Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

A new family of diffuse reflector filaments for 3D-printed plastic scintillators cuts cube-to-cube optical crosstalk to an average of 0.7%, about five times lower than the commercial-filament reference, while matching or exceeding its light

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A new 3D-printable reflective filament made of PMMA or polycarbonate with TiO2 and PTFE reduces optical crosstalk between scintillator cells to 0.7% while matching or improving light yield.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The materials work is solid, but the headline crosstalk improvement is inflated by a threshold that zeroes out most of the signal for the new filaments. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01247 v1 pith:D5FNGNEA submitted 2025-09-01 physics.ins-det

A new diffuse reflector filament for additive manufacturing of 3D printing finely-segmented plastic scintillator

S. Berns , E. Boillat , S. Hugon , A. Boyarintsev , B. Grynyov , N. Karavaeva , A. Krech , S. Minenko
show 11 more authors
T. Sibilieva M. Sibilyev A. De Roeck T. Dieminger U. Kose B. Li A. Rubbia D. Sgalaberna T. Weber J. W\"uthrich X. Zhao
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det PACS 29.40.Mc
keywords diffuse reflector filamentplastic scintillator3D printingFused Deposition ModelingFused Injection Modelingoptical crosstalklight yieldTiO2/PTFE reflector
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 establish that custom white reflector filaments—polycarbonate (PC) or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) loaded with titanium dioxide (TiO2) and, in one formulation, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)—can be extruded into 3D-printable material that optically isolates finely segmented plastic scintillator cubes. Detector prototypes built with these filaments using the Fused Injection Modeling technique show average cube-to-cube light crosstalk of 0.7%, compared with 4% for a reference detector using a commercial white filament. The PMMA-based reflector also gives the highest light yield, about 32 photoelectrons per MIP per channel, above both the PC prototype (25) and the reference (29). If correct, finely segmented, compact scintillator detectors can be fabricated additively with improved optical isolation and no loss in light collection.

Core claim

The central claim is that a reflector filament made from PMMA with 15% TiO2, or PC with 10% TiO2 plus 5% PTFE, provides the optical isolation needed for fine-grained 3D-printed scintillators. In flat-coupon measurements at 420 nm, the PC formulation reaches 86.2% reflectivity with 0.55% transmittance at 0.4 mm thickness; the PMMA formulation reaches about 92% reflectivity at 0.2 mm, at the cost of higher transmittance. In SuperLayer prototypes read out by wavelength-shifting fibers and MPPCs, both formulations give average crosstalk of 0.7%, versus 4% for the SuperCube reference made with commercial filament, and the PMMA SuperLayer gives about 32 photoelectrons per MIP per channel. The pape

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the extruded reflector filaments themselves—PC or PMMA loaded with TiO2 and PTFE—whose diffuse reflectivity and low transmittance at the scintillator emission wavelength determine whether adjacent scintillator cubes stay optically isolated. They are deployed through Fused Injection Modeling (FIM), where a hollow matrix of reflective filament is 3D-printed and then filled with molten scintillator at about 230°C. The measured quantity that carries the detector-level argument is cube-to-cube crosstalk, the ratio of light seen by a channel reading an adjacent cube to the light in the cube actually traversed by the particle.

Load-bearing premise

Flat 20 x 20 mm printed coupons used for reflectivity and transmittance measurements are taken as representative of the 1-mm reflective walls in the actual FIM-produced SuperLayers after injection molding at about 230°C; the paper reports no optical characterization of the in-detector walls.

