Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Compact detector for atom-atom correlations on an atom chip

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a compact, ionization-based detector that images individual Rydberg atoms near an atom chip with total magnification above 12 and single-axis magnification up to 200, enabling spatially resolved, state-selective…

desk verdict A solid, simulation-only design paper for a compact atom-chip Rydberg detector; the engineering is clever and the calibration idea useful, but the headline performance claims outrun the evidence and need a tolerance/aberration analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03624 v1 pith:KO4V7LA4 submitted 2025-07-04 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Conny Glaser , Dominik Jakab , Florian Jessen , Manuel Kaiser , Jozsef Fortagh , Andreas Günther This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 07.77.Ka32.80.Ee37.10.Gh
keywords Rydbergatomsatomchipstate-selectivefieldionizationelectrostaticlenschannelelectronmultiplierionopticscoincidencedetectionquantuminformation
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 proposes a compact detector that can image individual Rydberg atoms trapped near an atom chip, converting each atom into an ion by field ionization and guiding that ion through an electrostatic lens system onto a small array of channel electron multipliers. The central claim is that this ion-optical design achieves total magnification above 12, with single-axis magnification up to about 200, while keeping aberrations low enough to resolve atoms separated by roughly 2 micrometers. This matters because Rydberg qubits need state-selective, spatially correlated readout to verify gates, measure entanglement, and study cavity-mediated quantum operations. The design is characterized entirely through charged-particle trajectory simulations, including the effects of electrode segmentation, stray-field compensation, magnetic fields, and a coincidence scheme for calibrating detection efficiency.

What carries the argument

The central object is a stack of electrodes — a segmented extractor, a conical electrostatic lens, a segmented drift-tube deflector, and a 2x2 channel-electron-multiplier array — whose operation rests on a multipole decomposition of the potential on each four-segment electrode: the monopole term U, the dipole terms $U_X$ and $U_Y$, and the quadrupole term $U_{QP}$. The monopole creates the principal lensing effect through the radial field $\vec{E}_r \sim -\frac{r}{2}\frac{dE_z}{dz}\vec{e}_r$; the dipole shifts the beam and compensates stray fields; and the quadrupole produces strong single-axis magnification and effective image rotation. This segmentation is what lets one compact device both image and actively steer the ion trajectories onto individual CEMs.

What would settle it

Build the device and field-ionize rubidium atoms at known positions 100 micrometers below the chip surface, then measure the CEM hit coordinates and compare the resulting magnification with the predicted M = 12.25 at the standard voltages; a disagreement larger than the simulated depth-of-field and aberration spread, or a failure to resolve two atoms separated by about 2 micrometers under the quadrupole setting, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that segmenting the extraction and deflection electrodes into four independently voltage-controlled quadrants gives complete multipole control over the ion trajectories, so a single 28 mm-diameter, 83 mm-long assembly can compensate stray electric fields, shift and enlarge the extraction region, rotate the image, and magnify along one axis by a factor of about 203 while keeping the perpendicular magnification below 3.2. At the standard working point, the simulated total magnification is M = 12.25, rising toward the edges of the detection plane, and applying a quadrupole voltage to the deflector electrodes produces the extreme single-axis stretching. The same electrode system can detect either ions or electrons, since charged particles follow identical trajectories under inverted voltages, and the paper shows that detecting both the electron and the ion from one ionization event gives a direct calibration of each CEM's detection efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted magnifications, extraction regions, and 2-micrometer resolution rest on the assumption that the simulated finite-difference fields of the idealized electrode geometry match the real device, including the assumed 100-micrometer starting distance and negligible initial ion energy spread.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two Rydberg atoms separated by about 2 micrometers could be read out in parallel using the single-axis magnification, enabling correlation measurements on length scales relevant to Rydberg-blockade and cavity-mediated gates.
  • The same electrode segments can cancel stray electric fields at the atoms, with simulated compensation strengths of 2.2 V/cm per volt axially and 26.5 mV/cm per volt laterally, which directly protects Rydberg-state fidelity.
  • Detecting electron and ion from the same ionization event yields a per-detector efficiency calibration, so gate fidelities could be measured without requiring an independent, known detection efficiency.
  • Because ion and electron trajectories are identical under inverted voltages, the detector can be switched between a slower ion mode and a nanosecond-timescale electron mode with the same imaging optics.
  • All components fit within a compact, grounded tube that can be installed in an existing atom-chip vacuum apparatus, making the design a practical retrofit for current Rydberg experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The multipole-segmentation control scheme is not tied to this specific geometry; a similar four-quadrant electrode arrangement could give other atom-chip or MCP-based detectors the same image-rotation, stretching, and stray-field-compensation tools.
  • If the simulated single-axis magnification is confirmed experimentally, the roughly 2-micrometer resolved separation would beat typical optical imaging limits for Rydberg arrays, which would directly help dense qubit geometries that current fluorescence imaging struggles to resolve.
  • The electron-ion coincidence calibration, although presented as an efficiency measurement, also provides a per-shot check of whether exactly one atom was ionized; extending it to multi-atom events could distinguish genuine correlated pair detections from background counts.
  • The dynamic voltage switching the paper lists as an outlook could turn the same electrodes into a time-dependent velocity or energy filter, potentially discriminating Rydberg states by their ionization energy rather than only by static field ionization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents the design and simulation-based characterization of a compact electrostatic imaging and detection system for state-selective, spatially resolved readout of individual Rydberg atoms trapped near an atom chip. The device combines a segmented extraction electrode, a conical electrostatic lens, a segmented drift tube, and a 2x2 array of channel electron multipliers. Using SIMION trajectory simulations, the authors report a total magnification of about 12.25 at the chosen working point, a single-axis magnification up to about 203 using a quadrupole term on the deflector electrodes, a tunable extraction region, compensation of stray fields, and a coincidence-based scheme for calibrating detection efficiency using electron-ion pairs from the same ionization event.

