Photodetachment of negative hydrogen ion beam

A. Aleksandrov; A. Oguz; N. Evans; S. Cousineau; T. V. Gorlov; Y. Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Photodetachment of negative hydrogen ion beam

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper argues that for high-power laser photodetachment of $\mathrm{H}^-$, the standard linear cross-section model fails, while a first-order analytic approximation from the time-dependent wave equation stays within 10% of the full…

desk verdict A useful engineering warning that the linear cross-section model fails at high laser power, wrapped in a single-channel TDSE calculation with an empirical dipole; the promised Feshbach mechanism is deferred. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08106 v1 pith:ZABO6IFW submitted 2025-01-14 physics.atom-ph physics.acc-ph

T. V. Gorlov , A. Aleksandrov , S. Cousineau , Y. Liu , A. Oguz , N. Evans This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phphysics.acc-ph

keywords H-photodetachmentlaser-assistedchargeexchangeinjectiontime-dependentSchrodingerequationcrosssectionFeshbachresonancedipolematrixelementstrong-fieldlaserstripping

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 tackles a practical beam-physics problem: stripping an electron off a negative hydrogen ion with a laser alone, instead of a stripping magnet, for laser-assisted charge exchange injection into an accelerator. The authors compute photodetachment efficiency with the full time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the two-electron system, truncated to the ground state of $\mathrm{H}^-$ plus the $\mathrm{H}^0+e^-$ continuum. They find that the standard linear cross-section model matches the full calculation at moderate laser power but disagrees substantially at high power ($E_0=0.01$ a.u., about 35 000 MW/mm$^2$). A first-order analytic approximation that keeps the energy dependence of the dipole matrix element agrees with the full wave-equation result to within 10% of photodetachment efficiency. The paper also lays out the Feshbach-resonance route through a doubly excited $\mathrm{H}^-$ state as the promising path to the >99% efficiency that practical injection would need.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the two-electron time-dependent Schrödinger equation with the ansatz $\Psi(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,t) = a(t)\psi_{\mathrm{H}^-} e^{-iE_0t} + \int_0^\infty c_E(t)\psi_E e^{-i(E_{1s}+E)t} dE$, which keeps only the ground state of $\mathrm{H}^-$ and a single $\mathrm{H}^0+e^-$ continuum channel. Substitution gives the integro-differential system (6) for $a(t)$ and $c_E(t)$. The load-bearing object is the dipole matrix element $\mu_E = \langle\psi_E|z_1+z_2|\psi_{\mathrm{H}^-}\rangle$, supplied by inverting the empirical cross-section fit (17) of measured photodetachment data, so the nonlinear calculation uses measured physics rather than a constant $\mu$. The first-order analytic formula (19) keeps the energy integral and the finite lower bound of the continuum, which is why it outperforms the constant-$\mu$ linear approximation (8)--(10).