What would settle it

Cut the actual 1-mm reflective walls out of a finished SuperLayer and measure their reflectivity and transmittance at 420 nm; if the in-detector walls transmit more than about 1% or reflect below about 80%, the 0.7% crosstalk and light-yield claims would need revision.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Finely segmented plastic scintillator detectors can be produced additively with optical isolation sufficient for particle tracking and calorimetry, without subtractive post-processing.
  • The PMMA+TiO2 formulation gives the highest light yield among the tested reflectors, so applications that maximize signal may prefer PMMA even though its transmittance is higher.
  • The crosstalk improvement from 4% to 0.7% means finer segmentation can be considered, because light leakage between 1-cm cubes no longer dominates the detector response.
  • The reflector filaments survive the injection step at roughly 230°C, confirming FIM as a viable route to hybrid 3D-printed detectors with injection-molded scintillator cores.
  • The PC formulation, with its lower transmittance, may be the better choice when very thin reflective walls or maximum pixel isolation are required.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The optical characterization was performed on flat printed coupons, not on the actual 1-mm walls after FIM injection; thermal exposure, layer adhesion, or porosity changes in the real detector could shift reflectivity and transmittance, so the 0.7% crosstalk figure may depend on prototyping conditions.
  • Because PMMA's reflectivity advantage comes with higher transmittance, there is likely an optimal wall thickness and additive loading for each base polymer that balances light yield and isolation; this paper samples only a few compositions.
  • The same filament approach could be tested at finer segmentation, such as 5-mm or smaller cubes, where per-face crosstalk becomes more critical, or with scintillators emitting at wavelengths other than 420 nm.
  • The finding that PTFE helps in PC but not in PMMA hints that matrix transparency controls whether mixed additives pay off; a systematic study varying matrix refractive index and scattering-particle concentration could predict formulations for other polymers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the development and characterization of new white reflective filaments for FDM/FIM fabrication of finely segmented plastic scintillators. Polycarbonate (PC) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) filaments loaded with TiO2 and PTFE were investigated. Optical reflectivity and transmittance were measured on 3D-printed flat coupons of various thicknesses, and two 'SuperLayer' detector prototypes were built with the FIM method using 1 mm thick reflective walls. These prototypes were tested with cosmic rays and compared to a previously built 'SuperCube' detector using a commercial reflector filament. The paper claims the new filaments provide lower optical crosstalk (average 0.7% vs 4% for SuperCube) and comparable or higher light yield (about 32 p.e./MIP/channel for PMMA-based SuperLayer).

