Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Optimization of target film materials and protective coatings for sealed neutron generator

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper's central claim is that a magnesium-zirconium alloy target with a doping ratio of 0.2, protected by a 7.5 nm nickel oxide coating, is a promising material combination for sealed neutron generators, offering the highest simulated…

desk verdict A useful SRIM screening for neutron generator target films, but the coating-loss model in Eq. (3) is physically wrong and the headline yield number is not reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09060 v1 pith:LTMVAIXK submitted 2025-06-05 physics.ins-det cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yingying Cao , Sijia Zhou , Pingwei Sun , Jiayu Li , Shangrui Jiang , Shiwei Jing This is my paper
classification physics.ins-detcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords neutrongeneratormagnesiumalloytargetirradiationdamageyieldsputteringprotectivecoatingnickeloxideSRIMsimulation
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 tries to show that a magnesium-zirconium alloy target film with a thin nickel oxide protective coating can overcome the main weakness of pure magnesium in sealed neutron generators: high yield but poor irradiation resistance. Using SRIM simulations, it compares magnesium-niobium and magnesium-zirconium alloys at five doping ratios, with nickel oxide, aluminum oxide, or palladium oxide coatings, judging candidates by displacement damage, neutron yield, and sputtering yield. The paper concludes that a magnesium-zirconium alloy with a doping ratio of 0.2 and a 7.5 nm nickel oxide coating gives the best combination, reporting a simulated neutron yield of $5.09\times10^{9}$ n/s at 120 keV and a total sputtering yield of $0.026$ atom per ion. If that combination holds up experimentally, it points to a target coating stack that could improve both the lifetime and the output of sealed neutron generators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modified neutron-yield formula, Eq. (3): $$Y=\frac{A_R I N_T}{e}\sum_{k=1}^{3}k f_k T(E)\$int_0^{{E/k}}$\frac{\$\sigma$(E)}{-S(E)}\,dE,$$ where $T(E)$ is the transmittance of deuterium ions through the surface layer (the 250 nm MgO that naturally forms, or a 7.5 nm protective coating), $\sigma(E)$ is the D-T fusion cross section, and $S(E)$ is the SRIM-computed stopping power. The paper's optimization proceeds by computing $T(E)$, stopping power, displacement damage (DPA), and sputtering yields in SRIM for two magnesium alloys, five doping ratios, three oxide coatings, and incident energies of 40--150 keV. The central comparison is the transmittance factor: nickel oxide gives the highest $T(E)$, which under Eq. (3) directly raises the yield; the same SRIM runs supply the sputtering yields that rank the coatings.

