whether all events in the dense region were used or only those above a certain density threshold, and to give the numbers of events in the calibration runs.
  3. [References] References [24] and [26] are incomplete (they lack full author lists and publication details for 'UCLA-Cosmic' and 'GAP-Note' reports); please provide complete citations or a URL.
  4. [Section 7.2] The barometric coefficient is derived from data taken only in December 2023 (Fig. 20); a short sentence on the covered pressure range and the stability of the coefficient across seasons would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PRISMA-36 variation claim is benchmarked against an external neutron monitor and published NM-64 barometric coefficients.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are not derived from their own inputs. The Forbush-decrease sensitivity claim (Section 7.3, Fig. 21) is checked against the independent Moscow Neutron Monitor, and the barometric coefficient (−0.76±0.06%/mbar) is compared with a published NM-64 value (−0.723%/mbar). The pulse-shape selection criteria (Tf≥400 ns, TD≥3500 ns) are empirical calibration parameters determined from separate Cf-source and no-scintillator runs; they are not defined in terms of the later pressure or Forbush measurements, which use independent data taken after calibration. The detection-efficiency estimate (~12%) uses the published 20% capture efficiency of SL6-5 as an input, but this is a physical constant from prior work, not the target result. Citations to prior PRISMA papers are background or methodological and are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or prior author result is invoked to force the present conclusion. The consistency check that the PMT-noise rate stays at 0.12±0.02 s−1 is a calibration validation, not a definitional reduction. Accordingly, no equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no step in the derivation reduces to its own input.

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

The central claims rest on empirical thresholds chosen from source and no-source data, an exponential amplitude extrapolation for efficiency, a linear pressure correction, and the quoted 20 percent capture efficiency of the SL6-5 scintillator. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or fields. The fitted values are disclosed, but their systematic uncertainties are not propagated into the headline sensitivity claim.

free parameters (4)
  • Neutron selection thresholds = Tf = 400 ns, TD = 3500 ns
    The thresholds were chosen to enclose the neutron cluster in Figure 15b while excluding PMT noise in Figure 15a, and no uncertainty or independent validation set is provided.
  • Amplitude distribution parameters for efficiency = b = 0.045 ± 0.001 ADC lsb^-1, k = 0.071 ± 0.006
    These parameters were fitted to the detected neutron amplitude distribution in Section 6.2 and used to extrapolate below threshold, yielding the 58.8 percent detected-to-captured ratio and the 12 percent detection efficiency.
  • Barometric coefficient = B = -0.054 ± 0.003 s^-1/mbar, beta = -0.76 ± 0.06 percent/mbar
    The coefficient was fitted from December 2023 count rate versus pressure data and applied in Equation 9 to correct the March 2024 Forbush-decrease data.
  • PMT gain exponent = w = 11.7 ± 0.3
    The exponent was fitted to gain versus supply voltage data in Equation 4 and was used only to choose the -1360 V operating point; it is not a driver of the variation measurement.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SL6-5 scintillator thermal neutron capture efficiency is 20 percent.
    Section 6.2 cites Ref [39] for this value, and it enters the absolute detection efficiency estimate of about 12 percent and the derived background flux.
  • domain assumption Long ZnS(Ag) decay time for heavy particles separates neutron captures from PMT noise, gammas, and charged particles.
    The discrimination logic in Sections 2.2 and 6.1 assumes this separation, but only PMT noise and Cf-source neutrons were tested, with no gamma or charged-particle control reported.
  • domain assumption The barometric coefficient is linear and stable from December 2023 to March 2024.
    Equation 9 applies the December 2023 value of B to the March 2024 Forbush-decrease data, and the paper does not demonstrate stability across those months.
  • ad hoc to paper The exponential amplitude distribution fitted in Figure 18 holds below the selection threshold.
    The restoration in Section 6.2 assumes the fitted exponential law continues below the threshold, yet no physical model or goodness-of-fit test is given for that extrapolation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The PRISMA-36 array for studying variations of the thermal neutron flux." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NXPZNBT

@misc{pith2026241204909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The PRISMA-36 array for studying variations of the thermal neutron flux},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NXPZNBT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04909}
}
read the original abstract

