Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Performance of newly constructed plastic scintillator barrel in the WASA-FRS experiments and evaluation of radiation damage effects on multi-pixel photon counter

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A newly built plastic scintillator barrel with MPPC readout achieves 45–75 ps time resolution, stays stable up to 1.35 MHz per slat, and shows a 35% MPPC amplitude loss at an estimated 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence of 2.4e10 cm^-2.

desk verdict A useful, honest engineering characterization of a new MPPC-based barrel; the timing and rate stability hold up, but the radiation-damage fluence estimate and MPPC-only attribution need tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10454 v1 pith:ZQN4FHJS submitted 2025-07-14 physics.ins-det nucl-ex

Y. K. Tanaka , R. Sekiya , K. Itahashi , H. Alibrahim Alfaki , F. Amjad , M. Armstrong , K.-H. Behr , J. Benlliure
show 65 more authors
Z. Brencic T. Dickel V. Drozd S. Dubey H. Ekawa S. Escrig M. Feijoo-Fontán H. Fujioka Y. Gao H. Geissel F. Goldenbaum A. Graña González E. Haettner M. N. Harakeh Y. He H. Heggen C. Hornung N. Hubbard M. Iwasaki N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki A. Kasagi M. Kavatsyuk E. Kazantseva A. Khreptak B. Kindler H. Kollmus D. Kostyleva S. Kraft-Bermuth N. Kurz E. Liu B. Lommel S. Minami D. J. Morrissey P. Moskal I. Mukha M. Nakagawa C. Nociforo H. J. Ong S. Pietri S. Purushothaman C. Rappold E. Rocco J. L. Rodríguez-Sánchez P. Roy R. Ruber T. R. Saito S. Schadmand C. Scheidenberger P. Schwarz V. Serdyuk M. Skurzok B. Streicher K. Suzuki B. Szczepanczyk X. Tang N. Tortorelli M. Vencelj T. Weber H. Weick M. Will K. Wimmer A. Yamamoto A. Yanai J. Zhao for WASA-FRS/Super-FRS Experiment Collaboration
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-detnucl-ex
keywords SiliconphotomultiplierMPPCPlasticscintillatorTimingcounterRadiationdamageHighcountingrateTimeresolutionParticleidentification
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 reports the in-beam performance of a newly built barrel of plastic scintillator slats read out by multi-pixel photon counters (MPPCs), operated in the first WASA-FRS campaign with a 2.5 GeV proton beam on a carbon target. It claims the detector reaches a per-slat time resolution of 45–75 ps (\(\$\sigma$\)) depending on energy deposition, and that amplitude and timing stay stable up to 1.35 MHz per slat. It further claims that accumulated irradiation reduced MPPC signal amplitude by about 35% at an estimated 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence of \(2.4 \times $10^{{10}}$\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}\), and that the small timing degradation over the run is fully explained by that amplitude loss. These results matter because they set a concrete benchmark for what an MPPC-based timing barrel can deliver in a high-rate hadronic environment and where radiation damage will limit its lifetime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the barrel itself: 46 fast plastic scintillator slats, each read by three MPPCs in series at both ends, with the hit time defined as the average of the two end timings and the energy deposition as the geometric mean of the two end charges. To separate resolution contributions, the analysis uses overlapping inner/outer slat pairs and three timing combinations, \(T_{1UD}\), \(T_{1U2}\), and \(T_{1D2}\), whose measured widths are solved through a small linear system for the upstream, downstream, and outer-slat resolutions. For the radiation-damage argument, the key conversion is a Monte Carlo simulation of neutron and proton fluences at the MPPC positions, folded with non-ionizing energy loss (NIEL) scaling factors to express exposure as 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence; the damage claim is carried by the resulting amplitude-versus-fluence curve and by the empirical \(\$\Delta$ E\)-dependence of timing used to show that the timing drift is a consequence of amplitude loss.