What would settle it

Recompute the coated yield by using the SRIM stopping power to reduce a 120 keV deuteron's energy after 7.5 nm of NiO and integrating $\sigma(E)/(-S(E))$ from zero to that reduced energy; if the resulting yield or the coating ranking differs materially from Eq. (3)'s multiplied values, the transmittance approximation is what created the reported optimum. A complementary check is to fabricate the 0.2-doping magnesium-zirconium target with 7.5 nm NiO, bombard it at 120 keV and 300 μA, and compare measured neutron yield and impurity-ion sputtering with $5.09\times10^{9}$ n/s and $0.026$ atom per ion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a target made of a magnesium-zirconium alloy with an atomic doping ratio of 0.2, covered by a 7.5 nm nickel oxide protective coating, is a potential target film material for a sealed neutron generator. The paper reports that under a 300 μA deuterium beam at 120 keV, this combination produces the highest simulated neutron yield among all tested cases, $5.09\times10^{9}$ n/s, and the lowest total sputtering yield, $0.026$ atom per ion, when bombarded by C+, N+, and O+ impurity ions. It also reports that alloying magnesium with niobium or zirconium reduces irradiation damage relative to pure magnesium, with magnesium-niobium alloys more radiation-resistant than magnesium-zirconium at equal doping ratios, while magnesium-zirconium alloys give higher neutron yields. The conclusion is framed as a reference for selecting target film and protective coating materials in sealed neutron generators.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical ranking that picks nickel oxide depends on treating a protective coating's effect as a single multiplicative transmittance factor applied to the uncoated yield integral, instead of recomputing the yield at the lower energy the ions have after passing through the coating.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the simulation is right, a 0.2-doping magnesium-zirconium target coated with 7.5 nm nickel oxide should produce about $5.09\times10^{9}$ n/s at 120 keV with a 300 μA beam, the highest yield among all simulated alloy-coating combinations.
  • The nickel oxide coating should also give the strongest resistance to sputtering by C+, N+, and O+ impurity ions, with a total yield of about $0.026$ atom per ion, so the target should keep its surface intact longer than with the other coatings.
  • Alloying with niobium or zirconium should lower displacement damage relative to pure magnesium; the simulation says magnesium-niobium is more radiation-resistant, while magnesium-zirconium gives higher neutron yields, so the two alloys serve different design priorities.
  • The same simulation method could be used to screen other coating materials or alloying elements without building prototypes, and it provides the thickness and composition values an experimental neutron generator program would start from.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the parameters $A_R$, $N_T$, and $f_k$ unstated, so the absolute yield value is only as meaningful as those hidden inputs; my inference is that the robust output is the relative ordering of coatings and alloy ratios, not the raw $5.09\times10^{9}$ n/s number.
  • Equation (3)'s multiplicative transmittance assumes the uncoated yield curve can be scaled by a coating factor; the more physical procedure is to lose energy in the coating and then integrate the cross section at the reduced energy, and it is an open question whether the NiO ranking survives that calculation.
  • Because all three protective coatings are fixed at 7.5 nm, the conclusion is thickness-specific; varying the nickel oxide thickness could trade a little yield for more sputtering protection or the reverse.
  • The sputtering ranking covers C+, N+, and O+ at 120 keV only; a beam with a different impurity mix or energy could change which coating is best.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses SRIM simulations to screen candidate target film materials and protective coatings for a sealed D-T neutron generator. It computes irradiation damage (DPA) for pure Mg, Mg-Nb, and Mg-Zr targets; neutron yield using a literature formula (Eq. (2)) modified by a coating transmittance factor (Eq. (3)); and sputtering yields under C+, N+, and O+ bombardment. The authors conclude that a Mg-Zr alloy with doping ratio 0.2 and a 7.5 nm NiO protective coating gives the highest simulated neutron yield (5.09e9 n/s at 120 keV) and the lowest sputtering yield (0.026 atom/ion), and recommend this combination as a potential target film material.