Significance. If the simulated performance transfers to a fabricated device, this would be a useful contribution to Rydberg-atom quantum information platforms that require simultaneous, spatially resolved detection of multiple atoms. The multipole decomposition of the segmented electrodes is a clear and pedagogically valuable framework, and the electron-ion coincidence calibration scheme is a practical and well-motivated idea. The paper is also honest in labeling its central results as simulation-based, and it gives reproducible voltage settings and a concrete geometry. Its main value is as a design study that identifies a promising path toward compact correlation detection; the headline performance numbers, however, are not yet experimentally validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [III C, Fig. 7] The single-axis magnification Mx ≈ 203 is obtained at UQP/Udt = 0.35, which lies on the steep part of the Mx-versus-voltage curve. The paper provides no tolerance or sensitivity analysis for this working point. Small asymmetries among the four deflector segments, voltage drifts, or electrode misalignment will shift ion landing positions by amounts that could be comparable to the 400 µm CEM gap. Because the claim that particles separated by about 2 µm can be resolved depends directly on this extreme working point, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of Mx and of the landing coordinates to realistic voltage tolerances and mechanical misalignments, or explicitly label the result as a best-case ideal-geometry simulation.
  2. [IV, especially IV A and IV C] The abstract and conclusion claim that the imaging system maintains 'low aberrations' and images with 'minimal aberrations,' but the manuscript provides no quantitative aberration characterization. Section IV discusses spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, and depth of field only qualitatively, and it explicitly states that imaging quality in terms of resolution and sharpness is of secondary importance. There is no simulated spot size, point-spread function, rms blur, or distortion residual at the working point. The 'low aberrations' assertion should either be backed by quantitative simulation data or removed from the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [III B and II A] The extraction region is defined by treating particles that 'enter the deflector region' as detectable, but actual detection requires the ion to land on the active area of a CEM. Section II A itself warns that detection efficiency near CEM edges is strongly reduced, and the 400 µm gaps between CEMs are dead areas. The estimate that the single-axis magnification allows detection of particles separated by about 2 µm essentially assumes point-like spots placed across the CEM gap. The detection criterion used for the extraction-region and resolvable-separation claims should include the CEM active-area geometry and edge-efficiency effects, or the claims should be rephrased as addressing only the ion-optical transport rather than the full detection probability.
  4. [II C and III] All performance numbers come from SIMION simulations of an ideal electrode geometry with no experimental validation, no mesh-convergence study, and no discussion of patch potentials, surface charges, or insulator charging. These effects are particularly relevant near an atom chip, where adsorbate fields are known to be significant, and the paper's own Section II E acknowledges the need for stray-field compensation. The authors should add a limitations paragraph stating that the quoted magnifications, extraction regions, and deflection linearities are ideal-simulation predictions and that no statement about real-device accuracy is implied without further validation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 10] The axis labels in Figure 10 appear corrupted by an encoding error (e.g., '/X30/X2D/X34' and similar strings). These must be replaced with the intended text such as 'x [mm]' and 'y [mm]'.
  2. [III A] The text says the maximal magnification amounts to 16 and then states that breakdown constraints yield a maximal magnification of about 12. This is confusing; please clarify that 16 is the unconstrained simulation maximum while about 12 is the maximum consistent with the stated voltage-breakdown limits.
  3. [IV C] The sentence 'At a distance of 2 mm this increase reaches an absolute value of 3' is ambiguous: it should state whether the magnification increases by 3 or to a value of 3 at 2 mm, and whether this is relative to the value at 100 µm.
  4. [II A] The CEM output voltage is described as 'typically set to −100 V for ion detection' with a potential difference of 100 V guiding the electron pulse to a grounded anode; the sign convention should be stated more carefully to avoid confusion about which electrode is at −100 V.
  5. [References] References [33] and [34] are manufacturer website URLs without document titles, part numbers, or access dates; for reproducibility these should be replaced by formal data-sheet citations or supplemented with retrieval dates.
  6. [Abstract] The phrase 'maintaining low aberrations' overstates what the paper demonstrates; if the quantitative aberration analysis is not added, the abstract should say that aberrations are discussed qualitatively or that the system is designed to minimize them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnification and trajectory-control numbers are direct charged-particle simulation outputs, not fitted parameters or self-referential definitions, and the coincidence calibration is a standard conditional-probability identity.