What would settle it

Irradiate identical MPPC modules to a dosimetry-calibrated \(2.4 \times $10^{{10}}$\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}\) 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence and compare the pulse-height reduction; separately read out an irradiated scintillator slat with a fresh photodetector to test whether the scintillator light output and optical coupling stayed stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that the barrel behaves as two quasi-independent systems: a fast, rate-stable timing detector and a radiation-sensitive light-collection system. For pions (minimum-ionizing particles) the per-slat time resolution is about 75 ps; for protons depositing roughly three times more energy it improves to about 45 ps, following a \(p_0 + p_1/\sqrt{\$\Delta$ E}\) falloff until saturation near 10 MeV. Count rate alone does not degrade performance: normalized pulse height and time resolution are flat from \(5 \times $10^{4}$\) to \(1.35 \times $10^{6}$\) counts/s per slat, an improvement over the earlier prototype. What changes with accumulated exposure is signal amplitude: the downstream MPPCs, closer to the target, lose 35–37% of their pulse height by \(2.4 \times $10^{{10}}$\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}\) 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence, while the upstream MPPCs lose less, and both sides fall on a common damage curve when plotted against equivalent fluence. The observed timing deterioration over the run is reproduced quantitatively from the amplitude loss alone, so the paper concludes that the MPPCs' intrinsic timing response did not additionally degrade.

Load-bearing premise

The radiation-damage result hinges on the unvalidated simulation that converts integrated proton counts into a 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence, and on the assumption that the amplitude drop comes entirely from the MPPCs rather than from the scintillator or its optical coupling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A similar MPPC-based barrel can deliver 45–75 ps per-slat timing in a 1 T magnetic field, with the best resolution for particles depositing more than about 10 MeV.
  • Per-slat rates up to 1.35 MHz do not require amplitude or timing corrections, so the practical rate limit of this design lies above that value.
  • The 35% amplitude drop at \(2.4 \times 10^{10}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}\) gives a radiation-lifetime benchmark for planning shielding, MPPC replacement, or run length in hadronic-beam experiments.
  • Since timing degradation tracks amplitude reduction, monitoring pulse height during a run provides a direct proxy for time-resolution degradation and accumulated dose.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a validated fluence conversion would make the upstream/downstream damage curve evidence that 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence is a universal damage index for MPPCs in mixed neutron–proton fields.
  • Beyond the paper, one testable extension is to increase MPPC bias voltage after irradiation and check whether amplitude, and with it the original time resolution, recovers; the amplitude-only degradation model predicts it would.
  • Beyond the paper, the energy-deposition scaling suggests the barrel could also serve as a start-trigger or time-of-flight layer in experiments where timing is the limiting handle.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports on the construction and first operation of a 46-slat plastic scintillator barrel with three-series MPPC readout in the WASA-FRS experiment at GSI. Using 2.5 GHz waveform digitization and a software constant-fraction discriminator, the authors extract energy deposition and hit timing and study their dependence on counting rate and integrated proton dose. They report a time resolution of 45-75 ps depending on energy deposition, stable amplitude and timing up to 1.35 MHz per slat, and a roughly 35% reduction of the downstream MPPC QDC signal at an estimated 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence of 2.4e10 cm^-2. The fluence is estimated from a Geant4 FTFP_BERT_HP simulation with NIEL scaling, and the time-resolution degradation is modeled as a consequence of the measured amplitude reduction.