From 2012 to 2023, the PRISMA-32 array was in operation at the Experimental Complex NEVOD (MEPhI, Moscow). The purpose of the array was to study extensive air showers by detecting the air-shower neutron and electron-photon components using unshielded neutron detectors. To expand the capabilities of this facility, including for the study of cosmic and geophysical phenomena with a neutron flux, its upgrade was carried out. During the upgrade, a dedicated measuring channel for studying variations of the neutron background and the processes affecting these variations was created. To achieve this, the photomultipliers, the integrating amplifiers, the digitalizing electronics and the high-voltage power supply system were replaced. The paper describes the structure of the upgraded array, which was named PRISMA-36, and presents the results of studying the characteristics of the main elements of its "variation" channel. A method for identifying signals caused by neutron capture and the determined criteria for their selection are discussed. An example of a Forbush decrease, caused by a X1.1-class flare and recorded with the variation channel of the PRISMA-36 array, is given.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04909 by the authors.

Figure 5
Figure 5. Overall dimensions (left) and dynode system structure (right) of the EMI 9350KA photomultiplier [24]. Before using the EMI photomultiplier in the PRISMA-36 array, its dynode system gain and linearity range were studied. At this, a divider with an increase in the potential difference between the senior dynodes starting from the 8th one ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Basic circuit of the voltage divider for the EMI 9350KA photomultiplier. The gain of the dynode system was measured using the method of single-electron illumination, which is described in [28]. A typical charge distribution of anode signals from EMI 9350KA photomultiplier (No. 8436) is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Typical distribution of charges of single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence of the dynode system gain on the supply voltage of the EMI 9350KA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dependence of the nonlinearity parameter  on the charge of the output signal from the anode of the PMT EMI 9350KA (No. 8436, supply voltage of -1360 V) under simultaneous illumination by two LEDs. Due to high quantum efficiency, large photocathode area and wide linear…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Paouris, H

    E. Paouris, H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belov, R. Gushchina, V. Yanke, Galactic Cosmic Ray Modulation and the Last Solar Minimum, Sol. Phys. 280 (2012) 255–271

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Ahluwalia, M.M

    H.S. Ahluwalia, M.M. Fikani, Cosmic ray solar semidiurnal anisotropy: 2. Heliospheric relationships of anisotropy parameters, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. (A5) 101 (1996) 11087- 11093

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Cliver, I.G

    E.W. Cliver, I.G. Richardson, A.G. Ling, Solar Drivers of 11-yr and Long-Term Cosmic Ray Modulation, Space. Sci. Rev. 176 (2013) 3-19

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Livada, H

    M. Livada, H. Mavromichalaki, Spectral Analysis of Forbush Decreases Using a New Yield Function, Sol. Phys. 295 (2020) 115

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Sommers, Cosmic ray anisotropy analysis with a full-sky observatory, Astropart.Phys

    P. Sommers, Cosmic ray anisotropy analysis with a full-sky observatory, Astropart.Phys. 14 (2001) 271-286

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Bazilevskaya, E.W

    G.A. Bazilevskaya, E.W. Cliver, G.A. Kovaltsov, A.G. Ling, M.A. Shea et al., Solar Cycle in the Heliosphere and Cosmic Rays. Space. Sci. Rev. 186 (2014) 409-435

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Miroshnichenko, J.A

    L.I. Miroshnichenko, J.A. Perez-Peraza, Astrophysical aspects in the studies of solar cosmic rays, Inter. J. of Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008) 1-141

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Tramontini, M

    M. Tramontini, M. Rosas‐Carbajal, C. Nussbaum, D. Gibert, J. Marteau, Middle‐Atmosphere Dynamics Observed with a Portable Muon Detector, Earth and Space Sci. 6 (2019) 1865 - 1876

    work page 2019

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Gromushkin, V

    D. Gromushkin, V. Alekseenko, A. Petrukhin, O. Shchegolev, Yu. Stenkin et al., The array for EAS neutron component detection, JINST 9 (2014) C08028

    2014

  2. [10]

    Bing-Bing Li, Shu -Wang Cui, C. Shi, F. Yang, Liang -Wei Zhang et al., Electron –Neutron Detector Array (ENDA), Phys. of Atomic Nucl. 84 (2021) 181-186

    2021

  3. [11]

    Gromushkin, F.A

    D.M. Gromushkin, F.A. Bogdanov, A.A. Lakhonin, A.A. Petrukhin, Yu.V. Stenkin et al., Low-Background EN -Detector for the Investigation of the Neutron Component of EASs, Phys. Part. Nuclei. 49 (2018) 47-50

    2018

  4. [12]

