Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing Spin Diffusion in GaAs Quantum Wells: The Role of Electron Density and Channel Width

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Narrowing a GaAs Hall-bar channel raises the spin diffusion coefficient, by up to 150% when the electron density is lowered by a back-gate voltage.

desk verdict Genuinely new observation that spin diffusion rises in narrow channels and at low density, but the 150% number rests on a strained 1D extraction and a model that fits the data it explains. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08023 v1 pith:M7WI73T2 submitted 2025-01-14 cond-mat.mes-hall

B. W. Grobecker , A. V. Poshakinskiy , S. Anghel , T. Mano , G. Yusa , M. Betz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords persistentspinhelixtwo-dimensionalelectrongastime-resolvedKerrrotationRashbaspin-orbitcouplingDresselhausdiffusioncoefficientlifetimeback-gatevoltagemodulation
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 sets out to show that lateral confinement and electron density are practical levers for spin transport in a two-dimensional electron gas. Using time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr microscopy on GaAs quantum-well Hall-bar channels between 4 and 20 µm wide, the authors find that the spin diffusion coefficient grows as the channel narrows, and that lowering the electron concentration with a back-gate voltage amplifies the growth, reaching up to 150% in the narrowest channels. They attribute this to a spatially inhomogeneous electron density inside the channel, where faster spin diffusion near the lower-density edges dominates as the channel narrows, and they support the picture with a model that reproduces the measured channel-width dependence. The practical stake is that geometry and density can be co-tuned to control spin diffusion, spin lifetime, and spin diffusion length in spintronic devices.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a spin diffusion equation with a spatially inhomogeneous diffusion coefficient $D_s(x)$, solved in a channel of width $d$ with spin-conserving boundary conditions at the edges. Working near the persistent-spin-helix condition (equal Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit couplings, which create a long-lived helical spin texture) and using perturbation theory in the spin-orbit terms, the authors reduce the problem to an effective one-dimensional diffusion and derive the observed diffusion coefficient as a density-weighted average over the channel. The load-bearing identity is $D_s = D_s(0) d/(d-a)$, where $a$ is a width-independent edge length fixed by the confining potential $U(x)$ through $a = \int (1 - e^{-U/T}) dx$; because $D_s(x)$ is assumed proportional to $e^{U(x)/T}$, the low-density edges contribute disproportionately fast diffusion. The same expansion gives a spin relaxation rate $\Gamma = D_s \frac{2 m^{*4}(\alpha^2-\beta^2)^2 d^2}{3\hbar^8}$, so the diffusion enhancement competes with the known $d^2$ suppression of Dyakonov-Perel relaxation and explains the measured spin diffusion length behavior.

What would settle it

A decisive experiment would repeat the spin-diffusion measurement with a pump spot well below 4 µm and with the region outside the channel borders masked or subtracted; if the extracted $D_s$ no longer rises as the channel narrows, the reported enhancement is an artifact of the one-dimensional fitting assumption rather than an intrinsic diffusion effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spin diffusion coefficient $D_s$ in a GaAs two-dimensional electron gas is not a fixed bulk property: it grows when the gas is laterally confined to a narrow Hall-bar channel, and grows further when the back-gate voltage lowers the electron density. In the authors' measurements, $D_s$ relative to its value in the 20 µm channel rises steadily as the channel narrows, reaching as much as 150% at the smallest widths and lowest densities, while the spin lifetime remains nearly constant at the voltage where it is already longest and the spin diffusion length $L_s = (D_s \tau_s)^{1/2}$ can nearly double. The proposed mechanism is an edge-density inhomogeneity: the confining potential depletes electrons near the channel edges, and because the spin diffusion coefficient is taken to be inversely proportional to the electron density, the edges diffuse spins faster than the center. Weighting this inhomogeneous profile across the channel gives $D_s = D_s(0) d/(d-a)$, where $a$ is an effective edge width that shrinks as higher electron density screens the confining potential, and this expression reproduces the observed trends with channel width and back-gate voltage. The paper concludes that electron density and channel geometry should be treated together in designing spin transport and coherence in confined two-dimensional electron gases.