Significance. The direct detector-performance results are solid and useful: the timing extraction via the three correlated combinations in Eqs. (1)-(3) is internally consistent, and the rate-stability data up to 1.35 MHz per slat demonstrate a clear improvement over the prototype described in Ref. [16]. If the radiation-damage fluence scale is made robust, the ~35% amplitude reduction at 2.4e10 cm^-2 would be a valuable in-situ reference point. At present, however, the quantitative fluence and the attribution of the damage specifically to the MPPCs rest on assumptions that are not independently validated; these issues affect the central radiation-damage claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.1 (Fig. 8)] The conversion from integrated proton dose to 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence is based on a single Geant4 FTFP_BERT_HP simulation (version 10.6.1) and NIEL scaling factors, with no validation against measured fluences and no systematic uncertainty. The subsequent comparison with Refs. [9,10] and the upstream/downstream consistency shown in Fig. 9 depend directly on this conversion. The authors should either validate the simulated fluence with dosimetry (e.g., activation foils) or assign a systematic uncertainty from varying the physics list, target geometry, and NIEL factors; otherwise the quoted 2.4e10 cm^-2 value should be presented as a model-dependent estimate with an explicit caveat.
  2. [4.1 (Fig. 7)] The normalization of all QDC values to the extrapolated value at Np=0 assumes that the damage rate below the first measured point (0.05e14 protons) follows the same linear trend as the later data. Curvature or an initial damage step would change the quoted 35% reduction. The extrapolation uncertainty is not propagated into the reported amplitude loss. Please describe the extrapolation procedure, quote its uncertainty, and, if possible, normalize to an unirradiated reference counter.
  3. [4.1 / abstract] The observed QDC reduction is attributed specifically to MPPC damage, mainly from the spatial gradient that the downstream MPPC is closer to the target. However, the QDC signal is a convolution of MPPC photon-detection efficiency, gain, scintillator light yield, and optical coupling. Without a single-photoelectron gain calibration, dark-count monitoring, or an LED/light-pulse calibration, the data do not uniquely separate these contributions; localized scintillator or optical-grease damage near the target could also explain the downstream gradient. The authors should provide an independent check or soften the attribution from 'MPPC damage' to 'readout-chain damage'.
  4. [4.2 (Fig. 13)] The conclusion that no additional intrinsic time-resolution deterioration is observed is a consistency check, not an independent measurement: the predicted curves use the same measured QDC reduction and the same fitted energy-deposition dependence from Fig. 11 as the data being compared. The agreement is therefore partly by construction. The model dependence of this statement should be stated explicitly, and the paper should avoid the implication that the intrinsic timing properties of the MPPCs were measured independently.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and Fig. 1] 'W ASA' should be 'WASA' throughout the text and figure captions.
  2. [Footnote 5] 'persent' should be 'present'.
  3. [Section 4.2, formula for σ1] The expression for σ1 after 'σ1 =' is missing parentheses; for the arithmetic mean T1=(T1U+T1D)/2 the correct form is σ1 = sqrt(σ_U^2 + σ_D^2)/2. Please verify and clarify.
  4. [Figure 10 caption] '0.5–0.6 MeV/c' in the lower panel should be '0.5–0.6 GeV/c'.
  5. [Section 4.1, Geant4 discussion] The sentence describing the FTFP_BERT_HP physics list would benefit from an explicit statement that the simulated fluence has not been validated against measured fluences in this experiment, since the current wording does not convey the model dependence that the subsequent comparison relies on.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central results are direct measurements and the modeling steps are input conversions or consistency checks, not derived from the claimed outputs.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are direct measurements of a newly constructed detector: QDC peak positions, QDC widths, and time resolutions are extracted from waveform data with standard fitting procedures (Sections 3 and 4), and the high-rate stability and radiation-induced amplitude reduction are presented as measured trends versus scaler rate and integrated beam current. The 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence is obtained from a Geant4 simulation plus NIEL scaling factors (Section 4.1); this is an input conversion for the x-axis of Figure 9, not a parameter fitted to the QDC data, so it is not circular even though its accuracy is not separately validated. The apparent consistency with Refs. [9,10] is an external comparison, not a derivation. The estimated timing-degradation curves in Figure 13 use the fitted energy-deposition dependence from Figure 11 and the measured QDC reduction from Figure 7 to predict a trend, which is then compared with independently measured time resolutions; this is a consistency check, not a construction of the output from the output. The self-citation to Ref. [16] (the prototype detector) is used only for comparison of high-rate performance and is not load-bearing for any central claim. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled via citation, or renaming of a known result is present. The radiation-damage attribution to MPPCs rather than to scintillator or optical-coupling degradation is an interpretive assumption, and the fluence simulation lacks a stated systematic uncertainty, but these are validation or correctness concerns, not circularity.