Significance. If the crosstalk and light-yield claims are robust, this is a useful technical step for 3D-printed finely segmented scintillator detectors, since optical isolation is a key challenge in this geometry. The strength of the paper is the direct spectrophotometric characterization of a range of filament formulations, referenced to a BaSO4 standard, and a comparative detector-level measurement against an established baseline (SuperCube). The contribution is incremental but relevant to ongoing efforts in additive manufacturing for particle detectors. However, the central quantitative claim of a factor-of-five crosstalk improvement is currently not supported with sufficient rigor, because the crosstalk analysis applies a 0.7 p.e. threshold that censors the very signals needed to establish low crosstalk for the new prototypes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 8 (right panel)] The crosstalk comparison is systematically biased by the analysis threshold. The text states that all crosstalk-channel signals below 0.7 p.e. are set to zero and that mean crosstalk is 0.7% for the new prototypes and 4.0% for SuperCube. With a main-channel MIP signal of ~25–32 p.e., a true crosstalk of 0.7% corresponds to ~0.2 p.e., well below the 0.7 p.e. threshold, so most genuine crosstalk events are censored and the reported 0.7% is a lower bound. In contrast, SuperCube's 4% crosstalk corresponds to ~1.2 p.e., which is above threshold and much less affected. The apparent factor-of-five improvement is therefore not established by the current analysis. Please report the fraction of events below threshold, the crosstalk distribution without zero-suppression, a fit to the uncensored distribution, or a threshold scan, together with a systematic uncertainty on the mean crosstalk.
  2. [Section II.A and Section IV] The optical properties that underpin the performance claims are measured on flat 20 x 20 mm coupons printed at 265 °C, whereas the SuperLayer reflective walls are 1 mm thick and are produced through the FIM process, in which the printed mold is exposed to molten scintillator at about 230 °C. The paper does not report optical characterization of the actual in-detector walls after FIM. Given that PMMA has a glass transition temperature of 85–105 °C and PC roughly 140 °C, thermal exposure, pressure, and layer adhesion during FIM could change porosity, reflectivity, and transmittance. The representativeness of the coupon measurements for the as-built detector walls is an unsupported assumption that directly affects the light-yield and crosstalk conclusions.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 8] The detector-level results are reported as point values without statistical or systematic uncertainties: light-yield MPVs of 25.20, 32.33, and 29.27 p.e., and crosstalk means of 0.7%, 0.7%, and 4.0%. No number of events, fit function, fit uncertainty, or systematic error estimate is given. Without uncertainties, the comparison between prototypes cannot be quantitatively assessed, and the claim that PMMA outperforms SuperCube in light yield is not statistically supported. Please provide uncertainties and describe the fitting procedure used to extract the quoted values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.4, text near Table I] There is a likely typo: the text says 'PC-based samples exhibit higher light transmittance than PMMA-based samples', but Table I shows PMMA samples have higher transmittance (e.g., 3.69% vs 0.55% at 0.4 mm). Please correct.
  2. [Section II.A] The printing temperature is stated as '265°' without units; specify °C. Also, the extrusion and printing parameters (layer height, nozzle diameter, raster angle) are not reported, which may affect reproducibility of the optical measurements.
  3. [Figure 8 caption / text] The left panel is called 'single channel light yield distributions' but the text quotes MPV per channel; clarify whether the distributions are per-channel, per-event, and what fraction of events pass the track-selection criteria.
  4. [Section III.2 and Table I] The claim that 20% TiO2 'led to decreased performance' is explained by brittleness and porosity, but no mechanical or microscopic evidence is provided. This is a minor issue, but a reference or measurement would strengthen the interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central claims rest on direct measurements and a re-measured reference detector; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—reflectivity/transmittance of printed coupons and the light-yield/crosstalk of FIM SuperLayers—are supported by direct measurements: spectrophotometry against a BaSO4 standard (Sec. II.A, Sec. III) and a cosmic-ray setup with MPPC readout comparing the PMMA- and PC-based SuperLayers against the SuperCube in the same stack (Sec. IV). No equation is fitted to the claimed outputs, and no parameter is adjusted to force the 0.7% vs 4% crosstalk or the 32 p.e./MIP/channel result. The self-citations (e.g., [19], [31], [32]) provide the filament-production method, the FIM technique, and the SuperCube reference hardware, but the SuperCube is re-measured in this paper, so its performance is not imported as a number from prior work. The 0.7 p.e. threshold applied to crosstalk channels is a potential source of bias—true sub-threshold crosstalk is set to zero—but this is a measurement/robustness limitation, not a circular derivation, because the same threshold is applied to all detectors and the reported means are not mathematically forced by the threshold alone. Similarly, the assumption that flat printed coupons represent in-detector walls after FIM is an extrapolation weakness, not a circular step. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by definition or by fitted parameter.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a few domain assumptions about how coupon optical data translate to detector performance and about the comparability of the SuperCube baseline. The free parameters are material concentrations, wall thickness, the crosstalk threshold, and the comparison wavelength, all chosen by measurement or design. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Reflective additive concentrations in filament = PC: 10% TiO2 + 5% PTFE; PMMA: 15% TiO2 (also 10% TiO2 + 5% PTFE)
    Chosen by scanning powder and printed-sample reflectivity; no model fit. These concentrations are the basis for the prototype walls.
  • Reflective wall thickness in detector prototype = 1 mm
    Selected for the SuperLayer prototypes; not varied in detector tests, though coupon data cover 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 mm.
  • Crosstalk analysis threshold = 0.7 p.e.
    Applied to crosstalk channels; signals below threshold are set to zero before computing the mean crosstalk, directly affecting the reported 0.7% value.
  • Comparison wavelength = 420 nm
    Chosen to match the polystyrene scintillator emission peak; used for all headline reflectivity and transmittance numbers.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Higher reflectivity and lower transmittance of the printed wall improve light yield and reduce crosstalk in the segmented scintillator detector.
    This is the design principle motivating the material selection; it is not independently validated in the paper beyond the two prototype measurements.
  • domain assumption Optical properties measured on flat 20x20 mm printed coupons are representative of the 1 mm thick walls inside the FIM-produced detector.
    The paper does not measure the actual walls in the SuperLayers; the detector-level results are interpreted through the coupon data.
  • domain assumption The vertical cosmic-ray selection yields a comparable energy deposition (about 1.8 MeV/cm) in the SuperLayer and the SuperCube center layer.
    Used to compare light yields across detectors; no muon momentum or path-length correction is described.
  • domain assumption The SuperCube center layer is a valid performance baseline despite differences in detector size, commercial filament, and manufacturing history.
    The comparison relies on the SuperCube being a representative past prototype; differences in cube geometry or readout could bias the comparison.
  • standard math The BaSO4 reference in the integrating sphere provides a 100% reflectance standard.
    Standard practice for diffuse reflectance measurements; the paper notes PTFE powder can exceed 100% relative to BaSO4.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new diffuse reflector filament for additive manufacturing of 3D printing finely-segmented plastic scintillator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5FNGNEA

@misc{pith2026250901247,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new diffuse reflector filament for additive manufacturing of 3D printing finely-segmented plastic scintillator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5FNGNEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01247}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

This study presents the development and characterization of a novel white reflective filament suitable for additive manufacturing of finely segmented plastic scintillators using 3D printing. The filament is based on polycarbonate (PC) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) polymers loaded with titanium dioxide (TiO$_2$) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) to enhance reflectivity. A range of filament compositions and thicknesses was evaluated through optical reflection and transmittance measurements. Reflective layers were made by using the Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technique. A 3D-segmented plastic scintillator prototype was made with fused injection modeling (FIM) and tested with cosmic rays to assess the light yield and the optical crosstalk. The results demonstrate the feasibility of producing compact and modular 3D-printed scintillator detectors with a performance analogous to standard plastic scintillator detectors, with lower light crosstalk, thus higher light yield, compared to past works, owing to the improved optical properties of the reflector material.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The results are sum­ marized in Fig