Significance. If the simulation methodology were sound, the paper would provide a useful systematic survey of Mg-alloy target compositions and thin oxide coatings for sealed neutron generators, with a clear falsifiable recommendation. The work is transparent in its use of SRIM for stopping powers, DPA, and sputtering, and it covers a broad parameter space of alloy ratios, incident energies, and coating materials. However, the central yield calculation rests on an unphysical multiplicative treatment of coating energy loss, and the absolute yield values depend on unreported parameters. These issues must be corrected before the quantitative recommendation can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3)] The derivation of Eq. (3) is physically incorrect. When an ion traverses a coating layer, it enters the target with reduced energy E1 < E0, so the yield must be recomputed as Y(E1) = C * integral_0^E1 [sigma(E)/(-S(E))] dE using the target stopping power, not as T(E0) * C * integral_0^E0 [sigma(E)/(-S(E))] dE. The multiplicative transmittance factor is only valid if sigma(E)/(-S(E)) is constant over [E1, E0], which is not the case near the 110 keV peak of the D-T cross section shown in Fig. 3. Consequently, the absolute yield 5.09e9 n/s and the comparison between the 250 nm MgO baseline and the 7.5 nm NiO coating are not established. The authors should recompute yields by simulating the full energy-loss profile through the coating and evaluating the yield integral at the post-coating energy.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The absolute neutron yield depends on the tritium-to-deuterium ratio AR, the deuterium density in the target film NT, and the ion species fractions f_k (k=1,2,3). None of these values are stated in the manuscript. Without them, the reported numbers such as 5.13e9, 5.25e9, and 5.09e9 n/s are not reproducible, and the reader cannot judge whether the assumed operating conditions are realistic. Please provide the numerical values and literature or experimental justification for these parameters.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1) and Figs. 1-2] The irradiation damage results are not fully reproducible because the SRIM calculation details are missing. The manuscript reports 'total irradiation damage value' as 9.21e4 DPA and percentage improvements for the alloys, but does not state the number of simulated ions, the SRIM run mode (full cascade vs. quick), the target density used, or the irradiation dose assumed in Eq. (1). Since the DPA values are used to support the irradiation-resistance ranking of Mg-Nb over Mg-Zr, these parameters must be specified and the integrated DPA quantity should be defined clearly (e.g., DPA integrated over depth, with units of DPA·nm or similar).
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 6] The transmittance T(E) is not defined operationally. If it is the ratio of the ion energy after traversing the layer to the incident energy, that definition should be stated and used consistently; if it is a transmission probability, then Eq. (3) is dimensionally and physically different. The current text says 'transmittance of incident ions' and reports only curves, leaving the reader unable to verify Eq. (3). Please define T(E) precisely and justify its use in the yield formula.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., 'radiation resista nce', 'It can be seen form Fig. 2', 'the Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b are integrated respectively', 'In the above case, 0.2 doping ratio magnesium-zirconium alloy target film has the highest neutron yield'). A thorough language edit is needed.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The text says 'doping rate' in some places and 'doping ratio' in others; please use one consistent term and define it as atomic ratio at first use.
  3. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 3] The SRIM version and simulation mode should be reported, along with the choice of stopping tables (e.g., SRIM-2013) and whether electronic or nuclear stopping is included in S(E). This is standard practice for SRIM-based studies and would aid reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 4] The stopping power curves appear to be plotted as functions of incident energy, but the text does not state whether these are electronic, nuclear, or total stopping powers. Please clarify.
  5. [Sec. 4] Sputtering yields are reported only for 120 keV impurity ions; the choice of energy is not justified. A sentence explaining why 120 keV is representative would strengthen the discussion.
  6. [References] Reference [13] is cited for displacement threshold energies but appears to be a broad NEA review; consider citing the specific table or source used for the Mg, Nb, and Zr values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the recommendation follows from forward SRIM simulations and an explicit transmittance-scaled yield model; the coating ranking is a transparent consequence of Eq. (3), not a fit to the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central recommendation is produced by a forward parameter sweep: irradiation damage is computed from SRIM vacancies via Eq. (1); the bare-target neutron yield is computed from the cited D-T yield integral, Eq. (2), using SRIM stopping powers; and the coated yield is then defined in Eq. (3) as the bare yield multiplied by a SRIM-computed transmittance T(E). No parameter is fitted to the final 'best combination' result, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation. The only notable feature is that the coating ranking in Figs. 7 and 8 is algebraically forced once the Fig. 6 transmittances are inserted into Eq. (3), so the yield comparison adds no information beyond the transmittance comparison; however, the paper is explicit about this model, and the sputtering-yield ranking in Sec. 4.2 is an independent SRIM result. The physical validity of the multiplicative T(E) treatment is a correctness concern, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

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

The central recommendation rests on SRIM's binary-collision stopping and vacancy model, a literature neutron yield formula with three unstated scaling constants, and the assumption that a thin protective coating replaces the natural oxide layer. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unverified inputs are the unstated yield constants, the transmittance treatment in Eq. (3), and the assumed oxide-layer thicknesses.

free parameters (4)
  • tritium-to-deuterium ratio AR = not stated
    Scales every neutron yield in Eqs. (2) and (3); no value is given in the text.
  • deuterium density in target film NT = not stated
    Scales every neutron yield; value not specified.
  • ion species fractions f1, f2, f3 = not stated
    Weights for mono-, di-, and triatomic deuterium ions in Eq. (2); f3 is neglected but f1 and f2 values are not given.
  • natural MgO layer thickness on uncoated target = 250 nm
    Assumed from reference [18] and used as the no-coating baseline; not varied or measured.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SRIM binary collision approximation accurately predicts displacement vacancies, stopping powers, and sputtering yields for Mg-Nb and Mg-Zr alloys under 120 keV ion bombardment.
    The entire DPA, yield, and sputtering analysis depends on SRIM outputs with no experimental calibration; SRIM is a semi-empirical tool and its defect production estimates are approximate.
  • domain assumption The neutron yield model of Eq. (2), with constant AR, NT, and f_k, plus the multiplicative transmittance factor T(E) in Eq. (3), correctly gives the D-T neutron yield for coated targets.
    Sec. 3, Eq. (3); the scaling by transmittance is not derived and is not equivalent to recomputing the yield at the reduced post-coating energy.
  • domain assumption A uniform 250 nm MgO layer forms on uncoated Mg alloy targets, and a 7.5 nm protective coating replaces or suppresses that layer.
    Sec. 3.2; 250 nm is taken from reference [18] and the replacement behavior is assumed, not measured.
  • domain assumption Alloying Mg with Nb or Zr produces homogeneous targets at the stated atomic ratios, and irradiation resistance improves according to displacement threshold energy and lattice-distortion arguments.
    Sec. 2.2; the microstructural mechanisms (dislocation pinning, secondary phases) are asserted qualitatively, not simulated or measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimization of target film materials and protective coatings for sealed neutron generator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTMVAIXK

