Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 31 references

FCC-ee positron source from conventional to crystal-based

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single thick oriented tungsten crystal can replace the amorphous target in the FCC-ee positron source, delivering a 10% higher accepted yield with 14% less deposited power.

desk verdict A competent, well-scoped simulation study of a crystal-based FCC-ee positron source; the +10% yield claim is plausible but currently rides on an unbenchmarked model extrapolation without error bars, so treat it as provisional rather than a design number. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06481 v1 pith:2KYC3IAA submitted 2025-02-10 physics.acc-ph

Fahad Alharthi , Iryna Chaikovska , Robert Chehab , Viktor Mytrochenko , Yuting Wang , Yongke Zhao , Laura Bandiera , Nicola Canale
show 11 more authors
Vincenzo Guidi Lorenzo Malagutti Andrea Mazzolari Riccardo Negrello Ginafranco Paternò Marco Romagnoni Alexei Sytov Daniele Boccanfuso Alberto Orso Maria Iorio Susanna Bertelli Mattia Soldani
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords positronsourceFCC-eeorientedcrystalschannelinglatticecoherenteffectsacceptedyieldenergydepositionGeant4simulation
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 the FCC-ee positron source can be improved by replacing the conventional 15 mm amorphous tungsten target with a single 12 mm tungsten crystal aligned along its ⟨111⟩ axis. In this crystal-based scheme the same crystal acts as both radiator and converter: the aligned lattice enhances photon production through coherent channeling effects, and those photons convert into electron-positron pairs inside the same crystal. Simulations from target to damping-ring entrance give an accepted positron yield of 3.36 versus 3.03 for the conventional scheme, a 10% gain, and a deposited power of 0.98 kW versus 1.14 kW, a 14% reduction. The gain persists at 600 K and for misalignments up to 8 mrad, matching the accuracy of the proposed pre-alignment method. This matters because target heat load is the main bottleneck on FCC-ee's required high-intensity positron beam.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a single thick tungsten crystal oriented along the ⟨111⟩ crystallographic axis, which acts simultaneously as radiator and converter. The mechanism is axial channeling: the aligned lattice presents a strong averaged electric field to the 2.86 GeV primary electrons, so coherent photon emission — described by the Baier-Katkov formula in the G4ChannelingFastSimModel — produces soft photons far more abundantly than ordinary bremsstrahlung in an amorphous target; those photons convert to $e^+e^-$ pairs in the same crystal. The lower-energy positrons produced this way are exactly the ones the capture section and damping-ring acceptance window select, which is why the accepted yield rises.

What would settle it

Measure the accepted positron yield from a 12 mm tungsten ⟨111⟩ crystal bombarded by a 2.86 GeV electron beam, using the same capture section and energy-time window as this study; if the yield does not exceed the amorphous-target value of 3.03 while depositing about 14% less power, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that lattice coherent effects in an oriented crystal are not just a radiator enhancement but can supply the full conversion stage as well. Using a single 12 mm tungsten crystal with the beam aligned to the ⟨111⟩ axis, the simulation chain (Geant4 channeling fast-simulation model for the crystal, then RF-Track through the capture section and simplified longitudinal tracking to the damping ring) yields an accepted positron yield of 3.36 per primary electron bunch, compared with 3.03 for the optimized conventional 15 mm amorphous target. Deposited power in the crystal falls from 1.14 kW to 0.98 kW, and the peak energy deposition density stays comparable. The authors therefore propose the single thick crystal as the baseline for the FCC-ee positron source, with the practical challenges of cooling and pre-alignment inside the high-field solenoid identified as the next engineering problems.

