Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

An active Transverse Energy Filter based on microstructured Si-PIN diodes with an angular-selective detection efficiency

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A microstructured silicon PIN diode with hexagonal holes detects electrons preferentially by their angle of incidence, an effect the paper demonstrates and matches with simulations.

desk verdict First experimental demonstration of an angular-selective silicon detector, but the proof-of-principle is softer than the abstract suggests—no flat-diode control, and the simulation match leans on a scaled curve and an unverified 12 keV threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.02598 v2 pith:EZC7H4QW submitted 2025-10-02 physics.ins-det

S. Schneidewind , K. Gauda , K. Blümer , D. Bonaventura , C. Gönner , V. Hannen , H.-W. Ortjohann , W. Pernice
show 5 more authors
L. Pöllitsch R.W.J. Salomon M. Stappers S. Wein C. Weinheimer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det
keywords angular-selectivedetectorSi-PINdiodetransverseenergyfilterelectronspectroscopyMAC-Emicrostructuredsiliconbackscatteringneutrino-massexperiment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a Si-PIN diode whose surface is etched into a honeycomb of deep hexagonal holes—with the side walls remaining active and the channel floors made insensitive—acts as an angular filter for low-energy electrons. Using a rotatable photoelectron source, the authors measured the detector's count rate as a function of incidence angle and found it rises steeply with angle, in line with Monte Carlo simulations that include electron backscattering. The underlying physics is that electrons hitting a side wall deposit energy and are counted, while near-normal electrons land on the insensitive channel floors and are lost. If the effect holds, such active transverse energy filters could suppress low-angle background electrons in MAC-E-filter spectrometers, where signal and background have similar energy but different angular spreads. The paper also shows the microstructuring degrades energy resolution and that a SiO2 passivation layer reduces dark current but did not restore full performance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the microstructured Si-PIN diode, or aTEF: a honeycomb of hexagonally arranged deep holes with etched silicon side walls that remain part of the charge-collecting depletion zone, while the channel floors and bulk are depleted only at much higher bias and therefore stay insensitive. A one-dimensional Poisson-equation model, validated by field simulation, shows that the microstructure can be fully depleted at modest reverse bias (around 30 V for 150 µm deep channels) and explains how the charge-neutrality condition shifts the potential. The measured angular response is reproduced by Monte Carlo simulation only when electron backscattering from the walls and floor is

What would settle it

Measure the angular response of a flat (unstructured) reference diode under identical illumination conditions: if a comparable rise in count rate with tilt is observed, the effect is not due to the microstructure. Alternatively, calibrate the absolute detection threshold of the microstructured diode by recording pulse-height spectra from monoenergetic electrons and check whether the simulated angular profile is reproduced when the known threshold is used.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that deep etching of a commercial Si-PIN diode into a hexagonal channel structure with active side walls and insensitive channel bottoms yields an angular-dependent detection efficiency for keV electrons. In a test stand with an angular-selective photoelectron source, the measured net signal rate increased monotonically with tilt angle from normal incidence, and the angular profile agreed with simulated profiles when backscattering of electrons in the sensitive volume was included. The authors infer that low-incidence-angle electrons are absorbed in the insensitive channel grounds, while steeper electrons hit the active side walls and produce a detectable charge signal.

Load-bearing premise

The convincing part of the claim—that the count rate rises with incidence angle—rests on a detection threshold of 12 keV that the authors estimated from past experience but never verified, so the quantitative match to simulation could be accidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An aTEF-based focal-plane detector could suppress low-angle background electrons in MAC-E-filter spectrometers, reducing background by a factor of 3–5 for the optimized geometry while leaving the steep-angle signal largely intact.
  • The same angular selectivity could be used in any magnetically guided low-energy electron beam where signal and background differ only in pitch angle, without needing tracking detectors or ΔE-E telescopes.
  • Fabrication improvements (smoother channels, thin walls, passivation) are identified as the path to practical devices; the current prototypes demonstrate the principle but degrade energy resolution.
  • The Poisson-model treatment of the microstructured depletion zone is transferable to other microstructured silicon detectors, predicting at what bias the walls become sensitive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The angular response depends sensitively on the absolute detection threshold; if the true threshold differs from the 12 keV estimate, the match to simulation might weaken, so a calibrated charge-collection measurement is the obvious next test.
  • An array of such microstructured pixels with individual readout could turn the angular filter into an imaging pitch-angle spectrometer, effectively measuring the angular distribution of the incoming electron flux in one shot.
  • Because the detector is a single diode, the same angular-selective readout could be implemented on existing silicon detector geometries without changing the electronics chain, lowering the barrier for adoption.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an 'active Transverse Energy Filter' (aTEF) based on a microstructured Si-PIN diode: deep hexagonal holes are etched from the front side so that electrons with high incidence angles hit the active side walls and produce a signal, while low-angle electrons pass into insensitive channel grounds. The authors fabricate prototypes by ICP-RIE from commercial Hamamatsu S3590 diodes, model the depletion-zone electrostatics with a 1D Poisson treatment and COMSOL, and report proof-of-principle measurements in a magnetically guided photoelectron test stand. The central experimental result is that the measured net count rate increases with detector tilt angle, and this angular profile is compared with Geant4/Penelope simulations including backscattering, with simulated counts scaled by a common factor. They also test resist removal and SiO2 passivation, observing reduced dark current but degraded detector performance.