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

The central claims rely on standard instrumentation assumptions and on the Geant4/NIEL fluence conversion, which carries unquantified uncertainty. The empirical fits and the z-compensation factor are fitted parameters used in the analysis, but the primary timing and amplitude results are direct measurements.

free parameters (4)
  • z-compensation factor f = 14.8 ± 0.1 ps/mm
    Fit parameter introduced in Eqs. (1)-(3) to remove longitudinal position dependence of the timing combinations; enters the time-resolution extraction through Eqs. (4)-(6).
  • Time-resolution vs energy-deposition fit parameters p0, p1 = not quoted
    Empirical fit f(ΔE)=p0+p1/sqrt(ΔE) in Fig. 11, used to estimate the expected timing degradation in Fig. 13 from measured amplitude loss.
  • QDC peak fit parameters p0-p5 = not quoted
    Empirical asymmetric-peak-plus-background functions used to extract pion and proton peak positions and widths from QDC spectra in Fig. 4.
  • Software CFD delay and fraction = 2.8 ns, 0.4
    Optimized by the authors to minimize time-walk; affects all extracted hit timings and therefore the time-resolution values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Geant4 FTFP_BERT_HP accurately simulates hadronic particle fluences at the MPPC positions
    Used in Section 4.1 to convert integrated proton counts to the 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence; the simulation is not experimentally validated and no uncertainty is assigned.
  • domain assumption NIEL scaling factors for silicon normalize mixed hadron fluences to 1 MeV neutron-equivalent values
    Standard practice based on Lindström and ASTM E722, but the paper applies it to MPPC damage without discussing silicon-specific uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Geometric mean of upstream and downstream QDC values removes longitudinal position dependence
    Relies on symmetric light attenuation and equal gains at both ends; used throughout the energy-deposition analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper QDC values can be normalized by extrapolating the radiation trend to Np=0
    Fig. 7 normalizes to the extrapolated Np=0 value, assuming the early data already contain some damage and the trend is smooth.
  • ad hoc to paper Time-resolution degradation is fully described by mapping measured amplitude reduction through the fitted energy-deposition dependence
    The estimation in Fig. 13 assumes no intrinsic MPPC timing degradation beyond the amplitude loss, which is the basis for the claim that no additional damage occurred.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance of newly constructed plastic scintillator barrel in the WASA-FRS experiments and evaluation of radiation damage effects on multi-pixel photon counter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQN4FHJS

@misc{pith2026250710454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance of newly constructed plastic scintillator barrel in the WASA-FRS experiments and evaluation of radiation damage effects on multi-pixel photon counter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQN4FHJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10454}
}
abstract

A barrel-shaped plastic scintillation counter with Multi-Pixel Photon Counter (MPPC) readout has been developed and operated in the first WASA-FRS experimental campaign at GSI. The detector was used to measure charged particles emitted from reactions induced by a 2.5 GeV proton beam incident on a carbon target, providing particle identification in combination with momentum reconstruction in a 1 T magnetic field. The performance of this detector, particularly its response to energy deposition and time resolution, was systematically investigated as a function of count rate and total number of irradiating protons. A time resolution of 45-75 ps ($\sigma$), depending on the energy deposition, was achieved. Stable performance was maintained under high-rate conditions up to 1.35 MHz per single counter, with no significant degradation in either signal amplitude or timing response. Radiation-induced damage to the MPPCs was observed primarily as a reduction in signal amplitude, with approximately $35\%$ decrease at an estimated 1 MeV neutron-equivalent fluence of $2.4 \times 10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10454 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. A three-quarter section view of the PSB and the location of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) A schematic experimental setup with the WASA central detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Examples of QDC spectra for the momentum ranges of 0.3–0.5 GeV/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A typical example of a particle identification plot. The abscissa shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized QDC values as a function of the counting rate per indi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative peak widths (FWHM) of QDC as a function of the counting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulated non-weighted fluences of protons and neutrons at the loca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized software QDC values (upper panel) and relative peak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized QDC values as a function of the integrated 1 MeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dependence of time resolutions on the energy deposition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Dependence of time resolutions on the counting rate per individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evaluated time resolutions as functions of the total number of ir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Sekiya et al