What would settle it

A pump-probe measurement of the neutral hydrogen yield from a pulsed laser with $E_0=0.01$ a.u. at $\omega=2E_b$ would settle the matter: if the measured detachment fraction follows the linear formula (10) instead of the wave-equation curves (6) and (19), or if it deviates from (6) by more than 10%, the central claim is wrong. A numerical check with a double-ionization continuum channel added to (6) would show whether the omitted channels break the single-channel truncation at that field strength.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that photodetachment probability of $\mathrm{H}^-$ under a strong laser is accurately described by solving the coupled integro-differential equations (6) for the bound-state amplitude $a(t)$ and the continuum amplitudes $c_E(t)$, with the dipole matrix element $\mu_E$ taken from the empirical cross-section fit, and that the standard exponential formula $1-\exp(-N_\gamma \sigma t)$ is not valid in the high-power regime. At $E_0=0.01$ a.u. the linear model disagrees significantly with the wave-equation result, while the first-order analytic expression (19)---which integrates the sinc-squared resonance factor over the continuum with the full energy-dependent $\mu_E$---reproduces the full calculation to within 10% of photodetachment efficiency. The paper therefore presents (19) as a cheap, accurate replacement for full numerics in parameter scans, and identifies the Feshbach resonance, not direct detachment, as the mechanism that would need to be engineered for practical >99% laser stripping.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the evolving wavefunction contains only the $\mathrm{H}^-$ ground state plus a single continuum channel $\mathrm{H}^0+e^-$; if double ionization, excited hydrogen channels, or the Feshbach state carry significant amplitude at the laser powers studied, the computed efficiencies and the claimed 10% agreement would not describe the real process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At moderate laser power ($E_0=0.001$ a.u., about 350 MW/mm$^2$), the standard linear cross-section formula remains adequate for estimating $\mathrm{H}^-$ photodetachment efficiency.
At high power ($E_0=0.01$ a.u., about 35 000 MW/mm$^2$), design calculations that rely on the linear model will misestimate efficiency, so the full wave equation or the analytic approximation (19) must be used.
Expression (19) gives a fast surrogate for the full numerical solution, making laser-power requirement scans practical without solving the integro-differential system each time.
Direct photodetachment still requires extremely high power density, so the Feshbach-resonance path through the doubly excited $\mathrm{H}^-$ state is the route that could plausibly reach the >99% stripping efficiency needed for charge-exchange injection.
If the single-channel model is confirmed experimentally, laser-only stripping becomes a viable replacement for the first stripping magnet in injection systems, simplifying the accelerator layout.

Reading between the lines

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

If the 10% agreement between (19) and (6) holds over a wider range of frequencies and pulse shapes, one could invert (19) to design laser pulses that hit a target detachment fraction without any full wave-equation runs.
The same single-channel machinery could be applied to other negative ions, such as $\mathrm{D}^-$, by replacing the $\mathrm{H}^-$ wave function and dipole matrix element, giving quick estimates of whether laser stripping is feasible at their beam energies.
A natural next step is to add the Feshbach bound state as a second discrete channel in (20) and solve the coupled equations; the paper sets up that formalism but leaves the calculation to future work.
Because the single-channel truncation omits double ionization and excited hydrogen channels, an experiment at 35 000 MW/mm$^2$ might see additional $\mathrm{H}^+$ or proton yield that the model cannot represent, which would set the boundary of the approximation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know: this paper is not a breakthrough in atomic physics and does not claim to be. It is an interim report from the SNS group on laser-based stripping for charge exchange injection. The new content is applying a standard single-channel time-dependent Schrödinger equation to LACE-relevant laser powers and showing that the widely used linear cross-section formula (10) significantly overestimates photodetachment efficiency at E0 = 0.01 a.u. (35,000 MW/mm2). That warning is real and useful for accelerator design.

The paper does several things well. The coupled equations (6) are derived cleanly, the first-order approximation (19) is a sensible improvement over the constant-dipole linear model, and the authors are explicit that the full two-electron problem, including the Feshbach resonance that would actually make the scheme practical, is not yet solved. The comparison between the numerical TDSE and the analytic approximation is a nice internal consistency check.

The soft spots are mostly the ones the stress-test note flags, and they are genuine. Equation (3) restricts the wavefunction to one continuum channel; the electron-electron repulsion is dropped in that channel, so this is effectively a single-active-electron model. The dipole matrix element (18) is not computed from the wavefunctions; it is inverted from the experimental cross section, so the energy dependence is imported from low-intensity perturbation theory and inserted into a nonlinear equation at high intensity. The agreement between (19) and the numerical solution is therefore internal consistency of the model, not validation against experiment. Add to that the missing numerical details: no convergence tests, no discretization parameters, no code or data supplied. These are fixable in revision.

That said, the paper is honest about its own scope. The single-channel assumption is stated up front, the Feshbach section explicitly lists what is missing, and the summary says the main LACE goal still requires more work. For an accelerator physicist designing a laser stripping scheme, the conclusion that the linear model is unsafe at high intensity is worth having, even if the quantitative efficiencies are model-dependent.