full rationale

The paper's central performance claims are simulation outputs, not quantities defined in terms of themselves. In Sec. III A the magnification is explicitly 'given by the ratio of the particle separation at the imaging plane to the initial separation,' and the values M = 12.25 and Mx ≈ 203 are computed from SIMION trajectories for stated voltages (Uext = -50 V, Ucon = -1000 V, Udt = -2000 V, UQP = -700 V). This is a direct trajectory-simulation readout, not a fit to the headline claim. The single-axis magnification study in Sec. III C likewise reports simulated Mx and My as functions of UQP/Udt; no parameter is adjusted to reproduce the claimed result after the fact. The coincidence calibration in Sec. V rests on the standard identity that, for a correlated electron-ion pair, the conditional probability of detecting the ion given electron detection equals the ion detection efficiency; this is an external, mathematically simple method and is cited to prior work, but it is not a load-bearing self-citation that defines the detector's claimed capability. The self-citations present ([15], [23], [31], [46], [51]) provide background on atom-chip trapping, stray fields, ionization energy spreads, and coincidence methods; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for an otherwise unsupported premise. The main caveats are experimental fidelity of the idealized SIMION geometry, lack of tolerance or aberration quantification, and the steepness of the Mx versus UQP characteristic near the working point; these are correctness or validation risks, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulated performance numbers rest on the accuracy of the SIMION model and on several unvalidated assumptions about the real device. The ledger is dominated by domain assumptions rather than free parameters, because the quoted results are simulation outputs conditional on chosen operating voltages.

free parameters (4)
  • Ion detection operating voltages = Uext=-50 V, Ucon=-1000 V, Udt=-2000 V, UCEM=-2300 V
    Manual working point used for all central simulation results; the quoted magnifications and extraction region are conditional on these settings.
  • Extractor dipole voltage ratio = UXY=0.23 Uext (-11.5 V)
    Chosen by hand to maximize the detectable extraction region while retaining central region detectability, as described in Sec. III.B.
  • Deflector quadrupole voltage = UQP=-700 V (UQP/Udt=0.35)
    Chosen to demonstrate single-axis magnification Mx approximately 203 in Sec. III.C.
  • Particle starting distance = 100 µm below chip surface
    Simulations use this starting distance, and Sec. IV.C shows the magnification depends on it, so it is load-bearing for the quoted magnifications.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SIMION finite-difference solutions of Laplace's equation accurately represent the real electrode fields and ion trajectories.
    All performance claims depend on simulation fidelity, and no experimental validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Charged particles follow identical trajectories in an electrostatic field when voltages are inverted, independent of mass when initial velocities are negligible.
    Used in Sec. II.A and Sec. V to extend ion results to electrons; only approximate for finite initial velocities.
  • domain assumption CEM detection efficiency exceeds 50% for ions above 2 keV and electrons above 20 eV, as per manufacturer data.
    Underlies the detection and calibration claims; not measured in this work.
  • domain assumption Rydberg atoms can be field-ionized near the chip and ions start at 100 µm below the surface with negligible energy spread.
    The ionization process and starting conditions are assumed, not demonstrated experimentally.
  • ad hoc to paper Particles entering the deflector region are considered detectable, defining the extraction region.
    A modeling convenience introduced in Sec. III.B that may overestimate the usable detection area because finite CEM gaps, edge effects, and detector acceptance are not fully folded in.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compact detector for atom-atom correlations on an atom chip." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KO4V7LA4