Significance. If the angular-selective detection efficiency is real, the silicon aTEF could provide a novel, active background-suppression method for MAC-E-filter spectrometers such as KATRIN, where signal and background electrons differ mainly in incidence angle. The paper contains a direct demonstration of the qualitative effect—count rate increasing with incidence angle—and a simulation study that supports the interpretation via backscattering. The electrostatic modeling is a useful contribution, and the authors are candid about many limitations, including unverified threshold, simplified geometry, and fabrication variability. However, the absence of a flat-diode control or beam monitor leaves a plausible setup-artifact explanation for the central measurement, and the quantitative simulation comparison relies on a free scale factor and an unverified 12 keV detection threshold. These issues are load-bearing for the claim of a demonstrated angular-selective detection efficiency.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Fig. 10] The central inference is that the measured count-rate increase with tilt angle demonstrates angular-selective detection. This requires excluding tilt-dependent setup artifacts. No flat-diode control measurement under the identical tilt sequence is shown, and no beam-intensity or beam-position monitor is described. The fixed 5-mm aperture in the detector holder has a projected area that decreases as cos(theta), so the observed increase is not a trivial consequence of that geometric effect; however, other artifacts—magnetic steering, beam-spot movement across a nonuniform microstructure, source drift during the angular scan—are unquantified. The simulation comparison does not close this gap because the simulated curves are scaled by a free factor and use an unverified detection threshold. Please provide a flat-diode reference or an independent beam monitor, or explicitly restrict the claim
  2. [Sec. 4, footnote o, and Fig. 10] The quantitative agreement between measurement and simulation is weakened by two unconstrained inputs: the simulated count rate is multiplied by a free common scale factor to match the measured counts, and the detection threshold of 12 keV is stated in footnote o to be 'an estimate based on experience with the samples, but was not verified quantitatively.' Because the scale factor absorbs the absolute efficiency, the comparison only tests the shape of the angular profile. The shape match with backscattering could be fortuitous if the effective detection threshold varies with angle or if omitted effects such as surface roughness and geometry changes compensate. Please either calibrate the threshold by an independent measurement (e.g., energy-loss spectra from a flat diode) or show that the simulated angular profile is robust over a plausible range of thresholds and scale factors.
  3. [Sec. 4, simulation geometry] The simulation assumes a simplified geometry with uniform hexagonal channels, constant wall thickness, a 25-um photoresist layer, and no surface roughness or channel-geometry variation along the etch depth. Footnote o acknowledges these omissions, and Sec. 6 describes the actual prototypes as having 'inhomogeneities and an overall rough surface after microstructuring.' This mismatch between simulated and real geometry limits the strength of any quantitative conclusion about the angular-response mechanism. Please quantify the sensitivity of the simulated profile to plausible variations in wall thickness, channel depth, photoresist thickness, and surface roughness, or clearly present the simulation as illustrative rather than as a validated model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. 1] The phrase 'angular-selective photoelectron source' is not defined in the abstract. The setup actually tilts the detector relative to a magnetically guided beam; please clarify this in the abstract or introduction.
  2. [Eq. (5) and Appendix A] The condition distinguishing the two cases in Eq. (5) is written as 'U < U_aTEF' and 'U > U_aTEF', but the potential U is a function of x, while the boundary between regimes should be on the depletion width w relative to x_aTEF (as used in the text 'for w < x_aTEF'). Please correct the notation to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. 4, simulation parameters] The photoresist density is given as '1.2 g cm^-2'; presumably this should be 'g cm^-3'.
  4. [Sec. 4, Fig. 10] The top panel shows spectra with a color scale labeled 'alpha_D (°)' but the caption does not explain which curve corresponds to which angle in the bottom panel. The overlap of the two panels could be clarified in the caption.
  5. [Sec. 3] The statement that 'sensitive channels could only be demonstrated with wall thicknesses >25 um so far' is important for the applicability of the concept, but it is buried in the fabrication section. It deserves to be highlighted in the summary or outlook, because the optimal KATRIN geometry requires d = 10 um.
  6. [Sec. 5] The sentence 'Especially, all of them exhibited a reduced signal rate after the removal of the photoresist' could be more specific: is the reduction relative to the same sample before resist removal, or relative to unprocessed diodes? Please clarify the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: angular response is directly measured; simulation shape relies on independently characterized geometry, not on fitting the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that self-fabricated microstructured Si-PIN diodes show angular-dependent detection efficiency, rests on direct count-rate measurements as a function of detector tilt angle (Fig. 10). The Geant4/Penelope simulation uses channel geometry determined by optical microscopy (d = 60 um, combined channels-plus-resist depth 130 um), not fitted to the measured angular profile. The only fitted quantity is a common scale factor for absolute rate, which does not determine the angle dependence. The 12 keV detection threshold is admittedly an estimate (footnote o), but it is a charge-collection physics parameter and is not constructed from the measured angular response; the qualitative increase of count rate with incidence angle is measured directly. The cited prior work, e.g. refs. [10] and [12], introduces the aTEF concept and contains supporting characterizations, but the proof-of-principle measurement in this paper is an independent, externally observable demonstration. The KATRIN background-reduction projection is explicitly stated as conditional on simulated background distributions (Fig. 1) and is not presented as a validated measurement. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the claimed result, and no prediction is statistically forced by a fit to that result. Therefore no substantial circularity is present; the unverified threshold and lack of a flat-diode control are experimental/correctness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on measured geometry inputs, a Monte Carlo physics package, and two hand-set simulation parameters (scale factor and 12 keV threshold). No new physical entities are postulated. The Poisson-based depletion model is a supporting theoretical explanation, not the main evidence for angular selectivity.

