Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Beam-Gas Interactions in the CERN Proton Synchrotron: Cross Section Measurements and Lifetime Modelling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a numerical implementation combining semi-empirical electron-capture and electron-loss cross-section formulas predicts charge-changing beam losses in ion accelerators, and validates this with PS lifetime…

desk verdict A useful open-source package and three new benchmarks, but the validation claim is weaker than the abstract suggests because of pressure uncertainty and the He outlier. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02928 v1 pith:XZBUHIJG submitted 2025-06-03 physics.acc-ph

E. Waagaard , F. Ukena , J. Olsen , R. Alemany Fernández , J. Somoza , G. Weber This is my paper
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords beam-gasinteractionselectroncapturelossionbeamlifetimesemi-empiricalcrosssectionsCERNProtonSynchrotronvacuumpressureprofilecharge-changingcollisions
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 tries to establish that the charge-changing interactions of partially stripped ion beams with residual gas in accelerators can be predicted reliably from a numerical implementation that combines two semi-empirical cross-section formulas, one for electron capture and one for electron loss. The authors benchmark the implementation against controlled gas-target experiments in the CERN Proton Synchrotron, injecting argon and helium into the ring and measuring beam lifetimes as pressure rises. At the higher injected pressures, where beam-gas collisions dominate over all other loss mechanisms, the measured lifetimes and the cross sections derived from them converge with the model predictions within the stated factor-2-3 uncertainty band. The result matters because losses from electron capture and loss are suspected to limit the intensity of the current lead beams and could constrain lighter ion species proposed for future LHC and fixed-target runs.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three objects: the Schlachter empirical scaling rule for electron-capture cross sections (a reduced-variable fit in projectile energy, target charge, and projectile charge); a combined semi-empirical electron-loss cross-section formula built as the product of an adjusted energy-dependent term and a target-scaling term whose parameters were fitted to experimental data from 0.36 to 955 MeV/u; and the lifetime relation $\tau = 1/(\sigma n \beta c)$ with $\sigma = \sigma_\mathrm{EC} + \sigma_\mathrm{EL}$, which converts predicted cross sections and reconstructed gas density into a lifetime. The gas density itself is reconstructed through a Monte Carlo vacuum simulation of a 3D model of about 10% of the ring near the gas-injection point, with upper and lower pressure bounds set by saturated versus unsaturated ion-pump speeds and the gauge accuracy.