@misc{pith2026250609060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimization of target film materials and protective coatings for sealed neutron generator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTMVAIXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09060}
}
read the original abstract

Magnesium target film has better thermal stability and neutron yield than titanium target, making it a potential neutron generator target film material. The radiation resistance of elemental magnesium targets is relatively weak, and their radiation resistance can be improved by alloying magnesium target films. The irradiation damage of pure magnesium targets and magnesium alloy target films was studied using SRIM. The results indicate that the irradiation damage of magnesium alloy target films (magnesium-niobium, magnesium-zirconium alloys) is lower than that of pure magnesium targets. In addition, under the same alloy ratio, the radiation resistance of magnesium-niobium alloy target film is better than that of magnesium-zirconium alloy. In order to further in-vestigate the performance of magnesium alloy target films, the incident ion energy, protective coatings (nickel oxide, aluminum oxide, palladium oxide), magnesium alloy target films, and alloy doping ratios (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0) were changed. After calculating the effects of the above conditions on the neutron generator yield, sputtering yield, and considering irradiation damage, it was determined that a magnesium-zirconium alloy with a doping rate of 0.2 and a nickel oxide protective coating with a thickness of 7.5 nm are potential target film materials for the neutron generator.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The DPA depth distribution of the magnesium target film. 2.2 Irradiation damage with magnesium alloy target film Radiation damage can lead to atomic displacement within the target film, resulting in tritium loss, decreased neutron yield, and consequently impacting the performance of the neutron generator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The DPA depth distribution of target film: (a) Mg-Nb alloy (b) Mg-Zr alloy. The Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b are integrated respectively, the results demonstrate that the addition of niobium and zirconium element both enhance the irradiation resistance of the magnesium target film. From a microstructural perspective, the atomic radii of niobium and zirconium differ signifi￾cantly from that of magnesium. The lattice distortio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. It is evident that the reaction cross section reaches its maximum value when the beam energy is 110 keV. The stopping power of deuterium ions, S(E), can be simulated using the SRIM software. E represents the energy of deuterium ions incident perpendicular to the target film surface. The indices k = 1, 2, and 3 correspond to monatomic, diatomic, and triatomic deuterium ions, respec￾tively. And fk is a ratio of certai… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The neutron yield with different incident ion energy of alloy target film (a) Mg-Nb alloy (b) Mg-Zr alloy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Stopping power of D+ incident magnesium alloy target film (a) Mg-Nb alloy (b) Mg-Zr alloy. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: illustrates the transmittance of deuterium ions within an incident energy range of 40-150 keV as they traverse layers of 250 nm magnesium oxide, 7.5 nm nickel oxide, 7.5 nm alumina oxide, and 7.5 nm palladium oxide. The figure demonstrates that the transmittance increa…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The neutron yield of magnesium-niobium alloy target film with 250 nm MgO and 7.5 nm NiO, Al2O3 and PdO (a) 0.2 Mg-Nb alloy (b) 0.4 Mg-Nb alloy (c) 0.6 Mg-Nb alloy (d) 0.8 Mg-Nb alloy (e) 1.0 Mg-Nb alloy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The neutron yield of magnesium-zirconium alloy target film with 250 nm MgO and 7.5 nm NiO, Al2O3 and PdO (a) 0.2 Mg-Zr alloy (b) 0.4 Mg-Zr alloy (c) 0.6 Mg-Zr alloy (d) 0.8 Mg-Zr alloy (e) 1.0 Mg-Zr alloy. 4. Sputtering yield There are many factors that influence the t…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neutron generator is a compact electro-vacuum device, composing ion source, target, acceleration system and pressure regulation system