@misc{pith2026250703624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compact detector for atom-atom correlations on an atom chip},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KO4V7LA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03624}
}
read the original abstract

We present a compact, ionization-based detector for the state-selective and spatially resolved measurement of individual Rydberg atoms trapped in the vicinity of an atom chip. The system combines an electrostatic lens system for guiding charged particles with an array of channel electron multipliers (CEMs) capable of detecting both ions and electrons produced by ionization. Designed for quantum information applications, this device enables the detection of correlations between spatially separated Rydberg qubits. Additionally, the electrodes provide compensation for stray electric fields and control over particle trajectories. The imaging system achieves a total magnification of more than 12, with a single-axis magnification up to 200, while maintaining low aberrations. We characterize the performance of the system using a charged particle trajectory simulation software and discuss how a coincidence measurement of ions and electrons can be used to calibrate the detection efficiency. This detector enables high-fidelity measurement of multiple Rydberg atoms and is well-suited for applications in cavity-mediated quantum gates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. It consists of several electrodes and aims to detect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows the ion position along the optical axis and the corresponding velocity over time. The ion reaches the detector 4.4 µs after the electron has been detected. VI. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK In conclusion, we have presented the design and char￾acterization of a compact …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. F. Gallagher, in Springer Handbook of Atomic, Molec- ular, and Optical Physics(Springer, 1994) pp. 231–240

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, R. Cote, L. Duan, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Physical review let- ters 87, 037901 (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Reviews of modern physics 82, 2313 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Nature Physics 17, 1324 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, et al., Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Graham, Y

    T. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinke- meyer, et al., Nature 604, 457 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, et al., Nature 595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, et al., Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    C. Chen, G. Bornet, M. Bintz, G. Emperauger, L. Leclerc, V. S. Liu, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, J. Hauschild, S. Chatterjee, et al., Nature 616, 691 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Schauß, J

    P. Schauß, J. Zeiher, T. Fukuhara, S. Hild, M. Cheneau, T. Macr ` ı, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Groß, Science 347, 1455 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. De L´ es´ eleuc, T. Macr ` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Nature534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, et al., Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Stammeier, S

    M. Stammeier, S. Garc ´ ıa, T. Thiele, J. Deiglmayr, J. A. Agner, H. Schmutz, F. Merkt, and A. Wallraff, Physical Review A 95, 053855 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Morgan and S

    A. Morgan and S. Hogan, Physical Review Letters 124, 193604 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Kaiser, C

    M. Kaiser, C. Glaser, L. Y. Ley, J. Grimmel, H. Hatter- mann, D. Bothner, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner, D. Petrosyan, A. G¨ unther,et al., Physical Review Research 4, 013207 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    J. M. Kondo, S. T. Rittenhouse, D. V. Magalhaes, V. Rokaj, S. I. Mistakidis, H. R. Sadeghpour, and L. G. Marcassa, Physical Review A 110, L061301 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    J. D. Pritchard, D. Maxwell, A. Gauguet, K. J. Weath- erill, M. Jones, and C. S. Adams, Physical review letters 105, 193603 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    J. D. Pritchard, K. J. Weatherill, and C. S. Adams, An- nual Review of Cold Atoms and Molecules: Volume 1 , 301 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Karlewski, M

    F. Karlewski, M. Mack, J. Grimmel, N. S´ andor, and J. Fort´ agh, Physical Review A91, 043422 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Gallagher, L

    T. Gallagher, L. Humphrey, W. Cooke, R. Hill, and S. Edelstein, Physical Review A 16, 1098 (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

    van Ditzhuijzen, A

    C. van Ditzhuijzen, A. Koenderink, L. Noordam, and H. van Linden van den Heuvell, The European Physi- cal Journal D-Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics 40, 13 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    V. C. Gregoric, J. J. Bennett, B. R. Gualtieri, A. Kannad, Z. C. Liu, Z. A. Rowley, T. J. Carroll, and M. W. Noel, Physical Review A 98, 063404 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Fort´ agh and C

    J. Fort´ agh and C. Zimmermann, Reviews of Modern Physics 79, 235 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Drummond, Vacuum 34, 51 (1984)