I would send this to peer review. It is not ready as is, but with convergence tests, a clearer description of the numerical method, and perhaps a benchmark against known photodetachment yields, it becomes a legitimate contribution to the LACE literature. It does not deserve a desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a time-dependent Schrödinger-equation model for photodetachment of the negative hydrogen ion H^- + γ → H^0 + e^-, motivated by the laser-assisted charge exchange injection (LACE) program at the Spallation Neutron Source. The authors expand the two-electron wavefunction as the H^- ground state plus a single continuum channel H(1s) + e^-, derive coupled integro-differential equations (Eq. 6), and use a dipole matrix element that is empirically fitted to the measured zero-field photodetachment cross section (Eqs. 17-18). They compare three approaches: a linear exponential attenuation model (Eq. 10), a first-order analytic approximation with a(t)=1 (Eq. 19), and a numerical solution of the coupled equations (Eq. 6). They report that the linear model agrees with the wave-equation result at low power (E0=0.001 a.u.) but disagrees at E0=0.01 a.u., while the first-order approximation agrees with the full numerical solution to within about 10%. The Feshbach-resonance detachment route is discussed qualitatively but is not calculated.

Significance. If substantiated, the proposed time-dependent wave-equation method could be a useful design tool for estimating laser power requirements for H^- photodetachment in accelerator applications, going beyond the standard linear cross-section model. The manuscript has the strength of explicitly comparing linear and nonlinear formulations and of providing an analytic first-order expression for the energy-dependent dipole case. However, the central numerical claim is not yet validated: the 'full' calculation is a single-channel model with an empirically fitted dipole, and the agreement between Eq. (6) and Eq. (19) is, to a large extent, built into the model construction. The paper would be significantly strengthened by a convergence study, an ab initio dipole calculation, and a quantitative statement of the model's validity domain.

major comments (4)

[MODEL OF H− PHOTODETACHMENT, Eqs. (2)-(3) and (13)-(15)] The wavefunction ansatz (3) and the continuum channel form (13)-(15) constitute a single-active-electron model: the continuum function is a symmetrized product of the hydrogen 1s orbital and a free P-wave, and the e^2/|r1-r2| interaction is not included in the continuum channel. This is not an eigenfunction of the full two-electron Hamiltonian (2). At the photon energy used (ω=2Eb=0.0548 a.u.), the Feshbach state and excited hydrogen bound states are not energetically open, so their omission may be acceptable at low intensity, but at E0=0.01 a.u. multiphoton and continuum-continuum processes could populate high-energy continuum states; no estimate of their amplitude is given. The claim that Eq. (6) is a 'precise' solution of Eq. (1) is therefore overstated; it is a truncated model whose truncation error is unquantified.
[PHOTODETACHMENT CROSSECTION, Eq. (18)] The dipole matrix element μ_E is not computed from the wavefunctions (11) and (13) but is inverted from the empirical cross-section fit (17) to the low-intensity experimental data of Ref. [8]. Consequently, Eq. (6) is a nonlinear version of the same empirical model that produces the linear cross-section (10). The agreement between Eq. (6) and Eq. (19) shown in Figure 6 is therefore an internal consistency check of the assumed μ_E, not a validation of the predicted photodetachment efficiency at high intensity. The manuscript should either compute μ_E from the stated wavefunctions or compare the model's intensity-dependent predictions (e.g., detachment probability versus pulse energy) against independent experimental data.
[PHOTODETACHMENT CALCULATIONS, numerical solution of Eq. (6)] The numerical solution of the coupled equations is described only as discretization of the continuum and integration from E=0 to E_max=1, with no information on the number of grid points, time step, integration method, or convergence criteria. Without a convergence study, the reported 'agreement to within 10%' in Figure 6 is not quantitatively supported. The choice E_max=1 a.u. is also arbitrary; the manuscript should show that results are insensitive to this cutoff and to the discretization density.
[PHOTODETACHMENT CALCULATIONS, Eq. (19) and Figure 6] Equation (19) is derived under the assumption a(t)=1, which is valid only when the ground-state depletion is small. At E0=0.01 a.u., the detachment probability is large enough (as seen in Figure 6) that a(t) must deviate significantly from unity, so the claimed 10% agreement between Eq. (19) and the full solution of Eq. (6) is surprising and unexplained. The authors should either provide an analytic argument for why the a(t)=1 approximation remains accurate at high intensity, or clarify the time window and efficiency range over which this agreement holds.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors and inconsistent spacing (e.g., 'Schrodinger' for 'Schrödinger', 'photodetachmnet', 'crossection', 'thehydrogenion'), which should be corrected before submission.
[MODEL OF H− PHOTODETACHMENT, Eq. (3) and following text] The continuum integral is written from 0 to ∞ in Eq. (3) and in the text, but the numerical calculation truncates at E_max=1; this inconsistency should be explained and the truncation justified.
[PHOTODETACHMENT CALCULATIONS] Figure captions for Figures 5 and 6 give laser power density in MW/mm^2, which is an unusual unit; the authors should verify and, if possible, state the intensity in W/cm^2 consistently with the main text.
[FESHBACH RESONANCE, Eq. (20)] The Feshbach-resonance discussion is only qualitative and no calculation is presented; if this mechanism is central to the LACE goal, the manuscript should at least provide an estimate of the required laser power or state explicitly that such a calculation is future work.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The low-power agreement between the TDSE and the linear model is forced by the fitted empirical dipole; the high-power comparison retains partial independent content.