Load-bearing premise

The entire advantage rests on the simulation's prediction that a 12 mm tungsten crystal aligned along its ⟨111⟩ axis really produces the enhanced photon flux at 2.86 GeV; that prediction is based on a model validated experimentally at 5.6 GeV with thinner crystals, so an overestimate of the coherent enhancement would erode or erase the 10% yield gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the crystal scheme is right, the FCC-ee positron source can run with a primary bunch charge of 4.0 nC instead of 4.46 nC while still meeting the required accepted yield, relaxing the demands on the drive beam.
  • The lower deposited power (0.98 kW instead of 1.14 kW) eases target cooling requirements and reduces the risk of thermo-mechanical damage.
  • The yield advantage survives operation at 600 K and misalignments up to 8 mrad, so the crystal can be pre-aligned before insertion into the solenoid without an in-situ goniometer.
  • Because the crystal is thinner than the amorphous target (12 mm versus 15 mm), the same capture section and matching hardware can be retained, simplifying integration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same single-crystal radiator-converter concept could be tested at 2.86 GeV with a 12 mm tungsten crystal; existing experimental validation was at 5.6 GeV and with thinner crystals, so a direct test at the FCC-ee operating point would either confirm or refute the simulation model's extrapolation.
  • Since the yield gain is concentrated in low-momentum positrons (below about 100 MeV/c), the advantage could grow if the capture aperture or matching solenoid were optimized for a softer positron spectrum, a direction the paper does not explore.
  • The paper checks only one elevated temperature (600 K); systematic scans above that temperature could reveal a thermal limit at which the coherent enhancement degrades faster than the conventional target, which would matter for the required cooling system.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a simulation-based comparison of the FCC-ee positron source in its conventional amorphous-tungsten configuration and a crystal-based alternative in which a single thick tungsten crystal aligned along the ⟨111⟩ axis acts as both radiator and converter. The simulation chain includes Geant4-based positron production, RF-Track tracking through the capture linac, and simplified longitudinal tracking to the damping ring acceptance window, with the same optimized capture section used for both schemes. The principal claimed results are that a 12 mm crystal target provides an accepted positron yield of 3.36 versus 3.03 for the 15 mm conventional target (a 10% increase), a 14% reduction in deposited power, a similar peak energy deposition density, and robustness to crystal misalignment up to 8 mrad and to temperatures up to 600 K.

Significance. The paper is a careful end-to-end simulation with a state-of-the-art conventional baseline, and it makes the simulation code publicly available, which are clear strengths. If the gain is real, the crystal source would reduce the primary beam charge and relax target cooling requirements, a valuable result for FCC-ee injector design. However, the claimed 10% yield advantage is modest relative to the unquantified uncertainties in the channeling model, which is extrapolated to an energy and thickness not covered by the cited experimental validation. The power advantage is derived from the yield advantage and is therefore equally sensitive to model error. These issues make the quantitative conclusions provisional until error estimates or a benchmark at the operating point are provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Table 3, Figs. 3, 5, 6] The central comparison in Table 3 (accepted yield 3.36 versus 3.03; deposited power 0.98 kW versus 1.14 kW) is given to two or three significant figures without any reported statistical or systematic uncertainty. The paper does not state the number of simulated primary electrons or the Geant4 version used. Since the claimed yield gain is only 10%, the conclusion requires an estimate of the Monte Carlo statistical error and a qualitative systematic uncertainty from the channeling model; without those, the comparison is not fully quantitative.
  2. [§3, ref. [27]] The G4ChannelingFastSimModel relies on averaged atomic potentials and the Baier-Katkov radiation formula, and the cited experimental validation (ref. [27]) was performed at 5.6 GeV on thinner crystals. The operating point used here is 2.86 GeV, 12 mm tungsten, and 600 K. This is a significant extrapolation, and the paper provides no dedicated benchmark or uncertainty estimate at this operating point. Given the 10% advantage claimed, a model overestimate of 10–15% would erase the headline gain; the authors should justify the extrapolation or quantify its expected bias.
  3. [§3, Table 3] The 14% reduction in deposited power is not an independent result: the primary bunch charge is scaled from 4.46 nC to 4.0 nC directly in proportion to the improved accepted yield. Therefore the power saving inherits all the uncertainty of the yield gain. The paper should state this coupling explicitly and provide a sensitivity scan of deposited power as a function of the assumed yield gain, including the case in which the yield gain is zero or negative.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§2] The term 'accepted yield' is used in the abstract and Section 1 but is not defined at first use; please provide the definition when it is first introduced.
  2. [Table 1] The column heading 'Accepted e+ yield at DR per GeV' is unclear because the yield is a dimensionless ratio; please define what 'per GeV' means here.
  3. [§3] Please state the Geant4 version used for the simulations, as the behavior of the channeling model may depend on the release.
  4. [Fig. 6] The text claims that the crystal-based source offers an advantage over the conventional scheme 'even with misalignment of up to 8 mrad', but the resolution of the figure makes it difficult to verify that the normalized yield is above 1 at 8 mrad; please provide the numerical values at each misalignment angle.
  5. [References] References [21] and [26] appear to cite the same paper (Sytov et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22 (2019) 064601); please combine or differentiate them.
  6. [§2] There is a typo in 'High-Temperature Superconduction (HTS) solenoid'; it should be 'High-Temperature Superconducting'.
  7. [Fig. 2] The y-axis label in panel (a), 'Capture efficiency', lacks units; please clarify whether it is a fraction or percentage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the yield gain is an emergent simulation output, the model code is public, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The claimed advantage (accepted yield 3.36 vs 3.03, deposited power 0.98 vs 1.14 kW) is an emergent output of the PositronSource/RF-Track simulation chain, not a quantity encoded in the model setup. The crystal target parameters (material W, ⟨111⟩ axis, thickness 12 mm, temperature 600 K) are inputs; the yield is computed by tracking positrons from production to the damping-ring acceptance window. The primary bunch charge is then scaled by the simulated yield ratio to compute deposited power, which is a stated design consequence ("the improvement in the e+ accepted yield allows us to reduce the drive beam current proportionally"), not an independent prediction passed off as evidence. The G4ChannelingFastSimModel is referenced through the authors' own papers [20,21,26,27], but its code is part of Geant4 and PositronSource is publicly downloadable, and the cited experimental check at 5.6 GeV is an external measurement; therefore the self-citation is not load-bearing. No equation in the paper defines the yield gain in terms of the model's assumptions, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The absence of uncertainty quantification on the 10% gain is a correctness risk, not circularity.