    Introduction Sealed neutron generator is widely used in multiple fields due to its compact size, portability, good monochromaticity, easy to control off, and capability to prevent radioactive pollution [1 -5]. Neutron generator is a compact electro-vacuum device, composing ion source, target, acceleration system and pressure regulation system. The target ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The incident par- ticles on the target film collide with its atoms, transferring a fraction of their energy to these atoms

    Irradiation damage The irradiation resistance of the target film material is correlated with the displacement thresh- old energy, the higher the threshold value, the stronger the irradiation resistance. The incident par- ticles on the target film collide with its atoms, transferring a fraction of their energy to these atoms. This energy transfer increases...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The D-T reaction cross section, denoted as σ(E), is illustrated in Fig

    Neutron yield For the D-T neutron generator, the neutron yield is described by Equation 2 [16]: Y = 𝐴𝑅∙𝐼∙𝑁𝑇 𝑒 ∑ 𝑘 ∙ 𝑓𝑘 3 𝑘=1 ∫ 𝜎(𝐸) −𝑆(𝐸) 𝐸 𝑘⁄ 0 𝑑𝐸 (2) Where Y(E) represents the neutron yield from the D-T reaction, AR denotes the ratio of tritium ions in the target film, I is the incident deuterium ion beam current, and NT indicates the density of deuteri...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Sputtering yield There are many factors that influence the target life of a neutron generator, including irradiation damage on the surface caused by the deuterium ion beam, which leads to tritium release from the target film, as well as the sputtering effect of impurity ions such as C+, N+, and O+ on the target film within the deuterium ion beam. 10 4.1 S...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Conclusion This study aims to achieve long life and high yield neutron generator through the optimization of target film materials and surface layer materials. The irradiation damage of magnesium and two kinds of magnesium alloy target film was calculated, and the neutron yield and sputtering yield were simulated by changing magnesium alloy target materia...

    work page

  6. [6]

    A protective coating is coated on the surface of magnesium alloy target film to enhance the neutron yield and improve sputtering resistance. By the calculation, when incident deuterium ion energy is 120 keV , the 0.2 doping ratio magnesium-zirconium alloy coated with a 7.5 nm NiO protecti ve coating achieves a maximum neutron yield of 5.09 ×109 n/s and ex...

    work page

  7. [7]

    http://doi org/10.7538/tws.2014.27.04.0199 13

    Y.-M Song, H.-G Yang, J.-S Zhang, et al., The parameters test of a sealed D-T neutron tube, Journal of Isotopes 27(4) (2014) 199-202. http://doi org/10.7538/tws.2014.27.04.0199 13

    work page doi:10.7538/tws.2014.27.04.0199 2014

  8. [8]

    http://doi org/10.1016/j.nimb.2007.04.177

    Farahmand M, Boston A J, Grint A N, et al., Detection of explosive substances by tomographic inspection using neutron and gamma-ray spectroscopy, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Phys- ics Research B, 261 (2007), 396-400. http://doi org/10.1016/j.nimb.2007.04.177

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2007.04.177 2007

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    -L Fu, X, -M Chen, et al., Creation of wheat-rye small-fragment Translocation using Fast Neutron Irradiation, 34(5) (2014) 609 -614

    M.-Y Yang, S. -L Fu, X, -M Chen, et al., Creation of wheat-rye small-fragment Translocation using Fast Neutron Irradiation, 34(5) (2014) 609 -614. http://doi org /10.7606/j.issn.1009- 1041.2014.05.06

    2014

  2. [10]

    C.-B Lu, P. X, J. -X, et al., Preliminary exper imental research of detail sensitivity in fast neutron photography, Nuclear Techniques, 38 (8) ( 2015) 080202. http://doi org/10.11889/j.0253 - 3219.2015.hjs.38.08020

    2015

  3. [11]

    http://doi org/ 10.1016/j.nima.2009.08.025

    Ahn S-K, Lee T-H, Shin H-S, et al., Simulation and preliminary experimental results for an active neutron counter using a neutron generator for a fissile material accounting , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , 609 (2009) 205-212. http://doi org/ 10.1016/j...