    Nakamura, M

    T. Nakamura, M. Katagiri, N. Tsutsui, K. Toh, N.J. Rhodes et al Development of a ZnS/10B2O3 scintillator with low-afterglow phosphor, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 528 (2014) 012043

    2014

  5. [13]

    Bouchama, I.I

    L. Bouchama, I.I. Astapov, N.S. Barbashina, F.A. Bogdanov, A.N. Dmitrieva et al., Study of Forbush decreases and lunar cycles effects in the thermal neutron flux registered near the Earth surface by means of "Neutron" setup data, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1690 (2020) 012012

    2020

  6. [14]

    Alekseenko, F

    V. Alekseenko, F. Arneodo, G. Bruno, W. Fulgione, D. Gromushkin et al., Registrati on of Forbush decrease 2012/03/08 with a global net of the thermal neutron scintillation en - detectors, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 409 (2013) 012190

    2013

  7. [15]

    Alekseenko, F

    V. Alekseenko, F. Arneodo, G. Bruno, W. Fulgione, D. Gromushkin et al., Sporadic variations of thermal neutron background measured by a global net of the en -detectors. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Cosmic Rays Conference, ICRC 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Alekseenko, F

    V. Alekseenko, F. Arneodo, G. Bruno, A. Di Giovanni, W. Fulgione et al., Decrease of Atmospheric Neutron Counts Observed during Thunderstorms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2 015) 125003

  9. [17]

    Bouchama, F.A

    L. Bouchama, F.A. Bogdanov, D.M. Gromushkin, A.N. Dmitrieva, Z.T. Izhbulyakova, Studying the Effect of Meteorological Parameters on the Concentration of Thermal Neutrons, Based on Data from the NEUTRON Setup, Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phys. 85 (2021) 1187-1190

    2021

  10. [18]

    Stenkin, Study of Environmental Thermal Neutron Fluxes: from EAS to Geophysics, Phys

    Yu.V. Stenkin, Study of Environmental Thermal Neutron Fluxes: from EAS to Geophysics, Phys. of Atomic Nucl. 84 (2021) 929-933

    2021

  11. [19]

    Stenkin, V.V

    Yu.V. Stenkin, V.V. Alekseenko, D.A. Kuleshov, K.R. Levochkin, E.O. Makarov et al., Variations in the Background Flux of Thermal Neutrons at Kamchatka, Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phys. 86 (2022) 639-641. 18

    2022

  12. [20]

    Gromushkin, F.A

    D.M. Gromushkin, F.A. Bogdanov, S.S. Khokhlov, R.P. Kokoulin, K.G.Kompaniets et al., The array of scintillation detectors with natural boron for EAS neutrons investigations, JINST 12 (2017) C07029

    2017

  13. [21]

    Shchegolev, V

    O. Shchegolev, V. Alekseenko, D. Kuleshov, K. Levochkin, Yu. Stenkin, Performances of ENDA-INR prototype array, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1690 (2020) 012011

    2020

  14. [22]

    Swank, Characteristics of Scintillators, Annual Rev

    R.K. Swank, Characteristics of Scintillators, Annual Rev. of Nucl. Sci. 4 (1954) 111-140

    1954

  15. [23]

    Yashin, M.B

    I.I. Yashin, M.B. Amelchakov, I.I. Astapov, N.S. Barbashina, A.G. Bogdanov et al., NEVOD — An experimental complex for multi -component investigations of cosmic rays and their interactions in the energy range 1–1010 GeV, JINST 16 (2021) T08014

    2021

  16. [24]

    Tripathi A., Barnhill D., DiPasqualee Ch., Jillings Ch. et al. // UCLA-Cosmic. 2001. V. 1

    2001

  17. [25]

    Ambrosio, R

    M. Ambrosio, R. Antolini, R. Assiro, G. Auriemma, D. Bakari et al., The MACRO detector at Gran Sasso, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A. 486 (2002) 663

    2002

  18. [26]

    // GAP-Note

    Ambrosio M., Kyriazopoulou S., Reynoldson J. // GAP-Note. 2002. V. 040

    2002

  19. [27]

    Likiy, N.V

    O.I. Likiy, N.V. Ampilogov, I.I. Astapov, N.S. Barbashina, N.N. Kamlev et al., nvestigating the Characteristics of Scintillation Detectors for the NEVOD-EAS Experiment, Instrum. Exp. Tech. 59 (2016) 781–788