What would settle it

Repeat the highest-pressure Pb54+ on argon measurement with several additional calibrated pressure gauges installed around the ring so the average density is measured rather than simulated; if the cross section derived from the measured lifetimes then moves outside the factor-2-3 band around the model prediction, the convergence reported here was an artifact of the pressure reconstruction rather than a property of the physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the central claim is that a combined semi-empirical model, the standard electron-capture scaling rule combined with a merged electron-loss formula whose energy dependence and target-scaling factors were fitted to more than a hundred experimental data points, reproduces measured beam lifetimes when the controlled gas bump is the dominant loss channel. In three PS benchmarking runs (Pb54+ on argon at 72.2 MeV/u, Mg7+ on argon at 90.2 MeV/u, and Pb54+ on helium at 72.2 MeV/u), the fitted lifetime drops monotonically with estimated average ring pressure and approaches the predicted curve, and the derived total cross sections fall inside the model's reported uncertainty band at the highest pressures. The authors therefore present the package as validated for predicting impacts on current and future ion species, while noting that at low pressures the baseline residual-gas losses remain too uncertain for a full comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the average pressure of the whole 628 m ring, reconstructed from a few local gauge readings scaled by vacuum simulations, equals the molecular density the beam actually encounters along its path; the authors themselves note the true pressure error bars are probably larger than the quoted ±30% gauge accuracy, and any systematic error in this profile shifts every derived cross section directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The beam_gas_collisions package can be used to estimate beam lifetimes and charge-changing cross sections for ion species that have never been run in the CERN injectors, using the validated 0.36-955 MeV/u energy range.
  • For partially stripped heavy ions at PS and SPS energies, electron loss rather than electron capture dominates the lifetime limit on high-atomic-number targets, and the measurements confirm this ordering.
  • The pressure-bump technique, using the BGI gas injection system as an in-ring gas target, can serve as a benchmarking tool for other accelerators' residual-gas loss models.
  • The observed independence of lifetime from beam intensity and from bunched versus coasting longitudinal profile indicates that, in the dominant-loss regime, charge-changing collisions are single-particle processes that scale linearly with density.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same converging behavior holds at LEIR injection energies (4.2 MeV/u), where multi-electron capture processes that this model ignores are more important, the package may need an extension for that machine; the authors do not claim validation there.
  • A sharper test of the combined formula could be made by using the model to predict lifetimes for an O4+ or O8+ beam in the PS and comparing to operational data from the upcoming oxygen pilot run, since the appendix predicts unusually high electron-loss cross sections for oxygen.
  • The systematic difference in approach direction, with Pb measurements converging from below and Mg from above, hints that the electron-loss formula's fit parameters are slightly biased for loosely-bound outer electrons on high-Z targets, a regime the fitting dataset under-represents; correcting that bias is a natural next step.
  • With lower pressure uncertainty, the method could discriminate between alternative electron-loss scaling laws, which the current factor-2-3 band cannot resolve.
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 paper presents beam_gas_collisions, a publicly available Python package that computes electron-capture and electron-loss cross sections using the Schlachter semi-empirical scaling rule and Weber's combined Shevelko-DuBois formula, and which then estimates ion beam lifetimes from these cross sections. To validate the package, the authors report three controlled gas-injection experiments in the CERN PS: Pb54+ on Ar at 72.2 MeV/u, Mg7+ on Ar at 90.2 MeV/u, and Pb54+ on He at 72.2 MeV/u. The PS pressure profile is reconstructed from local Penning-gauge readings and MolFlow+ simulations of about 10% of the 628-m ring, and the residual-gas contribution is subtracted using measured lifetimes before gas injection. The measured lifetimes and derived cross sections are compared with the model, and the authors claim convergence within a factor 2-3 at the higher pressures, where beam-gas interactions dominate.