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Nuclear Techniques, 30(8) (2007) 665-667

    W.-k Liu, X.-H Cao, S.-M, et al., Effects of the thickness of oxide layer on yield of neutron from deuterium-tritium reaction. Nuclear Techniques, 30(8) (2007) 665-667

    2007

  5. [13]

    Huang, X.-H

    Z.-W. Huang, X.-H. Bai, C.-Q. Liu, et al., Study on secondary electron suppression in compact D– D neutron generator, Nuclear Science and Techniques , 30 (2019). http://doi org/10.1007/s41365- 019-0596-0

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Guo, S.-J

    W.-T. Guo, S.-J. Zhao, Z. -T. Yu, et al., Effect of target material on neutron output and sputtering yield of D-D neutron tube, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms , 473 (2020) 48 -54. http://doi org/10.1016...

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    S.-W Zhang, S. C, D. Xiao, et al., Performance of Mg target for neutron generator under deuterium ion irradiation. Vacuum, 218 (2023) 112642. http://doi org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2023.112642

    2023

  8. [16]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 736 (2014) 107−111

    Falabella S, Tang V , Ellsworth J L, et al., Protective overcoatings on thin-film titanium targets for neutron generator. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 736 (2014) 107−111. http://doi org/10.1016/j.nima.2013.10.045

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    A. M. Zakharov, O. A. Dvoichenkova and A. E. Evisn. , Modification of surface oxide layers of titanium target for increasing lifetime of neutron tube, Technology of Nuclear Materials, 78 (2015) 1643-1645. http://doi org/10.1134/S106377881514015X

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    http://doi org/10.1016/j.nimb.2010.02.091

    Ziegler J F, Ziegler M D, Biersack J P ., SRIM – The stopping and range of ion matter, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 268 (2010) 1818 -1823. http://doi org/10.1016/j.nimb.2010.02.091

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Kai Nordlund, Andrea E. Sand, Fredric Granberg, et al., Primary Radiation Damage in Materials: Review of Current Understanding and Proposed New Standard Displacement Damage Model to Incorporate in Cascade Defect Production Efficiency and Mixing Effects, NEA/NSC/DOC (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    , Mg-Nb alloy films: Structure and stability in a bal- anced salt solution, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 661 (2016) 322 -330

    Konstantinas L, Eimutis J, Laurynas S, et al. , Mg-Nb alloy films: Structure and stability in a bal- anced salt solution, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 661 (2016) 322 -330. http://doi org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.11.166

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Han., Molten－salt electrolytic preparation of magnesium－zirconium alloy, Jour- nal of Yunnan University 23(6) (2014) 420-423

    R.-G Liu and W. Han., Molten－salt electrolytic preparation of magnesium－zirconium alloy, Jour- nal of Yunnan University 23(6) (2014) 420-423. http://doi org /12.3969/j.issn1672- 8513.2014.06.008

    2014

  14. [22]

    Radiation

    Verbeke J M, Leung K N and Vujic J., Development of a sealed-accelerator-tube neutron generator, Appl. Radiation. Isotopes, 53 (2000) 801–809. http://doi org/10.1016/S0969-8043(00)00262-1 14

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    X.-H Zhou, J. Lu, Y . Liu, et al., A concise method to calculate the target current ion species fraction in D-D and D -T neutron tube, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 987 (2021) 164836. http://doi org/10.1016/j.nima.2020.164836

    2021

  16. [24]

    S.-W Zhang, Preparation and irradiation characteristic study of Mg -Based neutron source tritium target, Hefei, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Yang, J.-D Long, C

    Z. Yang, J.-D Long, C. -H Lan, et al., Effects of ion source and target thickness on neutron yield from deuterium-tritium reaction neutron source, Nuclear Techniques 35(8) (2012) 591−595

    2012

  18. [26]

    Guo, S.-J

    W.-T. Guo, S.-J. Zhao, R.-X. Nian, et al., Impact of target material surface layer on neutron yield and target life of neutron tube, Radiation Physica and Chemistry, 186 (2021) 109548 . http://doi org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109548

    2021

  19. [27]

    Z.-E Yao, S.-W Chen, M.-Y Dong, et al., Sputtering Effect on Life-time of Titanium Tritide Target, Atomic Energy Science and Technology 37(1) (2003) 25−27

    2003

Pith tools

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