    Reflectivity of Additive Powders Pressed powder samples of candidate reflective addi­ tives were prepared, and then the optical reflection mea­ surements were performed to evaluate their performance independently of polymer matrices. The results are sum­ marized in Fig. 2. As shown, in the region of scintillation polystyrene luminescence, at 429 nm, pure ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    These filaments were used to 3D-print samples of different thicknesses (0.2 mm, 0.4 mm, and 1.0 mm), which were then opti­ cally characterized

    SD-Printed PC-based Filament Samples Following the powder reflectivity tests, effective fila­ ments were fabricated using polycarbonate (PC) as the base polymer, combined with various concentrations of Ti0 2 and PTFE as reflective additives. These filaments were used to 3D-print samples of different thicknesses (0.2 mm, 0.4 mm, and 1.0 mm), which were the...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Light Transmittance of PC-based Samples The light transmittance measurement of different sam­ ples with various thicknesses is presented in Fig. 4. The reflectivity reaches the few percent level already with a thickness of 0.4 mm. Although 0.2 mm-thick samples also provide satisfactory performance, their reflectance is found to be 2-3% worse than that of ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    SuperLayers

    Comparison with PMMA-based Filaments To assess the potential of PMMA as an alternative base polymer, the same additive mixture (10% Ti02 and 5% PTFE) was introduced into PMMA filaments. Samples were printed in various thicknesses and charac­ terized under identical conditions. As shown in Fig. 5, PMMA-based samples exhibited both higher reflectivity and h...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Korzenev et al., JINST 17 (01), P01016, arXiv:2109.03078 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Korzenev et al., JINST 17 (01), P01016, arXiv:2109.03078 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Amaudruz et al., Nucl

    P.-A. Amaudruz et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 696, 1 (2012), arXiv:1204.3666 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Aliaga et al

    L. Aliaga et al. (MINERvA), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 743, 130 (2014), arXiv:arXiv:1305.5199 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    D. G. Michael et al. (MINOS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 596, 190 (2008), arXiv:0805.3170 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Allan et al., JINST 8, P10019, arXiv:1308.3445 [physics.ins-det]

    D. Allan et al., JINST 8, P10019, arXiv:1308.3445 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Joram, U

    C. Joram, U. Uwer, B. D. Leverington, T. Kirn, S. Bach­ mann, R. J. Ekelhof, and J. Miiller, LHCb Scintillating Fibre Tracker Engineering Design Review Report: Fibres, Mats and Modules, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Andreev et al., Nucl

    V. Andreev et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 564, 144 (2006)

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Abreu et al

    Y. Abreu et al. (SoLid), JINST 12 (04), P04024, arXiv:1703.01683 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Blonde! et al., JINST 13 (02), P02006, arXiv:1707.01785 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Blonde! et al., JINST 13 (02), P02006, arXiv:1707.01785 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Gwon et al., Phys

    S. Gwon et al., Phys. Rev. D 107, 032012 (2023), arXiv:2211.17037 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Harper and E

    C. Harper and E. Petrie, Plastics Materials and Pro- 7 91.95% at 0.2 mm thickness. The addition of PTFE to PMMA did not improve the performance, likely due to the inherently lower light absorption and higher trans­ parency of the PMMA matrix. In such optically trans­ parent environments, multi-component formulations may not yield additional benefit, altho...

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    Appel, G

    R. Appel, G. Atoyan, B. Ba.ssaJleck, E. Battiste, D. Bergman, K. BOsiger, D. Brown, V. Castillo, N. Cheung, S. Dhawan, H. Do, J. Egger, S. Eilerts, C. Felder, H. Fischer, H. Gach, R. Giles, S. Gni­ nenko, W. Herold, J. Hotmer, V. Issakov, 0. Kar­ avichev, H. Kaspar, D. Kraus, D. Lazarus, V. Lebe­ dev, L. Leipuner, P. Lichard, J. Lowe, J. Lozano, T. Lu, H....