Significance. If the validation holds, the paper provides a useful, open, practical tool for estimating charge-changing beam losses in the CERN ion injector chain and for future light-ion species. A clear strength is that the comparison is an independent experimental benchmark: the constants in Table I come from prior compilations by Schlachter, Shevelko, DuBois, and Weber, and none were fitted to the PS data presented here. Another strength is that the paper gives concrete data, pressure bounds, and residual-lifetime subtraction, rather than a purely qualitative comparison. However, the central validation claim is currently sensitive to the reconstructed average PS pressure, whose uncertainty the authors themselves state is likely larger than the quoted ±30% gauge accuracy. The cross-section summary in Table II also contains a case outside the claimed factor 2-3 band. The work is therefore valuable and worth publishing after the validation claim is either hardened with an independent pressure check or appropriately qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V A and Sec. VII] The validation is not established unless the reconstructed average pressure n̄ is demonstrated to be accurate. Equation (22) gives σ_exp ∝ 1/(n̄ β c τ_bump), and the predicted lifetime line is also ∝ 1/n̄, so a single multiplicative error in n̄ shifts every experimental cross section relative to the model. The authors state in Sec. VII that 'the average PS pressure error bars are likely larger than the reported ±30% accuracy of the gauges,' and the Fig. 8 caption says 'the pressure errors may be much larger.' Since the MolFlow+ model covers only about 10% of the 628-m ring and the gauge readings are local, the pressure normalization is a load-bearing premise. Please provide an independent check of the reconstructed average pressure, for example using multiple in-ring gauges or a calibrated conductance measurement, or alternatively present all comparisons as functions of a common pressure scale factor and explicitly condition the validation claim on that scale factor.
  2. [Sec. VI D, Table II] The statement that experimental cross sections fall within the factor 2-3 uncertainty band is not supported by Table II. For experiment C (Pb54+ on He), σ_exp = (0.19 ± 0.08)×10⁻²² m² and σ_pred = (0.05 ± 0.03)×10⁻²² m², a ratio of about 3.8 with non-overlapping 1σ intervals. Experiment A is at the edge of the band with a ratio of about 2.6, and experiment B has uncertainties so large that the comparison provides only weak evidence. Please report each ratio with its joint uncertainty, specify which pressure points actually satisfy the claimed band, and revise the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  3. [Sec. VI B] The Mg7+ benchmark is weaker than the text implies. Only the three highest Set Points are usable, the BCT readout has high noise, and Table II gives σ_exp/σ_pred ≈ 0.36, corresponding to an inverse ratio of about 2.8. The statement in Sec. VI B that 'the lifetime predictions still fall within a factor two of the measurement' should therefore be justified by showing the actual pressure and lifetime values for the highest Set Point, or softened to reflect the limited statistical power of this dataset.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV] The sentence 'In this study, the Franzke semi-empirical formulae [45] for EC and EL were used' appears to be a leftover from an earlier draft; the implemented formulae are the Schlachter formula (Eq. 5) and the Weber combined formula (Eq. 12), so the sentence should be corrected or removed.
  2. [References] References [34] and [35] are identical; one should be removed or the two citations should be distinguished.
  3. [Figs. 8-10 and Sec. VII] The abstract and conclusions quote a factor 2-3 uncertainty, while Fig. 8 shows a grey band labelled as factor 2; these should be harmonized.
  4. [Fig. 5] The caption should state explicitly that the two 'pressure measurements' are local Penning-gauge readings and should give their gas correction factors, because the comparison between measured and simulated pressures is central to the pressure reconstruction.
  5. [Table A.1] The table mixes notations such as 'e-35' and 'E-23' for scientific notation; please unify the formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PS benchmark is an independent test of a pre-fitted semi-empirical model, and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The model predictions are produced by the Schlachter electron-capture scaling (Eq. 5) and the Weber combined electron-loss formula (Eq. 12), whose constants in Table I were fixed in Ref. [38] from more than 100 previously published experimental data points. The PS benchmarking data from experiments A, B, and C were not used to set any model parameter, so the comparison is not a fit renamed as a prediction. Equation (22), tau = 1/(sigma n beta c), is used only as a common kinematic conversion; the experimental cross sections are derived from independently measured lifetimes and reconstructed pressures, while the predicted cross sections come from atomic-physics formulae. The pressure reconstruction in Section V A is based on gauge readings, injected-flow measurements, pump-speed saturation bounds, and MolFlow+ simulations, and is not adjusted to the beam-lifetime data. The acknowledged large pressure uncertainty (Section VII, Figure 8 caption) is a legitimate systematic-error caveat, not circularity. The only self-citation, Ref. [38] by co-author G. Weber, is load-bearing for the EL formula, but that formula is an empirical fit to external data and is here tested against new PS data outside its fitting set, so it constitutes independent evidence rather than circular support. Thus no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The model rests on two externally fitted semi-empirical formulas, the ideal-gas description of the vacuum, additive loss rates, and the dominance of beam-gas losses at high pressure. The free parameters are all inherited from prior fitting work, not fit to the PS data.