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

The central claim depends on the physical fidelity of the crystal simulation model, on the external FCC-ee injector parameters, and on the design choices made in optimizing the target thickness. No new physical entities are introduced, and no parameters are fit to produce the 10% gain; the gain is an emergent simulation output.

free parameters (2)
  • Crystal thickness = 12 mm
    Chosen from the thickness scan in Fig. 5 to balance yield gain against power deposition; the central comparison (Table 3) uses this value. It is a design optimization, not a physical constant.
  • RF phases of the capture linac structures = not reported individually
    Optimized with the Xopt Bayesian optimizer to maximize accepted yield; the optimized phase values are not listed, yet they affect the absolute yields in both schemes.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Baier-Katkov formula describes photon emission by relativistic charged particles in oriented crystals
    Used in the G4ChannelingFastSimModel (Sec. 3) to simulate radiation; a standard QED result.
  • domain assumption The averaged atomic potential approximation is valid for describing channeling and coherent interactions at 2.86 GeV in a 12 mm tungsten crystal
    Foundation of the classical trajectory integration in G4ChannelingFastSimModel (Sec. 3 and ref. [22]); its accuracy at this energy and thickness is assumed.
  • domain assumption The FCC-ee injector and damping ring parameters (2.86 GeV, ±57.2 MeV and ±10 mm/c acceptance, HTS solenoid field) are taken as given
    These external design parameters (Sec. 2) define the baseline and the acceptance window used to compute yields.
  • domain assumption The conventional 15 mm amorphous tungsten target is a representative optimized conventional positron source baseline
    Used as the normalization (Table 3, Fig. 5); its thickness was optimized with Geant4, but the full optimization may differ from other designs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FCC-ee positron source from conventional to crystal-based." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KYC3IAA

@misc{pith2026250206481,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FCC-ee positron source from conventional to crystal-based},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KYC3IAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06481}
}
read the original abstract

The high-luminosity requirement in future lepton colliders imposes a need for a high-intensity positron source. In the conventional scheme, positron beams are obtained by the conversion of bremsstrahlung photons into electron-positron pairs through the interaction between a high-energy electron beam and a high-Z amorphous target. One method to enhance the number of produced positrons is by boosting the incident electron beam power. However, the maximum heat load and thermo-mechanical stresses bearable by the target severely limit the beam power of the incident electrons. To overcome these limitations, an innovative approach using lattice coherent effects in oriented crystals appears promising. This approach uses a single thick crystal that serves as a radiator and a converter. In this paper, we investigate the application of this scheme as an alternative to the conventional positron source at the Future Circular Collider (FCC-ee). Simulations were carried out from the positron production stage to the entrance of the damping ring to estimate the accepted positron yield. The results demonstrate the advantages of the crystal-based positron source: it requires thinner targets than the conventional scheme, resulting in a 14% reduction in the deposited power while achieving a 10% increase in accepted positron yield.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06481 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The FCC-ee injector layout. In this context, the e + source is highly dependent on the pa￾rameters of the primary e − , which are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. outlines the conditions for the accepted e + at the pro￾duction stage. As expected, all the accepted e + have initial momentum below 100 MeV/c; the primary factor in the yield enhancement. Meanwhile, the transverse size and the angular divergence play secondary roles. This motivates searching for alternative schemes, such as crystal-based e + sources, where the lattice coherent effects can further enhance the low en… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. e + longitudinal phase space at the end of the e + linac using the simplified longitudinal tracking. The red rectangle represents the energy-time window (± 57.2 MeV, and ± 10 mm/c) centered at 2.86 GeV and the reference time set at 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: It is possible to notice a progressive decrease in the ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Single tungsten crystal misalignment study at 600 K. Note that all the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Bandiera, et al., Crystal-based pair production for a lepton collider positron source, The European Physical Journal C 82 (8) (2022) 699