fitted input called prediction [Section 'PHOTODETACHMENT CROSSECTION', Eqs. (17)-(18), and the agreement reported in 'PHOTODETACHMENT CALCULATIONS', Figure 5.]
"In this way we can empirically define (7) from (9), (17) without calculation of wavefunctions: ... Dipole transition coefficient (18) can be used for the calculation of the time -dependent nonlinear wave equation (6). ... Figure 5 shows the photodetachment efficiency for the time dependent equation (6) and its linear approximation (10). Both curves agree well for relatively small laser power with E0= 0.001 a.u."

The dipole matrix element (18) is not computed from the stated wavefunctions; it is algebraically inverted from the empirical cross-section fit (17) via (9). The same fitted sigma(omega) is the direct input of the linear model (10). In the low-field limit the TDSE (6) reduces to the golden-rule rate (8) built from the same mu_E, so the good agreement between (6) and (10) in Figure 5 is a consistency check of the numerical discretization, not an independent prediction. The high-field disagreement in Figure 6 is not forced by the fit, so the circularity is only partial.

full rationale

The paper is open about making mu_E empirical: Eq. (18) is obtained by inverting the measured cross-section fit (17), and the same fitted sigma(omega) enters the linear model (10). Therefore the low-intensity agreement in Fig. 5 is by construction up to numerical error. The central high-intensity result is partially independent: at E0=0.01 a.u. the full system (6) accounts for depletion of the ground-state amplitude a(t), which is absent from the linear cross-section model, so the disagreement in Fig. 6 is not a tautology of the empirical input. The reported <10% agreement of Eq. (19) with Eq. (6) is internal consistency of the model, since (19) is the a(t)=1 perturbative limit of the same equation with the same fitted mu_E; it checks the truncation, not the physics. The single-channel ansatz (3), together with the omission of the Feshbach resonance and other channels, is acknowledged in the Feshbach section and the Summary, where the authors state that a Feshbach wavefunction calculation still needs to be developed; this is incompleteness rather than circularity. Self-citations are confined to the LACE application context and are not load-bearing for the photodetachment derivation. Overall: one fitted input is recycled as a supporting validation agreement, giving a moderate partial-circularity score, while the high-power comparison retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central efficiency calculation depends on two fitted or hand-set quantities: the empirical cross-section normalization sigma_max and the ad hoc continuum cutoff E_max. The model also relies on single-channel truncation, a P-wave continuum, and a rotating-wave approximation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