free parameters (2)
  • Weber combined EL formula constants c0-c9 = c0=10.88, c1=0.95, c2=2.5, c3=1.11, c4=-0.18, c5=2.65, c6=1.36, c7=0.81, c8=1.01, c9=6.14
    Adopted from Ref 38, where they were fitted to more than 100 experimental data points. The entire electron-loss cross section and all lifetime predictions depend directly on these values.
  • Schlachter EC empirical scaling coefficients = 1.1e-8 and exponents in Eq. (3) and Eq. (5)
    The electron-capture cross section is taken directly from the empirical Schlachter scaling fitted to prior data. The paper does not refit these constants, but the central predictions rely on their validity for Pb54+ and Mg7+ at PS energies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Schlachter empirical scaling is valid for q >= 3 and for the reduced energies encountered in the PS benchmarks.
    Invoked in Section II A through Eq. (5); the paper applies it to Pb54+ and Mg7+ without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Weber's combined electron-loss formula is valid across 0.36 to 955 MeV/u and for the projectile-target combinations tested here.
    Section III states the formula covers the full energy range based on prior validation data; the PS benchmark assumes extrapolation to Pb54+ and Mg7+ is within the factor 2-3 uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The ideal gas law and Dalton's law describe the molecular density and partial pressures in the ultra-high-vacuum beam pipe.
    Equations (24) and (25) in Section IV are used to convert gauge pressures into the molecular densities entering the lifetime formula.
  • domain assumption Loss rates from different processes add inversely, and the baseline residual-gas loss rate measured before injection remains constant during the gas bump and can be subtracted linearly.
    Equation (23) and Eq. (27)-(28) in Section V A; the subtraction of tau_residual is load-bearing for all reported cross sections.
  • domain assumption At the highest injected pressures, beam-gas charge-changing collisions dominate all other beam loss mechanisms.
    Stated in Section V A and used in Section VI D to justify restricting the validation to high-pressure points. If other losses (space charge, IBS, outgassing) remain comparable, the extracted cross sections would be biased.
  • domain assumption The semi-empirical models carry an intrinsic uncertainty of a factor 2 to 3, and agreement within that band constitutes validation.
    The paper uses the factor 2-3 uncertainty from Ref 17 as the acceptance criterion for the benchmark, rather than deriving it from the present data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beam-Gas Interactions in the CERN Proton Synchrotron: Cross Section Measurements and Lifetime Modelling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XZBUHIJG

@misc{pith2026250602928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beam-Gas Interactions in the CERN Proton Synchrotron: Cross Section Measurements and Lifetime Modelling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XZBUHIJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02928}
}
read the original abstract

The acceleration of high-intensity lead (Pb) beams for injection into the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is limited by significant losses in the preceding CERN ion injector chain. A potential but largely uncharted source of losses are charge-changing beam interactions such as electron loss or capture with residual gas molecules. These effects potentially impede future ion candidate species requested by the LHC and the CERN fixed-target experiments. To predict the cross sections of charge-changing processes and the corresponding ion beam lifetimes, we present a numerical implementation combining semi-empirical electron capture and loss formulae from previous studies. We verify this numerical model with an experimental PS benchmarking campaign, measuring various beam projectile lifetimes during interactions with two in-ring gas targets (argon, helium). The target pressure profiles are reconstructed in detail from gauge measurements and vacuum simulations. At higher injected gas pressures, where beam-gas interactions dominate, measured lifetime trends and derived cross sections converge with model predictions within reported semi-empirical uncertainties, validating the package for predicting impacts on current and future ion species.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02928 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The CERN ion injector chain, with graphics from [3]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Semi-empirical EL model from Weber [38], combin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. EC and EL cross sections in collisions of U [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 3D Molflow+ model image of the relevant PS sections for Set Point 160, with the simulated Ar pressure distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Example of simulated PS pressure profile with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Estimated Pb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Impact on intensity profiles for the NOMINAL Pb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Calculated and measured Mg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The predicted lifetime of Pb54+ on He is about 1.9 times higher than the measured lifetime for the second-highest SP. Compared to the high ZT Ar tar￾get in experiments (A) and (B), EC and EL cross sections for Pb54+ on He are several orders of magnitude smaller. Hence…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Calculated and measured Pb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Experimental and calculated (predicted from the semi-empirical model) total cross sections for the three PS experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Electron capture (EC) by the projectile: X q+ + A → X (q−k)+ + Ak+, k ≥ 1 (1)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Set Points

    Electron loss (EL) — also denoted stripping or ion- ization — by the projectile: X q+ + A → X (q+m)+ + ΣA + me−, m ≥ 1 (2) where X q+ denotes the incident projectile ion with charge q and A denotes the target atom. Σ A repre- sents the outgoing target, which can be ionized or ex- cited. Both electron loss and electron capture can involve multiple capture ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Benedikt, P

    M. Benedikt, P. Collier, V. Mertens, J. Poole, and K. Schindl, LHC Design Report (2004), iSBN: 9789290832393 Number: CERN-2004-003-V-3 Publisher: CERN