free parameters (2)
  • simulation scale factor = Not stated (scaled to match measured counts)
    Sec. 4: 'The simulated counts were scaled by a common factor to match the measured counts, as the absolute detection efficiency of the sample is hard to determine within the measurement.' This removes absolute-efficiency predictive content but not the angular shape.
  • detection threshold in Geant4/Penelope = 12 keV
    Footnote o: 'the detection threshold of 12 keV is an estimate based on experience with the samples, but was not verified quantitatively.' A hand-set energy-deposit cut that affects the simulated angular profile.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Depletion approximation with fully ionized constant doping and 1D reduction factor δ = d/(d+b) captures microstructured-diode potentials
    Sec. 2, Eqs. (1)-(5) and Appendix A. Used to argue that sidewalls deplete at low bias while channel grounds stay insensitive; COMSOL matches the 1D case, but the 2D behavior is only simulated, not analytically derived.
  • domain assumption Penelope/Geant4 low-energy electron transport, including backscattering, correctly predicts 20 keV electron interactions in silicon, SU-8 resist, and dead layers
    Sec. 4 and refs. [20-24]. The central comparison between measurement and simulation relies on these physics models and on the simplified hexagonal geometry with a 25 μm resist layer.
  • domain assumption KATRIN background angular distributions simulated from refs. [9] and [6] are representative
    Sec. 6 and Fig. 1. The predicted factor 3-5 background reduction depends on these simulated input distributions, not on direct measurements of KATRIN background with the aTEF.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An active Transverse Energy Filter based on microstructured Si-PIN diodes with an angular-selective detection efficiency." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZC7H4QW

@misc{pith2026251002598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An active Transverse Energy Filter based on microstructured Si-PIN diodes with an angular-selective detection efficiency},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZC7H4QW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.02598}
}
read the original abstract