Load-bearing premise

The measured spin signals are analyzed as if the spins diffuse purely along one direction inside the channel, even though the laser spot is nearly as wide as the narrowest channel and some of the signal comes from outside its edges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Narrowing a Hall-bar channel from 20 µm to 4 µm raises the spin diffusion coefficient, and the rise is largest when the back-gate voltage is set to low electron density.
  • Lowering the electron density amplifies the confinement-induced enhancement, while higher densities screen the edge potential and reduce it.
  • The rise in $D_s$ does not simply shorten spin lifetime: at the voltage where the spin lifetime is longest, $\tau_s$ stays nearly flat, and the spin diffusion length can nearly double in narrow, low-density channels.
  • The extracted edge-width parameter $a$ decreases when the back-gate voltage raises the electron density, consistent with screening of the channel-edge potential.
  • Because spin relaxation through the Dyakonov-Perel mechanism is proportional to $D_s$, diffusion and relaxation should be evaluated together when designing confined spin-transport devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the edge-density mechanism is correct, deliberately engineering the edge potential—smooth versus abrupt confinement, or gate-defined edges—should change $D_s$ at fixed channel width and density in the way Eq. (15) predicts; this is not tested in the paper.
  • The same $d/(d-a)$ enhancement should appear in other quasi-one-dimensional spin conductors with edge depletion, such as etched nanowires or gate-defined channels in two-dimensional materials, whenever spin diffusion is limited by electron-electron scattering.
  • A measurement with a pump spot smaller than the narrowest channel and spatially confined detection would directly test whether the enhanced $D_s$ is intrinsic to the channel or partly an artifact of exciting spins outside its borders; the paper reports no such test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr microscopy measurements of spin diffusion in GaAs quantum well Hall-bar channels of widths 4–20 μm, with back-gate tuning of electron density. The authors extract the spin diffusion coefficient D_s from the time-dependent broadening of Gaussian fits to the spin profile and report that D_s increases as the channel narrows, with the abstract claiming an increase up to 150% for the 4 μm channel at low electron density. They propose a theoretical model in which reduced electron density near the channel edges enhances local spin diffusion, leading to an effective width d−a, and they fit the data with a width-independent edge parameter a. The paper concludes that lateral confinement and density tuning are practical levers for controlling spin transport in two-dimensional electron gases.

Significance. If the reported enhancement is genuine, the result is novel and useful: it identifies a geometry-and-density lever for spin diffusion in 2DEGs, potentially informing spintronic device design. The experimental dataset is fairly comprehensive (five channel widths, five gate voltages), and the theoretical model offers a plausible physical mechanism. The derivation of Eqs. (10)–(16) is transparent, and the paper clearly identifies the regimes where the model is expected to hold. However, the central empirical claim rests on a 1D Gaussian diffusion extraction whose validity is questionable for the narrowest channels, and the model's 'confirmation' is weakened because the free parameter a is fitted to the same data the model then explains. These issues are load-bearing for the quantitative headline claim and need to be addressed before the result can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (2) and Fig. 1]
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (15) and Fig. 4]
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 3(b) and (c)]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (1)]
  2. [Sec. III, after Eq. (12)]
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 3(a)]
  4. [Conclusion]
  5. [Sec. III, first paragraph]

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The theoretical model is fitted to the very Ds/D0 data it is said to confirm, with the key Ds proportional to 1/n input imported from the authors' own Ref. [15]; the empirical trend itself is not circular, but the model validation is a fit rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, paragraph following Eq. (15); abstract, last sentence]
    "We use Eq. (15) to fit the experimental curves in Fig. 3(a) and extract the fit parameter a for different back gate voltages."

    The parameter a is extracted by fitting Eq. (15), Ds = Ds(0) d/(d-a), to exactly the Ds/D0 curves shown in Fig. 3(a), which are the same data presented as the main experimental result. The abstract then states: 'The developed theoretical model confirms the spatial inhomogeneities in the spin diffusion.' Because a is not independently predicted from the potential profile U(x) or from any separate measurement, the agreement between Eq. (15) and the data is a consequence of the fit, not an independent confirmation. The enhancement trend is absorbed into the fitted a rather than explained from first principles.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. III, between Eqs. (11) and (12)]
    "Finally, we suppose the spin diffusion coefficient is limited by electron-electron collisions, thus inversely proportional to the electron density D_s(x) proportional to e^{U(x)/T} [15]."