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Coupard, H

    J. Coupard, H. Damerau, A. Funken, R. Garoby, et al., LHC Injectors Upgrade: Technical Design Report Vol. II: Ions, Technical Report EDMS 1626950 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Lopienska, (2022), the CERN accelerator com- plex (2022 layout), available at: https://cds.cern.ch/ record/2800984/files/CCC-v2022.png

    E. Lopienska, (2022), the CERN accelerator com- plex (2022 layout), available at: https://cds.cern.ch/ record/2800984/files/CCC-v2022.png

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Argyropoulos et al

    T. Argyropoulos et al. , Momentum Slip-Stacking in CERN SPS for the Ion Beams, Proceedings of the 10th Int. Particle Accelerator Conf. IP AC2019, 4 pages, 0.777 MB (2019), artwork Size: 4 pages, 0.777 MB ISBN: 9783954502080 Medium: PDF Publisher: JACoW Pub- lishing, Geneva, Switzerland

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Bartosik et al., Injectors beam performance evolution during run 2, in Proceedings of The 2019 Evian Workshop On LHC Beam Operations(2021)

    H. Bartosik et al., Injectors beam performance evolution during run 2, in Proceedings of The 2019 Evian Workshop On LHC Beam Operations(2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Bartosik et al., The LHC Injectors Upgrade (LIU) Project at CERN: Ion Injector Chain, Proceedings of the 8th Int

    H. Bartosik et al., The LHC Injectors Upgrade (LIU) Project at CERN: Ion Injector Chain, Proceedings of the 8th Int. Particle Accelerator Conf. IP AC2017, 4 (2017), iSBN: 978-3-95450-182-3

    work page 2017

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Franchetti, O

    G. Franchetti, O. Chorniy, I. Hofmann, W. Bayer, F. Becker, P. Forck, T. Giacomini, M. Kirk, T. Mohite, C. Omet, A. Parfenova, and P. Sch¨ utt, Experiment on space charge driven nonlinear resonance crossing in an ion synchrotron, Physical Review Special Topics - Accel- erators...

    2010

  2. [10]

    Antoniou Et Al., Transverse studies with ions at SPS flat bottom, CERN Proceedings , 145 Pages (2017), art- work Size: 145 Pages Publisher: CERN Proceedings

    F. Antoniou Et Al., Transverse studies with ions at SPS flat bottom, CERN Proceedings , 145 Pages (2017), art- work Size: 145 Pages Publisher: CERN Proceedings

    2017

  3. [11]

    A. S. Hernandez, D. Moreno, H. Bartosik, N. Biancacci, S. Hirlander, and A. Huschauer, Space Charge studies on LEIR, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1067, 062020 (2018), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  4. [12]

    Hirlaender et al., Lifetime and Beam Losses Studies of Partially Strip Ions in the SPS ( 129Xe39+), Proceedings of the 9th Int

    S. Hirlaender et al., Lifetime and Beam Losses Studies of Partially Strip Ions in the SPS ( 129Xe39+), Proceedings of the 9th Int. Particle Accelerator Conf. IP AC2018, 3 pages, 3.305 MB (2018), artwork Size: 3 pages, 3.305 MB ISBN: 9783954501847 Publisher: JACoW Publish- ing,...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Mahner, The vacuum system of the Low Energy Ion Ring at CERN: Requirements, design, and challenges, Vacuum 81, 727 (2007)

    E. Mahner, The vacuum system of the Low Energy Ion Ring at CERN: Requirements, design, and challenges, Vacuum 81, 727 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Arduini, R

    G. Arduini, R. Bailey, T. Bohl, H. Burkhardt, R. Cappi, C. Carter, K. Cornelis, M. Dach, G. de Rijk, A. Faugier, G. Ferioli, H. Jakob, M. Jonker, D. Manglunki, G. Mar- tini, M. Martini, J. P. Riunaud, C. Scheidenberger, B. Vandorpe, L. Vos, and M. Zanolli, Lead ion beam emitta...