sigma_max = 4.2e-17 cm2
Interpolated from Smith-Burch experimental data [8] and used to construct the dipole matrix element through Eq. (18). All efficiency numbers inherit this fit.
continuum energy cutoff E_max = 1 a.u.
The text says integrating from 0 to E_max=1 'for example'. No sensitivity analysis is given, so the truncation is a hand-set parameter affecting the computed efficiency.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Single-channel ansatz completeness: the two-electron wavefunction is exactly the ground state plus one continuum channel H0 + e- (Eq. 3).
All other channels, including double ionization, excited hydrogen states, and Feshbach resonances, are omitted. This is load-bearing because the high-power efficiency numbers assume no electron goes elsewhere.
domain assumption The continuum free-electron state is a P-wave only (Eq. 15).
Dipole selection from an S-state allows P-wave detachment, but at strong fields higher partial waves and multi-photon channels can appear; the calculation ignores them.
domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation implicit in passing from Eq. (1) to Eq. (6).
The system (6) keeps only one frequency combination and uses E(t)/2. With E0=0.01 a.u. and omega=0.0548 a.u., the counter-rotating terms are not obviously negligible.
domain assumption The empirical dipole matrix element (18) from the fitted cross-section (17) remains valid at high laser intensity.
The dipole is extrapolated from low-intensity experimental detachment data; the TDSE solution uses the same dipole, so it cannot independently test strong-field dipole behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photodetachment of negative hydrogen ion beam." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZABO6IFW

@misc{pith2026250108106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photodetachment of negative hydrogen ion beam},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZABO6IFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08106}
}

read the original abstract

The method of H- photoionization is interesting for laser assisted charge exchange injection. In this paper, the model and computation of photoionization of negative hydrogen ion by using strong lasers is considered. The development of this work is motivated by using pure lasers for photodetachment of electron from negative hydrogen ion when it is not convenient or not possible to use stripping magnet. Herein we develop a method of calculation of high efficiency photoionization using time dependent wave equation with application of powerful lasers. We compare this precise method of calculation with simplified method of calculation through linear model of cross section interaction. Another mechanism of photodetachment through excitation of the Feshbach resonance is also considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08106 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Three step LACE scheme. 1. Lorentz stripping of the first electron in a strong magnetic field: H− + 𝐵® → 𝐻 0 + 𝑒 − 2. Excitation of neutral hydrogen beam by a strong laser from 1s to np excited state: H0 + 𝛾 →H 0∗ ∗ This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC, under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains, and the publisher, by accepting the… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Photodetachment model of negative hydrogen ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** General cross section of photodetachment H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Experimental cross section from [8] and its empir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Photodetachment efficiency by laser with constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The Feshbach resonance (left peak), located at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[8]

Smith and D

S. Smith and D. Burch, Photodetachment crossection of the negative hydrogen ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 165 (1959)

work page 1959
[1]

Gorlov, A

T. Gorlov, A. Aleksandrov, S. Cousineau, Y. Liu, A.R. Oguz, N.EvansandP.Saha,in Proceedings of the HB2023 workshop (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

Danilov, A

V. Danilov, A. Aleksandrov, S. Assadi, S. Henderson, N. Holtkamp, T. Shea, A. Shishlo, Y. Braiman, Y. Liu, J. Barhen, and T. Zacharia, Three-step H− charge exchange injection with a narrow-band laser, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams6, 053501 (2003)

work page 2003
[3]

Cousineau, A

S. Cousineau, A. Rakhman, M. Kay, A. Aleksandrov, V. Danilov, T. Gorlov, Y. Liu, M. Plum, A. Shishlo, and D. John- son, First Demonstration of Laser-Assisted Charge Exchange for Microsecond Duration H− Beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 074801 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

Gorlov, A

T. Gorlov, A. Aleksandrov, S. Cousineau, Y. Liu, A.R. Oguz, in Proceedings of the IPAC23 Workshop (Venice,Italy,2023)

work page 2023
[5]