Si-PIN detectors can be microstructured to achieve angular-selective particle detection capabilities, which we call active Transverse Energy Filter (aTEF). The microstructuring consists of a honeycomb structure of deep hexagonally-shaped holes with active silicon side walls, while the bottom of the holes is made insensitive to ionizing radiation. The motivation for this kind of detector arises from the need to distinguish background electrons from signal electrons in a spectrometer of MAC-E filter type. We have demonstrated the angular-dependent detection efficiency of self-fabricated aTEF prototypes in a test setup using an angular-selective photoelectron source to illuminate the detector from various incidence angles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.02598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Angular distributions of signal (orange), “Rydberg” background electrons (red) and background electrons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Si-aTEF is a microstructured Si-PIN diode, in which the individual holes feature sensitive sidewalls [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Illustration of the simplification of the 3D-microstructured diode, here for the simplified example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated electric potential profile for a 2D Si-PIN diode which is microstructured in the center and flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fabrication steps for microstructuring of aTEF samples. Photolithography and ICP-RIE etching are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Picture of a (1 × 1) cm2 Hamamatsu S3590 photodiode after silicon etching. The minimum hexagon-wall thickness d achieved in the tests was limited by the ceramic packaging of the diodes, see fig. 6. It overtopped the diode by 0.7 mm around the edges. Due to the resultin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Images of microstructured Si-PIN diodes fabricated at MNF via ICP-RIE. Top: Sample with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Picture of the aTEF test setup. 1: Photoelectron source, 2: coil, 3: positioning tables, 4: detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectra of 20 keV electrons obtained during detector cool-down from room temperature to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Measured electron spectra for different incidence angles. Bottom: Comparison of measured angular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effect of surface passivation with SiO2 of 20 nm thickness. Top: Reverse current as a function of sample temperature before and after passivation. Bottom: Noise spectra at −40 ◦C measured over 60 s with the same microstructured diode before and after passivation. repo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kolanoski and N

    H. Kolanoski and N. Wermes,Particle Detectors - Fundamentals and Applications, Oxford University Press (6, 2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. for the KATRIN collaboration,The Design, Construction, and Commissioning of the KATRIN experiment,Journal of Instrumentation16(2021) T08015

    2021

  3. [3]

    Picard, H

    A. Picard, H. Backe, H. Barth, J. Bonn, B. Degen, T. Edling et al.,A solenoid retarding spectrometer with high resolution and transmission for keV electrons,Nuclear Instruments and Methods B63(1992) 345

    1992

  4. [4]

    Amsbaugh, J

    J. Amsbaugh, J. Barrett, A. Beglarian, T. Bergmann, H. Bichsel, L. Bodine et al.,Focal-plane detector system for the KATRIN experiment,Nuclear Instruments and Methods A778(2015) 40–60

    2015

  5. [5]

    Gallagher,Rydberg Atoms, Cambridge Monographs on Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics, Cambridge University Press (1994)

    T.F. Gallagher,Rydberg Atoms, Cambridge Monographs on Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics, Cambridge University Press (1994)

    1994

  6. [6]

    Trost,Modeling and measurement of Rydberg-State mediated Background at the KATRIN Main Spectrometer, Ph.D

    N.R.-M. Trost,Modeling and measurement of Rydberg-State mediated Background at the KATRIN Main Spectrometer, Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruher Institut f¨ ur Technologie (KIT), 2019. 10.5445/IR/1000090450

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Fr¨ ankle et al.,KATRIN background due to surface radioimpurities,Astroparticle Physics138(2022) 102686

    F. Fr¨ ankle et al.,KATRIN background due to surface radioimpurities,Astroparticle Physics138(2022) 102686

    2022

  8. [8]

    Lokhov et al.,Background reduction at the KATRIN experiment by the shifted analysing plane configuration,Eur

    A. Lokhov et al.,Background reduction at the KATRIN experiment by the shifted analysing plane configuration,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 258

    2022

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Hinz,Background systematics and extensions to the KATRIN background model, Ph.D

    D. Hinz,Background systematics and extensions to the KATRIN background model, Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruher Institut f¨ ur Technologie (KIT), 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Gauda, S

    K. Gauda, S. Schneidewind et al.,An active transverse energy filter to differentiate low energy particles with large pitch angles in a strong magnetic field,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 922

    2022

  3. [11]

    Garcia-Sciveres and N

    M. Garcia-Sciveres and N. Wermes,A review of advances in pixel detectors for experiments with high rate and radiation, Rept. Prog. Phys.81(2018) 066101 [1705.10150]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gauda,Studies of Background Reduction via angular-selective Electron Detection in the KATRIN Experiment, Ph.D

    K. Gauda,Studies of Background Reduction via angular-selective Electron Detection in the KATRIN Experiment, Ph.D. thesis, University of M¨ unster, 2024. 10.17879/75998406851

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Kayaku Advanced Materials,SU-8 3000 Technical Data Sheet, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Henry, C

    M. Henry, C. Welch and A. Scherer,Techniques of cryogenic reactive ion etching in silicon for fabrication of sensors,J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A27(2009) 1211

    2009

  7. [15]

    de Boer, J

    M. de Boer, J. Gardeniers, H. Jansen, E. Smulders, M.-J. Gilde, G. Roelofs et al.,Guidelines for etching silicon MEMS structures using fluorine high-density plasmas at cryogenic temperatures,Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems11 (2002) 385

    2002

  8. [16]

    Jansen, M.J

    H.V. Jansen, M.J. de Boer, S. Unnikrishnan, M.C. Louwerse and M.C. Elwenspoek,Black silicon method: X. a review on high speed and selective plasma etching of silicon with profile control: an in-depth comparison between bosch and cryostat DRIE processes as a roadmap to next gen...