    1996

  7. [15]

    F. M. Kr¨ oger, G. Weber, S. Hirlaender, R. Alemany- Fernandez, M. W. Krasny, T. St¨ ohlker, I. Y. Tolstikhina, and V. P. Shevelko, Charge-State Distributions of Highly Charged Lead Ions at Relativistic Collision Energies, An- nalen der Physik 534, 2100245 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Weber, M

    G. Weber, M. Herdrich, R. DuBois, P.-M. Hillenbrand, H. Beyer, L. Bozyk, T. Gassner, R. Grisenti, S. Hag- mann, Y. A. Litvinov, et al., Total projectile electron loss cross sections of U 28+ ions in collisions with gaseous targets ranging from hydrogen to krypton, Physical Re-...

    2015

  9. [17]

    Shevelko, Y

    V. Shevelko, Y. A. Litvinov, T. St¨ ohlker, and I. Y. Tol- stikhina, Lifetimes of relativistic heavy-ion beams in the high energy storage ring of F AIR, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam In- teractions with Materials and Atoms 421, 45 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Tolstikhina, M

    I. Tolstikhina, M. Imai, N. Winckler, and V. Shevelko, Basic Atomic Interactions of Accelerated Heavy Ions in Matter (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Shevelko, I

    V. Shevelko, I. Beigman, M. Litsarev, H. Tawara, I. Y. Tolstikhina, and G. Weber, Charge-changing processes in collisions of heavy many-electron ions with neutral atoms, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms...

    2011

  12. [20]

    Citron et al., arXiv : Report from Working Group 5 : Future physics opportunities for high-density QCD at the LHC with heavy-ion and proton beams (2018), number: CERN-LPCC-2018-07

    Z. Citron et al., arXiv : Report from Working Group 5 : Future physics opportunities for high-density QCD at the LHC with heavy-ion and proton beams (2018), number: CERN-LPCC-2018-07

    2018

  13. [21]

    ALICE Collaboration, Letter of intent for ALICE 3: A next-generation heavy-ion experiment at the LHC (2022), arXiv:2211.02491 [hep-ex, physics:nucl-ex, physics:physics]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mackowiak-Pawlowska, Addendum to the NA61/SHINE Proposal: Request for light ions beams in Run 4 (2023), report No

    M. Mackowiak-Pawlowska, Addendum to the NA61/SHINE Proposal: Request for light ions beams in Run 4 (2023), report No. CERN-SPSC-2023-022

    2023

  15. [23]

    Bruce, J

    R. Bruce, J. Jowett, R. Alemany-Fern´ andez, M. Je- bramcik, M. Schaumann, and H. Bartosik, Studies for an LHC Pilot Run with Oxygen Beams (2021), 10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2021-MOPAB005. Available at https://cds.cern.ch/record/2783801

    2021

  16. [24]

    Browzet and W

    E. Browzet and W. Middlekoop, Performance of the PS and SPS accelerator complex with oxygen ions(IEEE Ser- vice Center, United States, 1987) iNIS Reference Num- ber: 19084034

    1987

  17. [25]

    Franzke, Interaction of stored ion beams with the residual gas, in CERN Yellow Reports: School Proceed- ings (1992)

    B. Franzke, Interaction of stored ion beams with the residual gas, in CERN Yellow Reports: School Proceed- ings (1992)

    1992

  18. [26]

    Zimmermann, Emittance growth and proton beam lifetime in HERA, Ph.D

    F. Zimmermann, Emittance growth and proton beam lifetime in HERA, Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Hamburg (1993)

    1993

  19. [27]

    Y. Luo, W. Fischer, and S. White, Analysis and modeling of proton beam loss and emittance growth in the Rela- tivistic Heavy Ion Collider, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 19, 021001 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Olson, J

    R. Olson, J. Wang, and J. Ullrich, Electronic and atomic collisions ed hb gilbody, wr newell, fh read and ach smith (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    J. K. Eichler, Eikonal theory of charge exchange between arbitrary hydrogenic states of target and projectile, Phys- ical Review A 23, 498 (1981)

    1981

  22. [30]