    L. Bandiera, et al., Crystal-based pair production for a lepton collider positron source, The European Physical Journal C 82 (8) (2022) 699

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Benedikt, et al., FCC-ee: the lepton collider, Eur

    M. Benedikt, et al., FCC-ee: the lepton collider, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 228 (2019) 261–623. doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-800245-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-800245-2 2019

  3. [2]

    Craievich, et al., FCC-ee injector study and the p3 project at psi, Scien- tific report, CHART (2023)

    P. Craievich, et al., FCC-ee injector study and the p3 project at psi, Scien- tific report, CHART (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Chaikovska, et al., Positron sources: from conventional to advanced accelerator concepts-based colliders, J

    I. Chaikovska, et al., Positron sources: from conventional to advanced accelerator concepts-based colliders, J. Instrum. 17 (5) (2022) P05015. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/05/P05015

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/05/p05015 2022

  5. [4]

    R. Chehab, et al., Study of a positron source generated by photons from ultrarelativistic channeled particle, in: Proceedings of the 1989 IEEE Par- ticle Accelerator Conference (PAC’89), IEEE, Chicago, IL, USA, 1989, p. 283

    work page 1989

  6. [5]

    Artru, et al., Axial channeling of relativistic electrons in crystals as a source for positron production, Nucl

    X. Artru, et al., Axial channeling of relativistic electrons in crystals as a source for positron production, Nucl. Instr. Meth. B 119 (1996) 246–252. doi:10.1016/0168-583X(96)00320-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0168-583x(96)00320-5 1996

  7. [6]

    Chehab, et al., Experimental study of a crystal positron source, Physics Letters B 525 (1) (2002) 41–48

    R. Chehab, et al., Experimental study of a crystal positron source, Physics Letters B 525 (1) (2002) 41–48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0370-2693(01)01395-8 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0370269301013958

    work page 2002

  8. [7]

    T. Suwada, et al., First application of a tungsten single-crystal positron source at the KEK B factory, Physical Review Special Topics-accelerators and Beams - PHYS REV SPEC TOP-AC 10 (07 2007). doi:10.1103/ PhysRevSTAB.10.073501

    work page 2007

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Artru, et al., Polarized and unpolarized positron sources for elec- tron–positron colliders, Nucl

    X. Artru, et al., Polarized and unpolarized positron sources for elec- tron–positron colliders, Nucl. Instr. Meth. B 266 (17) (2008) 3868–3875. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2008.02.086

    2008 doi

  2. [9]

    M. Soldani, et al., Radiation in oriented crystals: Innovative application to future positron sources, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1058 (2024) 168828. doi:https://doi.org/10.10...

    2024

  3. [10]

    Zimmermann, et al., Selected advances in the accelerator design of the future circular electron-positron collider (FCC-ee), in: Proc

    F. Zimmermann, et al., Selected advances in the accelerator design of the future circular electron-positron collider (FCC-ee), in: Proc. IPAC’24, no. 15 in IPAC’24 - 15th International Particle Accelerator Conference, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2024, pp. 2493–2496....

    2024 doi

  4. [11]

    Chaikovska, et al., Update on the FCC-ee positron source de- sign studies, in: Proc

    I. Chaikovska, et al., Update on the FCC-ee positron source de- sign studies, in: Proc. IPAC’23, IPAC’23 - 14th International Par- ticle Accelerator Conference, 2023, pp. 776–779. doi:10.18429/ JACoW-IPAC2023-MOPL095

    2023

  5. [12]

    S. Agostinelli, et al., Geant4—a simulation toolkit, Nuclear instruments and methods in physics research section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 506 (3) (2003) 250–303. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  6. [13]

    Allison, et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Transac- tions on nuclear science 53 (1) (2006) 270–278