    I. Drummond, Vacuum 34, 51 (1984)

    1984

  17. [25]

    O. Sise, M. Ulu, and M. Dogan, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 573, 329 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    El-Kareh and M

    A. El-Kareh and M. Sturans, Journal of Applied Physics 42, 1870 (1971)

    1971

  19. [27]

    Adams and F

    A. Adams and F. Read, Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments 5, 150 (1972)

    1972

  20. [28]

    J. M. McGuirk, D. M. Harber, J. M. Obrecht, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062905 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    J. M. Obrecht, R. J. Wild, M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 063201 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Tauschinsky, R

    A. Tauschinsky, R. M. T. Thijssen, S. Whitlock, H. B. van Linden van den Heuvell, and R. J. C. Spreeuw, Phys. Rev. A 81, 063411 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Hattermann, M

    H. Hattermann, M. Mack, F. Karlewski, F. Jessen, D. Cano, and J. Fort´ agh, Phys. Rev. A86, 022511 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    K. Chan, M. Siercke, C. Hufnagel, and R. Dumke, Phys- ical review letters 112, 026101 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Sjuts Optotechnik GmbH, www.sjuts.com

    Dr. Sjuts Optotechnik GmbH, www.sjuts.com

  26. [34]

    SwabianInstruments, www.swabianinstruments.com

  27. [35]

    Henkel, Photoionisation detection of single 87Rb- atoms using channel electron multipliers, Ph.D

    F. Henkel, Photoionisation detection of single 87Rb- atoms using channel electron multipliers, Ph.D. thesis, Ludwing-Maximilians-University Munich (2011). 12

    2011

  28. [36]

    J. L. Wiza et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods 162, 587 (1979)

    1979

  29. [37]

    Lampton and R

    M. Lampton and R. Malina, Review of Scientific Instru- ments 47, 1360 (1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

    O. H. Siegmund, A. S. Tremsin, J. V. Vallerga, and J. Hull, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 48, 430 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Keller, G

    H. Keller, G. Klingelh¨ ofer, and E. Kankeleit, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 258, 221 (1987)

    1987

  32. [40]

    Jagutzki, A

    O. Jagutzki, A. Cerezo, A. Czasch, R. Dorner, M. Hattas, M. Huang, V. Mergel, U. Spillmann, K. Ullmann-Pfleger, T. Weber, et al., IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 49, 2477 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Both, PEEK and MA- COR, feature a dielectric strength above 20 kV/mm [24], which is negligible compared to the vacuum breakdown voltage and insulator surface effects

    and is not suitable for vacuum applications, such that MACOR would be used instead. Both, PEEK and MA- COR, feature a dielectric strength above 20 kV/mm [24], which is negligible compared to the vacuum breakdown voltage and insulator surface effects. In an ultrahigh vac- uum c...

  34. [42]

    S. Z. Cheng, M. Cao, and B. Wunderlich, Macromolecules 19, 1868 (1986)

    1986

  35. [43]

    Bergmann and C

    L. Bergmann and C. Schaefer, Optik: Wellen-und Teilchenoptik (Walter de Gruyter, 2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    H¨ ytch and P

    M. H¨ ytch and P. W. Hawkes, Quadrupoles in electron lens design, Vol. 224 (Academic Press, 2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Scherzer, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik101.9-10, 51 (1936)

    O. Scherzer, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik101.9-10, 51 (1936)

    1936

  38. [46]

    Szilagyi, Applied physics letters 49, 767 (1986)

    M. Szilagyi, Applied physics letters 49, 767 (1986)

    1986

  39. [47]

    Stecker, H

    M. Stecker, H. Schefzyk, J. Fort´ agh, and A. G¨ unther, New Journal of Physics 19, 043020 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Tiesinga, B

    E. Tiesinga, B. Verhaar, and H. Stoof, Physical Review A 47, 4114 (1993)

    1993

  41. [49]

    Inouye, M

    S. Inouye, M. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature 392, 151 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Courteille, R

    P. Courteille, R. Freeland, D. Heinzen, F. Van Abeelen, and B. Verhaar, Physical Review Letters 81, 69 (1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Re- views of Modern Physics 82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Stibor, S

    A. Stibor, S. Kraft, T. Campey, D. Komma, A. G¨ unther, J. Fort´ agh, C. Vale, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and C. Zim- mermann, Physical Review A 76, 033614 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.