    Shevelko, O

    V. Shevelko, O. Rosmej, H. Tawara, and I. Y. Tol- stikhina, The target-density effect in electron-capture processes, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 37, 201 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    A. S. Schlachter, J. W. Stearns, W. G. Graham, K. H. Berkner, R. V. Pyle, and J. A. Tanis, Electron capture for fast highly charged ions in gas targets: An empirical 14 scaling rule, Physical Review A 27, 3372 (1983)

    1983

  24. [32]

    V. P. Shevelko, T. St¨ ohlker, H. Tawara, I. Y. Tolstikhina, and G. Weber, Electron capture in intermediate-to-fast heavy ion collisions with neutral atoms, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 268, 2611 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    G. Baur, I. Beigman, V. Shevelko, I. Y. Tolstikhina, and T. St¨ ohlker, Ionization of highly charged relativistic ions by neutral atoms and ions, Physical Review A80, 012713 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Shevelko, I

    V. Shevelko, I. Y. Tolstikhina, and T. St¨ ohlker, Stripping of fast heavy low-charged ions in gaseous targets, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 184, 295 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Beigman, I

    I. Beigman, I. Y. Tolstikhina, and V. Shevelko, Ionization of heavy ions in relativistic collisions with neutral atoms, Technical Physics 53, 547 (2008)

    2008

  28. [37]

    I. Y. Tolstikhina, I. Tupitsyn, S. Andreev, and V. Shevelko, Influence of relativistic effects on electron- loss cross sections of heavy and superheavy ions colliding with neutral atoms, Journal of Experimental and Theo- retical Physics 119, 1 (2014)

    2014

  29. [38]

    Ralchenko, NIST atomic spectra database, Memorie della Societ` a Astronomica Italiana Supplement, v

    Y. Ralchenko, NIST atomic spectra database, Memorie della Societ` a Astronomica Italiana Supplement, v. 8, p. 96 (2005) 8, 96 (2005), Ionization Energies Form avail- able at https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/ ionEnergy.html

    2005

  30. [39]

    R. D. DuBois, A. C. F. Santos, G. M. Sigaud, and E. C. Montenegro, Electron loss from fast heavy ions: Target- scaling dependence, Physical Review A 84, 022702 (2011), publisher: American Physical Society

    2011

  31. [40]

    Weber, A new semi-empirical formular for total electron loss by energetic ions (2017), 2016 Annual Report Helmholtz-Institut Jena

    G. Weber, A new semi-empirical formular for total electron loss by energetic ions (2017), 2016 Annual Report Helmholtz-Institut Jena. DOI: 10.15120/GSI- 2017-00708. Available at http://repository.gsi.de/ record/201624

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    H¨ ulsk¨ otter, B

    H.-P. H¨ ulsk¨ otter, B. Feinberg, W. Meyerhof, A. Belka- cem, J. Alonso, L. Blumenfeld, E. Dillard, H. Gould, N. Guardala, G. Krebs, et al., Electron-electron interac- tion in projectile electron loss, Physical Review A 44, 1712 (1991)

    1991

  33. [42]

    Alton, L

    G. Alton, L. Bridwell, M. Lucas, C. Moak, P. Miller, C. Jones, Q. Kessel, A. Antar, and M. Brown, Single-and multiple-electron-loss-cross-section measurements from 20-MeV Fe 4+ on thin gaseous targets, Physical Review A 23, 1073 (1981)

    1981

  34. [43]

    Peng, Dependence of cross sections for multi-electron loss by 6 MeV/amu Xe18+ ions on target atomic number, Ph.D

    Y. Peng, Dependence of cross sections for multi-electron loss by 6 MeV/amu Xe18+ ions on target atomic number, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University (2004)

    2004

  35. [44]

    Meyerhof, R

    W. Meyerhof, R. Anholt, and X.-Y. Xu, Atomic collisions with relativistic heavy ions. vii. l-and m-shell electron stripping of ions in light targets, Physical Review A 35, 1055 (1987)

    1987

  36. [45]

    Meyerhof, R

    W. Meyerhof, R. Anholt, X.-Y. Xu, H. Gould, B. Fein- berg, R. McDonald, H. Wegner, and P. Thieberger, Mul- tiple ionization in relativistic heavy-ion–atom collisions, Physical Review A 35, 1967 (1987)