    The closed-form model Ds = Ds(0) d/(d-a) and the subsequent comparison with experiment depend on the assumption Ds(x) proportional to 1/n(x), imported from Ref. [15], a previous paper by several of the same authors (Anghel, Poshakinskiy, Yusa, Betz). The assumption is not re-derived or independently tested in the present paper, so the theoretical mechanism is not self-contained: its key input rests on a same-group citation. This does not make the whole empirical claim circular, but it weakens the paper's assertion that the model independently confirms the measured enhancement.

full rationale

The experimental observation that Ds increases with decreasing channel width and with decreasing electron density is an independent empirical result, obtained from the Gaussian-width analysis of Eq. (2) and plotted in Fig. 3(a); that part is not circular. The circularity arises in the theoretical 'confirmation'. The model's main output, Eq. (15), is fitted to the same Ds/D0 ratios that it is said to confirm, with a as a free parameter adjusted per back-gate voltage. A one-parameter fit can track a monotonic trend without providing independent evidence for the mechanism. Additionally, the simplification Ds(x) proportional to 1/n(x) that converts the general average in Eq. (10) into the closed form is imported from the authors' own Ref. [15] rather than derived or tested here. These two features make the model validation partially circular, though the underlying transport data and the qualitative trend remain meaningful. The score of 5 reflects a central claim that still has independent empirical content but where the theoretical support is substantially weakened by fitting to the data it purports to confirm and by reliance on a load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central explanation rests on one fitted parameter (a) and several unverified modeling assumptions about the channel potential and the density dependence of D_s. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • a (edge width parameter) = roughly 0 to 3 micrometers depending on U_BG (Fig. 4b)
    Extracted by fitting Eq. (15) to the measured D_s/D0 versus channel-width curves for each back-gate voltage. This parameter controls the magnitude of the predicted D_s enhancement; without fitting a, the model gives only the qualitative direction, not the quantitative 150% effect.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spin diffusion coefficient is inversely proportional to local electron density, D_s(x) proportional to e^{U(x)/T}, because diffusion is limited by electron-electron collisions.
    Invoked after Eq. (11) to simplify Eq. (10) into Eq. (12). The proportionality is taken from the authors' earlier paper Ref. [15] and is load-bearing for the predicted D_s enhancement.
  • ad hoc to paper The channel potential is symmetric, flat in a central region of width d0, and rises only near the edges, so the edge parameter a is independent of channel width.
    Used to rewrite d-bar = d - a and obtain Eq. (15). This piecewise-flat profile is not independently measured; screening is invoked qualitatively to explain the voltage dependence of a.
  • domain assumption The perturbation parameter norm(Lambda_x w) is much less than 1, meaning small spin precession across the channel, following Ref. [32].
    Needed for the perturbative solution of the Sturm-Liouville problem in Eqs. (6)-(9). The assumption breaks down for very narrow channels or strong spin-orbit coupling.
  • domain assumption Spin dynamics in the channels are one-dimensional, with spin-conserving boundary conditions at the channel edges.
    Used to reduce the 2D diffusion equation to 1D and to fit Eqs. (1)-(2). The pump spot is comparable to the narrowest channel, making this the weakest experimental premise.
  • domain assumption The electron gas can be treated as non-degenerate with temperature T, or equivalently T is replaced by the Fermi energy E_F(x) for the degenerate 2DEG.
    Stated in the text after Eq. (3) and used in the density-gradient term and in the Boltzmann weighting of Eq. (10). The choice affects the predicted spatial weighting of D_s.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Spin Diffusion in GaAs Quantum Wells: The Role of Electron Density and Channel Width." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7WI73T2

@misc{pith2026250108023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Spin Diffusion in GaAs Quantum Wells: The Role of Electron Density and Channel Width},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7WI73T2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08023}
}
read the original abstract