    J. Allison, et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Transac- tions on nuclear science 53 (1) (2006) 270–278. doi:10.1109/TNS. 2006.869826

    2006

  7. [14]

    J. Allison, et al., Recent developments in geant4, Nuclear instruments and methods in physics research section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 835 (2016) 186–225. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125

    2016 doi

  8. [15]

    Chehab, Positron sources, Tech

    R. Chehab, Positron sources, Tech. Rep. LAL-RT-89-02 (1989)

    1989

  9. [16]

    Vallis, et al., Proof-of-principle e+ source for future col- liders, Phys

    N. Vallis, et al., Proof-of-principle e+ source for future col- liders, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 27 (2024) 013401. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.27.013401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.27.013401

    2024 doi

  10. [17]

    Pommerenke, et al., Rf design of traveling-wave accelerating struc- tures for the fcc-ee pre-injector complex, in: Proc

    H. Pommerenke, et al., Rf design of traveling-wave accelerating struc- tures for the fcc-ee pre-injector complex, in: Proc. IPAC’22, 2022. doi: 10.18429/JACoW-LINAC2022-THPOJO08

    2022 doi

  11. [18]

    Latina, RF-Track reference manual, Tech

    A. Latina, RF-Track reference manual, Tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.3887085

    2024 doi

  12. [19]

    Roussel, A

    R. Roussel, A. Edelen, A. Bartnik, C. Mayes, Xopt: A simplified frame- work for optimization of accelerator problems using advanced algorithms, in: Proc. IPAC’23, no. 14 in IPAC’23 - 14th International Particle Accel- erator Conference, JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2...

    2023 doi

  13. [20]

    Sytov, et al., Geant4 simulation model of electromagnetic processes in oriented crystals for accelerator physics, Journal of the Korean Physical Society 83 (2023) 132–139

    A. Sytov, et al., Geant4 simulation model of electromagnetic processes in oriented crystals for accelerator physics, Journal of the Korean Physical Society 83 (2023) 132–139. doi:10.1007/s40042-023-00834-6

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    A. I. Sytov, V . V . Tikhomirov, Crystal simulation code and modeling of 5 coherent effects in a bent crystal at the lhc, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 355 (2015) 383–386

    2015

  15. [23]

    Guidi, L

    V . Guidi, L. Bandiera, V . Tikhomirov, Radiation generated by single and multiple volume reflection of ultrarelativistic electrons and positrons in bent crystals, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 86 (4) (2012) 042903

    2012

  16. [24]

    Bandiera, E

    L. Bandiera, E. Bagli, V . Guidi, V . V . Tikhomirov, Radcharm++: A c++ routine to compute the electromagnetic radiation generated by relativistic charged particles in crystals and complex structures, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interact...

    2015

  17. [25]

    Bandiera, V

    L. Bandiera, V . Haurylavets, V . Tikhomirov, Compact electromagnetic calorimeters based on oriented scintillator crystals, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment 936 (2019) 124–126

    2019

  18. [26]

    A. I. Sytov, V . V . Tikhomirov, L. Bandiera, Simulation code for modeling of coherent e ffects of radiation generation in ori- ented crystals, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22 (2019) 064601. doi:10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.22.064601. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccel...

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    L. Bandiera, et al., Investigation of radiation emitted by sub gev elec- trons in oriented scintillator crystals, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1060 (2024) 169022

    2024

  20. [29]

    V . N. Baier, V . M. Katkov, V . M. Strakhovenko, Radiation yield of high- energy electrons in thick crystals, Phys. Stat. Solidi (1986) 583–592doi: doi:10.1515/9783112493182-019. URL https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112493182-019

    1986 doi

  21. [30]

    Artru, et al., Positron sources using channeling: a comparison with conventional targets, Part

    X. Artru, et al., Positron sources using channeling: a comparison with conventional targets, Part. Accel. 59 (LAL-RT-97-02) (1997) 19–41

    1997

  22. [31]

    Romagnoni, V

    M. Romagnoni, V . Guidi, L. Bandiera, D. De Salvador, A. Mazzolari, F. Sgarbossa, M. Soldani, A. Sytov, M. Tamisari, Bent crystal design and characterization for high-energy physics experiments, Crystals 12 (9) (2022) 1263

    2022

  23. [32]

    Y . J. Sohn, J. H. Kwon, O. S. Choe, T. B. Eom, Portable autocollima- tors using the laser diode and the position sensitive detector, Review of scientific instruments 69 (2) (1998) 402–405. 6

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.