    R. Sekiya et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 1034, 166745 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    P. W. Cattaneo et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 61, 2657 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [2]

    P. W. Cattaneo et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 828, 191 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Stoykov, R

    A. Stoykov, R. Scheuermann, K. Sedlak, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 695, 202 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    Nishimura et al., Nucl

    M. Nishimura et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 958, 162785 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Korzenev et al., JPS Conf

    A. Korzenev et al., JPS Conf. Proc. 27, 011005 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Alici et al., J

    A. Alici et al., J. Instrum. 13, P09012 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Onda et al., Nucl

    R. Onda et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 936, 563 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Garutti, Yu

    E. Garutti, Yu. Musienko, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 926, 69 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Qiang et al., Nucl

    Y . Qiang et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 698, 234 (2013)

    2013

  3. [10]

    Mikhaylov et al., J

    V . Mikhaylov et al., J. Instrum. 15, C02005 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Heering et al., Nucl

    A. Heering et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 824, 111 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Ieki et al., Nucl

    K. Ieki et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 1053, 168365 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    S ´anchez Majos et al., Nucl

    S. S ´anchez Majos et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 602, 506 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    Garutti et al., arXiv:1709.05226 [physics.ins-det]

    E. Garutti et al., arXiv:1709.05226 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    M. Yu. Barnyakov et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 824, 83 (2016). 8

    2016

  9. [17]

    Bargholtz et al., Nucl

    C. Bargholtz et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A594, 339 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Adam et al

    H.-H. Adam et al. (W ASA-at-COSY Collaboration), arXiv:nucl- ex/0411038

  11. [19]

    Y . K. Tanaka et al., Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl. 16, 4-A27 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    T. R. Saito et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 542, 22 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Y . K. Tanaka et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1643, 012181 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    T. R. Saito et al., Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 803 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Geissel et al., Nucl

    H. Geissel et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 70, 286 (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    Y . K. Tanaka et al., Phys. Rev. C 97, 015202 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Ikeno et al., arXiv:2406.06058 [nucl-th]

    N. Ikeno et al., arXiv:2406.06058 [nucl-th]

  18. [26]

    Y . K. Tanaka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 202501 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Jacewicz, PhD thesis, Uppsala University (2004)

    M. Jacewicz, PhD thesis, Uppsala University (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    R. J. M. Y . Ruber et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 503, 431 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    Koch, PhD thesis, Uppsala University (2004)

    I. Koch, PhD thesis, Uppsala University (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    Jurado, K.-H

    B. Jurado, K.-H. Schmidt, K.-H. Behr, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 483, 603 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Codino, Nucl

    A. Codino, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 440, 191 (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Ohlsson, C

    M. Ohlsson, C. Peterson and A. L. Yuille, Comput. Phys. Commun. 71, 77 (1992)

    1992

  25. [33]

    H ¨oppner et al., Nucl

    C. H ¨oppner et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 620, 518 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Sekiya, in preparation for PhD thesis, Kyoto University

    R. Sekiya, in preparation for PhD thesis, Kyoto University

  27. [35]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    Allison et al., Nucl

    J. Allison et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Lindstr ¨om, Nucl

    G. Lindstr ¨om, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 512, 30 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    ASTM E722-19, Standard Practice for Characterizing Neutron Fluence Spectra in Terms of an Equivalent Monoenergetic Neutron Fluence for Radiation Hardness Testing of Electronics, ASTM International (2019). 9

    2019

Pith tools

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