This study explores the relationship between spin diffusion, spin lifetime, electron density and lateral spatial confinement in two-dimensional electron gases hosted in GaAs quantum wells. Using time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect microscopy, we analyze how Hall-bar channel width and back-gate voltage modulation influence spin dynamics. The results reveal that the spin diffusion coefficient increases with reduced channel widths, a trend further amplified at lower electron concentrations achieved via back-gate voltages, where it increases up to 150% for the narrowest channels. The developed theoretical model confirms the spatial inhomogeneities in the spin diffusion as arising from electron-density variations within the channels. The results underscore the importance of tuning electron density and spatial geometry to optimize spin transport and coherence, providing valuable design considerations for spintronic devices where efficient spin manipulation is crucial.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Channel mask with five different channel widths of the investigated GaAs QW sample (the yellow and cyan lines correspond to mesa and ohmic contacts, respectively) (d) and exemplary 2D spatial maps of the spin polarization 𝑆𝑆z at a delay time of t = 570 ps for the channels widths of (a) 20 μm (b) 8 μm and (c) 4 μm respectively. −10 −5 0 5 10 −8 −4 0 4 8 20 µm y (µm) −8 −4 0 4 8 8 µm x (µm) -1 0 1 Sz −10 −5 0 5 10 −8 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Spatio-temporal mapping of the induced spin polarization distribution 𝑆𝑆z(𝑡𝑡, 𝑦𝑦) of the 8 μm channel. For better visualization five arbitrary spatial scans are highlighted. For any given delay time 𝑡𝑡 the spatial dependence gets fitted to Eq. (1). Two of the resulting fit parameters (𝐴𝐴, 𝑤𝑤y) are used to display (b) the spin volume 𝐴𝐴 ⋅ 𝑤𝑤y and (c) the square of FWHM. The z axis is restricted to arbitrary units… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results from analyzing the interplay of channel width 𝑑𝑑 and back-gate voltage 𝑈𝑈BG in manners of spin dynamic parameters (a) spin diffusion coefficient ratio 𝐷𝐷s/𝐷𝐷0, (b) spin lifetime ratio τs/τ0 and (c) spin diffusion length ratio 𝐿𝐿s/𝐿𝐿0 (𝐿𝐿 = �𝐷𝐷τ𝑠𝑠) where 𝐷𝐷0, 𝐿𝐿0 and τ0 are the corresponding parameters obtained for the widest channel 𝑑𝑑 = 20 µm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Spatial profile of the external potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Persistent spin grids with spin-orbit coupled 2D electron gas

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-02 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Spin relaxation in a 2D electron gas can be suppressed by confining it to a grid of narrow channels, with a Z2 topological classification of the resulting persistent spin grids.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S. D. Ganichev and L. E. Golub, physica status solidi (b) 251, 1801 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    V. Sih, R. C. Myers, Y. K. Kato, W. H. Lau, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature Physics 1, 31 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom, Science 306, 1910 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    M. P. Walser, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and G. Salis, Nature Physics 8, 757 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    J. D. Koralek, C. P. Weber, J. Orenstein, B. A. Bernevig, S. -C. Zhang, S. Mack, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature 458, 610 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    E. I. Rashba, Sov. Phys. Solid State 2, 1109 (1960)

    work page 1960

  7. [7]

    Dresselhaus, Physical Review 100, 580 (1955)

    G. Dresselhaus, Physical Review 100, 580 (1955)

    work page 1955

  8. [8]

    B. A. Bernevig, J. Orenstein, and S. C. Zhang, Phys Rev Lett 97, 236601 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    C. P. Weber, J. Orenstein, B. A. Bernevig, S. C. Zhang, J. Stephens, and D. D. Awschalom, Phys Rev Lett 98, 076604 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Ishihara, T

    J. Ishihara, T. Mori, T. Suzuki, S. Sato, K. Morita, M. Kohda, Y. Ohno, and K. Miyajima, Phys Rev Lett 130, 126701 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Ishihara, T

    J. Ishihara, T. Suzuki, G. Kitazawa, T. Mori, Y. Ohno, and K. Miyajima, Physical Review B 105 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Ishihara, G

    J. Ishihara, G. Kitazawa, Y. Furusho, Y. Ohno, H. Ohno, and K. Miyajima, Physical Review B 101 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Ishihara, Y

    J. Ishihara, Y. Ohno, and H. Ohno, Applied Physics Express 7, 013001 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Ishihara, M