    2009

  9. [17]

    Maluf,Introduction to Microelectromechanical Systems Engineering, Artech House, 2nd ed ed

    N. Maluf,Introduction to Microelectromechanical Systems Engineering, Artech House, 2nd ed ed. (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    Behrens, P

    J. Behrens, P. Ranitzsch, M. Beck et al.,A pulsed, mono-energetic and angular-selective UV photo-electron source for the commissioning of the KATRIN experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 410

    2017

  11. [19]

    Martini and T

    M. Martini and T. McMath,Trapping and detrapping effects in lithium-drifted germanium and silicon detectors,Nuclear Instruments and Methods79(1970) 259

    1970

  12. [20]

    Bar´ o, J

    J. Bar´ o, J. Sempau, J. Fern´ andez-Varea and F. Salvat,PENELOPE: An algorithm for Monte Carlo simulation of the penetration and energy loss of electrons and positrons in matter,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials an...

    1995

  13. [21]

    Asai, M.A

    M. Asai, M.A. Cort´ es-Giraldo, V. Gim´ enez-Alventosa, V. Gim´ enez G´ omez and F. Salvat,The PENELOPE physics models and transport mechanics. implementation into Geant4,Frontiers in Physics9(2021) 738735

    2021

  14. [22]

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4—a simulation toolkit,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment506(2003) 250

    2003

  15. [23]

    Allison et al.,Geant4 developments and applications,IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science53(2006) 270

    J. Allison et al.,Geant4 developments and applications,IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science53(2006) 270

    2006

  16. [24]

    J. Allison et al.,Recent developments in Geant4,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment835(2016) 186

    2016

  17. [25]

    Lim and J.M

    C.F. Lim and J.M. Tanski,Structural Analysis of Bisphenol-A and its Methylene, Sulfur, and Oxygen Bridged Bisphenol Analogs,Journal of Chemical Crystallography37(2007) 587

    2007

  18. [26]

    Mayet et al.,Surface passivation of silicon photonic devices with high surface-to-volume-ratio nanostructures,J

    A.S. Mayet et al.,Surface passivation of silicon photonic devices with high surface-to-volume-ratio nanostructures,J. Opt. Soc. Am. B35(2018) 1059. 16

    2018

  19. [27]

    M. Tao, D. Udeshi, N. Basit, E. Maldonado and W.P. Kirk,Removal of dangling bonds and surface states on silicon (001) with a monolayer of selenium,Applied Physics Letters82(2003) 1559

    2003

  20. [28]

    Burrows, Y.J

    V.A. Burrows, Y.J. Chabal, G.S. Higashi, K. Raghavachari and S.B. Christman,Infrared spectroscopy of Si(111) surfaces after HF treatment: Hydrogen termination and surface morphology,Applied Physics Letters53(1988) 998

    1988

  21. [29]

    Schultz, A

    O. Schultz, A. Mette, M. Hermle and S.W. Glunz,Thermal oxidation for crystalline silicon solar cells exceeding 19% efficiency applying industrially feasible process technology,Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications16 (2008) 317

    2008

  22. [30]

    Kim, C.H

    D.R. Kim, C.H. Lee, P.M. Rao, I.S. Cho and X. Zheng,Hybrid Si Microwire and Planar Solar Cells: Passivation and Characterization,Nano Letters11(2011) 2704

    2011

  23. [31]

    Pasanen, V

    T. Pasanen, V. V¨ ah¨ anissi, N. Theut and H. Savin,Surface passivation of black silicon phosphorus emitters with atomic layer deposited SiO2/Al2O3 stacks,Energy Procedia124(2017) 307

    2017

  24. [32]

    Hamamatsu Photonics,Si PIN photodiodes S3590 series, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Mattox,Handbook of Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) Processing, Online access with subscription: Proquest Ebook Central, Elsevier Science (2014)

    D. Mattox,Handbook of Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) Processing, Online access with subscription: Proquest Ebook Central, Elsevier Science (2014). 34.Handbook of chemistry and physics: a ready-reference book of chemical and physical data, 1984

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.