    2016

  20. [28]

    Amelchakov, A.G

    M.B. Amelchakov, A.G. Bogdanov, A. Chiavassa, D.M. Gromushkin, A.N. Dmitryeva et al., A quasi -spherical optical module QSM -6M based on the Hamamatsu R877 PMT for the detection of Cherenkov radiation in water, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A. 1064 (2024) 169437

    2024

  21. [29]

    Geupen, B

    C. Geupen, B. Shwartz, Particle detectors. Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    S-O Flyckt and Carole Marmonier, Photomultiplier tubes: principles and a pplications, hotonis, Brive, France, 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    Datasheet of the PMT -200 photomultiplier tube, available at https://www.ekran- os.ru/images/spec/feu/bialkaline/en/pPMT-200.pdf (accessed on October 14, 2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Ranucci, An analytical approach to the evaluation of the pulse shape discrimination properties of scintillators, Nucl

    G. Ranucci, An analytical approach to the evaluation of the pulse shape discrimination properties of scintillators, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A. 354 (1995) 389

    1995

  25. [33]

    Kuchnir, F.J

    F.T. Kuchnir, F.J. Lynch, Time Dependence of Scintillations and the Effect on Pulse -Shape Discrimination, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 15 (1968) 107-113

    1968

  26. [34]

    Stenkin, V.V

    Yu.V. Stenkin, V.V. Alekseenko, D.M. Gromushkin , V.P. Sulakov, O.B. Shchegolev, Underground physics and the barometric pumping effect observed for thermal neutron flux underground, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 124 (2017) 718-721

    2017

  27. [35]

    Polack, M

    J.K. Polack, M. Flaska, A. Enqvist, C.S. Sosa, C.C. Lawrence, S.A. Pozzi, An algorithm for charge-integration, pulse -shape discrimination and estimation of neutron/photon misclassification in organic scintillators, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A. 795 (2015) 253-267

    2015

  28. [36]

    Can Liao, Haori Yang, Pulse shape discrimination using EJ-299-33 plastic scintillator coupled with a Silicon Photomultiplier array, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A. 789 (2015) 150-157

    2015

  29. [37]

    Kuzmenkova, D.M

    P.S. Kuzmenkova, D.M. Gromushkin, I.A. Shulzhenko, T.D. Tretyakova, A Comparison of Neutron Identification Methods in Inorganic ZnS -based Scintillators, Phys. of Atomic Nucl. 84 (2021) 1588-1592

    2021

  30. [38]

    Doucet, T

    E. Doucet, T. Brown, P. Chowdhury, C.J. Lister, C. Morse et al., Machine learning n/γ discrimination in CLYC scintillators, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A. 954 (2020). 161201

    2020

  31. [39]

    Stenkin, On the PRISMA Project, Nucl.Phys.B Proc.Suppl

    Yu.V. Stenkin, On the PRISMA Project, Nucl.Phys.B Proc.Suppl. 196 (2009) 293-296

    2009

  32. [40]

    Kuzhevsky, O.Yu

    B.M. Kuzhevsky, O.Yu. Nechaev, P.I. Shavrin, E.A. Bely aeva, I.I. Sirotkin, Variations of neutron cells in the thermal neutron field of the Earth's atmosphere, Preprint of NIIYaF MGU

  33. [41]

    Data of the Vaisala weather station of the Experimental complex NEVOD: http://ununevod.mephi.ru/en/real_time_data/vaisala_en.html (accessed on October 14, 2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy of SB RAS: https://ikfia.ysn.ru/nejtronnyj-monitor/ (accessed on October 14, 2024)

    Characteristics of the neutron monitor of the Yu.G. Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy of SB RAS: https://ikfia.ysn.ru/nejtronnyj-monitor/ (accessed on October 14, 2024). 19

    2024

  35. [43]

    Data of the Moscow Neutron Monitor: http://cr0.izmiran.ru/mosc/ (accessed on October 14, 2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    The CACTUS online CME catalog: http://sidc.oma.be/cactus/catalog.php (accessed on October 14, 2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    The official web site of the OMNIWeb database: https://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html (accessed on October 14, 2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Barbashina, A.N

    N.S. Barbashina, A.N. Dmitrieva, K.G. Kompaniets, A.A. Petrukhin, D.A. Timashkov et al., Specific Features of Studying For bush Decreases in the Muon Flux, Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phys. 73 (2009) 343-346

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.