Gorlov, A

T. Gorlov, A. Aleksandrov, S. Cousineau, N. Evans, F. Lin, in Proceedings of the IPAC24 Workshop (Nashville, Tennessee, 2024)

work page 2024
[6]

F. Lin, A. Aleksandrov, S. Cousineau, N. Evans, T. Gorlov, Y. Liu, A.R. Oguz and A. Shishlo, inProceedings of the IPAC24 Workshop (Nashville, Tennessee, 2024)

work page 2024
[7]

P.Saha,H.Harada,S.Kato,M.Kinsho,Y.Irie,andI.Yamane, in Proceedings of the HB2016 Workshop (2016), p. 310

work page 2016

Show all 15 references

[9]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, (1977) Quantum Mechan- ics (Non-Relativistic Theory). 3rd Edition, Pergamon Press, Oxford

1977
[10]

Armstrong, Empirical analysis of the H− photodetach- ment cross section, Phys

B.H. Armstrong, Empirical analysis of the H− photodetach- ment cross section, Phys. Rev.131, 1132 (1963)

1963
[11]

Broad and W.P

J.T. Broad and W.P. Reinhardt, Phys. Rev. A14, 2159 (1976)

1976
[12]

P. Harris (2008), Observation of high-lying resonances in the H− ion, [Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico, Department of physics and astronomy.https:// digitalrepository.unm.edu/phyc_etds/24/

2008
[13]

T. L. John, M. J. Seaton, The Photo-Detachment of H−, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 121, Issue 1, July 1960, Pages 41–47

1960
[14]

Hart and G

J.F. Hart and G. Herzberg, Phys. Rev.106, 79 (1957)

1957
[15]

H. C. Bryant, B. D. Dieterle, J. Donahue, H. Sharifian, H. Tootoonchi and D. M. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. Lett38, 228 (1977)

1977

Pith tools

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

[1] [8]

Smith and D

S. Smith and D. Burch, Photodetachment crossection of the negative hydrogen ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 165 (1959)

work page 1959

[2] [1]

Gorlov, A

T. Gorlov, A. Aleksandrov, S. Cousineau, Y. Liu, A.R. Oguz, N.EvansandP.Saha,in Proceedings of the HB2023 workshop (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [2]

Danilov, A

V. Danilov, A. Aleksandrov, S. Assadi, S. Henderson, N. Holtkamp, T. Shea, A. Shishlo, Y. Braiman, Y. Liu, J. Barhen, and T. Zacharia, Three-step H− charge exchange injection with a narrow-band laser, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams6, 053501 (2003)

work page 2003

[4] [3]

Cousineau, A

S. Cousineau, A. Rakhman, M. Kay, A. Aleksandrov, V. Danilov, T. Gorlov, Y. Liu, M. Plum, A. Shishlo, and D. John- son, First Demonstration of Laser-Assisted Charge Exchange for Microsecond Duration H− Beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 074801 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [4]

Gorlov, A

T. Gorlov, A. Aleksandrov, S. Cousineau, Y. Liu, A.R. Oguz, in Proceedings of the IPAC23 Workshop (Venice,Italy,2023)

work page 2023

[6] [5]

Gorlov, A

T. Gorlov, A. Aleksandrov, S. Cousineau, N. Evans, F. Lin, in Proceedings of the IPAC24 Workshop (Nashville, Tennessee, 2024)

work page 2024

[7] [6]

F. Lin, A. Aleksandrov, S. Cousineau, N. Evans, T. Gorlov, Y. Liu, A.R. Oguz and A. Shishlo, inProceedings of the IPAC24 Workshop (Nashville, Tennessee, 2024)

work page 2024

[8] [7]

P.Saha,H.Harada,S.Kato,M.Kinsho,Y.Irie,andI.Yamane, in Proceedings of the HB2016 Workshop (2016), p. 310

work page 2016