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    Thevenin, L

    J. Thevenin, L. Allemand, E. Locci, P. Micolon, S. Palanque, and M. Spiro, Nuclear Instruments and Methods 169, 53 (1980)

    work page 1980

  18. [18]

    PlarDaJmau, A

    A. PlarDaJmau, A. D. Bross, and K. L. Mellott, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 466, 482 (2001)

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    Boyarintsev et al., JINST 16 (12), P12010, arXiv:2108.11897 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Boyarintsev et al., JINST 16 (12), P12010, arXiv:2108.11897 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Berns, A

    S. Berns, A. Boyarintsev, S. Hugon, U. Kose, D. SgaJ­ aberna, A. De Roeck, A. Lebedynskiy, T. Sibilieva, and P. Zhmurin, JINST 15 (10), 10, arXiv: arXiv:2011.09859 [phy sics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    Sibilieva et al., JINST 18 {03), P03007, arXiv:2212.13394 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Sibilieva et al., JINST 18 {03), P03007, arXiv:2212.13394 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    Berns, E

    S. Berns, E. Boillat, A. Boyarintsev, A. D. Roecl<, S. Dolan, A. Gendotti, B. Grynyov, S. Hugon, U. Kase, S. Kovalchuk, B. Li, A. Rubbia, T. Sibilieva, D. Sgal­ aberna, T. Weber, J. Wuthrich, X. Zhao, and T. D. col­ laboration, Journal of Instrumentation 17 {10), P10045

    work page

  23. [23]

    Sibilieva, A

    T. Sibilieva, A. Boyarintsev, A. Krech, et al., Functional Materials 31 ( 4), 646 {2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Lynch, T

    N. Lynch, T. Monajerni, and J. L. Robar, Biomedical Physics Engineering Express 6, 055014 {2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    A. Barr, C. da Via, M. T. B. Shawkat, S. Watts, J. Al­ lison, and G. D' Amen, A neutron sensitive detector using 3d-printed scintillators {2025), arXiv:2507.08663 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Mishnayot, M

    Y. Mishnayot, M. Layani, I. Cooperstein, S. Magdassi, and G. Ron, Review of Scientific Instruments 85, 085102 {2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4891703

    doi:10.1063/1.4891703 2014

  27. [27]

    Y. Kim, N. Za.itseva, M. J. Ford, L. Carman, A. Glenn, M. Febbraro, and P. Hausladen, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler­ ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip­ ment 1055, 168537 {2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Chandler, D

    C. Chandler, D. H. Porcincula, M. J. Ford, C. Hook, X. Zhang, J. Brodsky, and A. Sellinger, ACS Applied Polymer Materials 4, 4069 {2022), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.2c00316

    doi:10.1021/acsapm.2c00316 2022

  29. [29]

    B. G. Frandsen, M. Febbraro, T. Ruland, T. W. Stephens, P. A. Hausladen, J. J. Manfredi, and J. E. Bevins, Journal of Nuclear Engineering 4, 241 {2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    geon Kim, S

    D. geon Kim, S. Lee, J. Park, J. Son, T. H. Kim, Y. H. Kim, K. Pak, and Y. K. Kim, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 52, 2910 {2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Stowell, Z

    P. Stowell, Z. Kutz, S. Fargher, and L. Thompson, Jour­ nal of Instrumentation 16 {01), P01003

    work page

  32. [32]

    T. D. Dolezal, J. J. Manfredi, B. G. Frandsen, J. E. Bevins, C. Gautam, T. W. Stephens, T. Ruland, and M. T. Febbraro, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome­ ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1056, 168602 {2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Chandler, D

    C. Chandler, D. H. Porcincula, M. J. Ford, T. J. Kolibaba, B. Fein-Ashley, J. Brodsky, J.P. Killgore, and A. Sellinger, Additive Manufacturing 73, 103688 {2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Weber, A

    T. Weber, A. Boyarintsev, U. Kose, B. Li, D. Sgal­ abema, T. Sibilieva, J. Wiithrich, S. Berns, E. Boillat, A. De Roecl<, T. Dieminger, M. Franks, B. Grynyov, S. Hugon, C. Jaeschke, and A. Rubbia, Communications Engineering 4, 41 {2025). 8

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Li et al., JINST 20 {04), P04008, arXiv:2412.10174 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Li et al., JINST 20 {04), P04008, arXiv:2412.10174 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    com/ product/noztek-pro/

    Extruder N oztek Pro HT, https : //noztek. com/ product/noztek-pro/

    work page

  37. [37]

    Noztek Filament Winder 1.0, https://noztek.com/ product/noztek-filam.ent-winder-1-0/

    work page

  38. [38]

    creatbot

    3D printer Creatbot F430, https: II=. creatbot . com/ en/creatbot-f430.html

    work page

  39. [39]

    CAEN DT5202, https: II=. caen. it/products/ dt5202/. VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the joint grant IZURZ2--224819 of the Swiss National Science Founda­ tion (SNSF) and the National Research Foundation of Ukraine (NRFU). This work was also supported by the SNSF grant PCEFP2--203261. VII. AUTHOR INFORMATION A. Authors and Affiliations A. K...

    work page

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.