    1987

  37. [46]

    Beam-gas collisions github repository, avail- able at: https://github.com/ewaagaard/ Beam-gas-collisions

  38. [47]

    Franzke, Vacuum requirements for heavy ion syn- chrotrons, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 28, 2116 (1981)

    B. Franzke, Vacuum requirements for heavy ion syn- chrotrons, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 28, 2116 (1981)

    1981

  39. [48]

    Olson, R

    R. Olson, R. Watson, V. Horvat, A. Perumal, Y. Peng, and T. St¨ ohlker, Projectile electron loss and capture in MeV/u collisions of U 28+ with H 2, N 2 and Ar, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 37, 4539 (2004)

    2004

  40. [49]

    Perumal, V

    A. Perumal, V. Horvat, R. Watson, Y. Peng, and K. Fruchey, Cross sections for charge change in argon and equilibrium charge states of 3.5 MeV/amu uranium ions passing through argon and carbon targets, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Intera...

    2005

  41. [50]

    Erb, Umladung schwerer Ionen nach Durchgang durch Gase und Festk¨ orper im Energiebereich 0,2 bis 1,4 MeV/u (GSI, Darmstadt, 1978)

    W. Erb, Umladung schwerer Ionen nach Durchgang durch Gase und Festk¨ orper im Energiebereich 0,2 bis 1,4 MeV/u (GSI, Darmstadt, 1978)

    1978

  42. [51]

    Mandl, Statistical physics, Vol

    F. Mandl, Statistical physics, Vol. 14 (John Wiley & Sons, 1991)

    1991

  43. [52]

    Dalton, Essay IV

    J. Dalton, Essay IV. On the expansion of elastic fluids by heat, Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 5, 595 (1802)

  44. [53]

    R. L. Watson, Y. Peng, V. Horvat, G. J. Kim, and R. E. Olson, Target Z dependence and additivity of cross sec- tions for electron loss by 6-MeV/amu Xe 18+ projectiles, Phys. Rev. A 67, 022706 (2003)

    2003

  45. [54]

    Storey, P

    J. Storey, P. Pacholek, S. Levasseur, B. Dehning, D. Bo- dart, A. Rakai, K. Satou, D. Steyart, M. Sapinski, and G. Schneider, Development of an ionization profile monitor based on a pixel detector for the cern proton synchrotron (2016), dOI: 10.18429/JACoW-IBIC2015- TUPB059. A...

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    Storey, W

    J. Storey, W. Bertsche, D. Bodart, B. Dehning, S. Gib- son, S. Levasseur, H. Sandberg, M. Sapinski, K. Satou, G. Schneider, et al., First results from the operation of a rest gas ionisation profile monitor based on a hybrid pixel detector (2017), dOI:10.18429/JACoW-IBIC2017- W...

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    Ady and R

    M. Ady and R. Kersevan, Recent developments of Monte-Carlo codes MolFlow+ and SynRad+, in Pro- ceedings of the 10th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC 2019) (Melbourne, Australia, 2019) p. TUPMP037

    2019

  48. [57]

    Ady, Monte Carlo simulations of ultra high vacuum and synchrotron radiation for particle accelerators, Ph.D

    M. Ady, Monte Carlo simulations of ultra high vacuum and synchrotron radiation for particle accelerators, Ph.D. thesis, EPFL (2016)

    2016

  49. [58]

    87-900- 103-01 (H)

    Agilent Technologies, VacIon Plus 300 Pumps User Man- ual , Agilent Technologies Italia S.p.A., Vacuum Products Division, Lein ` ı (TO), Italy (2016), document No. 87-900- 103-01 (H)

    2016

  50. [59]

    87-900-105-01 (G)

    Agilent Technologies, VacIon Plus 40/55/75 Pumps User Manual , Agilent Technologies Italia S.p.A., Vacuum Products Division, Lein ` ı (TO), Italy (2016), document No. 87-900-105-01 (G)

    2016

  51. [60]

    H. H. Ku et al., Notes on the use of propagation of error formulas, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 70, https://dx.doi.org/10.6028/jres.070C.025 (1966)

    1966 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.