    J. Ishihara, M. Ono, Y. Ohno, and H. Ohno, Applied Physics Letters 102 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Anghel, A

    S. Anghel, A. V. Poshakinskiy, K. Schiller, G. Yusa, T. Mano, T. Noda, and M. Betz, Journal of Applied Physics 132, 054301 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Anghel et al., Physical Review B 103 (2021)

    S. Anghel et al., Physical Review B 103 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Anghel, F

    S. Anghel, F. Passmann, K. J. Schiller, J. N. Moore, G. Yusa, T. Mano, T. Noda, M. Betz, and A. D. Bristow, Physical Review B 101 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Passmann, A

    F. Passmann, A. D. Bristow, J. N. Moore, G. Yusa, T. Mano, T. Noda, M. Betz, and S. Anghel, Physical Review B 99, 125404 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Passmann, S

    F. Passmann, S. Anghel, C. Ruppert, A. Bristow, A. Poshakinskiy, S. A. Tarasenko, and M. Betz, Semiconductor Science and Technology 34, 093002 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Anghel et al

    S. Anghel et al. , Physical Review B 97, 125410 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Passmann, S

    F. Passmann, S. Anghel, T. Tischler, A. V. Poshakinskiy, S. A. Tarasenko, G. Karczewski, T. Wojtowicz, A. D. Bristow, and M. Betz, Physical Review B 97, 201413(R) (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Anghel, A

    S. Anghel, A. Singh, F. Passmann, H. Iwata, J. N. Moore, G. Yusa, X. Li, and M. Betz, Physical Review B 94, 035303 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Altmann, F

    P . Altmann, F. G. Hernandez, G. J. Ferreira, M. Kohda, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and G. Salis, Phys Rev Lett 116, 196802 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Altmann, M

    P. Altmann, M. Kohda, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and G. Salis, Physical Review B 92 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Altmann, M

    P. Altmann, M. P. Walser, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and G. Salis, Physical Review B 90, 013001 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Gelfert, C

    S. Gelfert, C. Frankerl, C. Reichl, D. Schuh, G. Salis, W. Wegscheider, D. Bougeard, T. Korn, and C. Schüller, Physical Review B 101 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Schwemmer et al., Applied Physics Letters 109, 4, 172106 (2016)

    M. Schwemmer et al., Applied Physics Letters 109, 4, 172106 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Schönhuber, M

    C. Schönhuber, M. P. Walser, G. Salis, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Korn, and C. Schüller, Physical Review B 89 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Studer, G

    M. Studer, G. Salis, K. Ensslin, D. C. Driscoll, and A. C. Gossard, Physical Review Letters 103, 027201 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Studer, M

    M. Studer, M. P. Walser, S. Baer, H. Rusterholz, S. Schön, D. Schuh, W. Wegscheider, K. Ensslin, and G. Salis, Physical Review B 82 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Kunihashi, H

    Y. Kunihashi, H. Sanada, Y. Tanaka, H. Gotoh, K. Onomitsu, K. Nakagawara, M. Kohda, J. Nitta, and T. Sogawa, Physical Review Letters 119, 187703 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    A. G. Mal’shukov and K. A. Chao, Physical Review B 61, R2413 (2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    A. A. Kiselev and K. W. Kim, Physical Review B 61, 13115 (2000)

    2000

  26. [34]

    Chang, J

    C.-H. Chang, J. Tsai, H.- F. Lo, and A. G. Mal’shukov, Physical Review B 79, 125310 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Kunihashi, M

    Y. Kunihashi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Physical Review B 85, 035321 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    V. A. Slipko and Y. V. Pershin, Physical Review B 84, 155306 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Eberle, D

    F. Eberle, D. Schuh, D. Bougeard, D. Weiss, and M. Ciorga, Physical Review Applied 16, 014010 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    J. N. Moore, J. Hayakawa, T. Mano, T. Noda, and G. Yusa, Phys Rev Lett 118, 076802 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    T. Henn, T. Kießling, L. W. Molenkamp, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, K. Biermann, P. V. Santos, and W. Ossau, physica status solidi (b) 251, 1839 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    T. Henn, T. Kiessling, W. Ossau, L. W. Molenkamp, K. Biermann, and P. V. Santos, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84, 123903 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.