Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper proposes a cryogenic source that could deliver atomic tritium fluxes above 10^15 s^-1 at ~100 mK, enabling precision tritium spectroscopy and a next-generation neutrino-mass measurement.

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 ↗

T0 review

2026-08-03 22:51 UTC pith:M34BKE3T

load-bearing objection The headline flux is an in-film production estimate, not a demonstrated trap-entrance delivery; the concept is honest and well-grounded, but the abstract overstates what's been shown. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.08313 v3 pith:M34BKE3T submitted 2025-11-11 physics.atom-ph nucl-exphysics.ins-detquant-ph

Cryogenic source of atomic tritium for neutrino-mass measurements and precision spectroscopy

Aleksei Semakin , Janne Ahokas , Tom Kiilerich , Sergey Vasiliev , Francois Nez , Pauline Yzombard , Valery Nesvizhevsky , Eberhard Widmann
show 4 more authors
Paolo Crivelli Caroline Rodenbeck Marco R\"ollig Magnus Schl\"osser
This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph nucl-exphysics.ins-detquant-ph
keywords atomic tritiumcryogenic dissociatormagnetic trappingbuffer-gas coolingneutrino mass1S-2S spectroscopybeta decaylow-field-seeking atoms
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 paper proposes a way to make large numbers of atomic tritium atoms that are slow enough to be caught in a magnetic trap. It argues that a frozen film of T2 can be dissociated below 1 K by RF discharge electrons plus tritium's own beta-decay electrons, and that the atoms can be cooled by helium buffer gas and kept away from surfaces by a magnetic field gradient. If the estimates hold, fluxes above 10^15 atoms per second at ~100 mK would become available, which would allow Doppler-free two-photon 1S–2S spectroscopy of atomic tritium and a tritium beta-decay endpoint measurement with neutrino-mass sensitivity below the inverted-ordering scale. The gain over molecular T2 sources is that atomic tritium has no molecular final-state excitations broadening the beta spectrum.

Core claim

The central claim is that a cryogenic source can deliver atomic tritium fluxes exceeding 10^15 s^-1 at kinetic energies around 100 mK at the entrance of a magnetic trap. The source combines three elements: dissociation of a solid T2 film by electrons from a pulsed RF discharge, additional dissociation by beta-decay electrons inside the film that generate roughly 50–200 atoms per decay, and transport through helium buffer gas in a tube with a radial magnetic barrier so the T atoms never touch a wall. The paper evaluates adsorption, solvation, spin exchange, and recombination as the limiting processes and concludes that none of them prevents the target flux. The in-film production rate is esti

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of a cryogenic dissociator for solid hydrogen isotopes with buffer-gas cooling and radial magnetic confinement: a copper chamber with a frozen T2 layer and a superfluid helium film, a helical RF resonator creating ~1 ms discharge pulses, a temperature gradient that condenses helium vapor and decouples the gas, and sextupole or octupole coils providing a ~2 K radial barrier so the atoms stay in the gas phase. Beta-decay self-dissociation is the other key mechanism: each 5.7 keV electron from tritium decay produces about 50 atoms in a thin film, and the authors estimate that this scales to 200 atoms per decay for a 1 µm film, giving a production ra

Load-bearing premise

The central bet is that tritium atoms produced inside the solid T2 film leave the film as gas and travel along the transfer tube to the magnetic trap without touching a wall; the paper estimates the in-film production rate but does not compute this extraction and transport fraction.

What would settle it

The claim would be falsified by a direct measurement in a prototype dissociator: if, at 0.2–0.4 K with helium buffer gas and a 1 µm T2 film, the flux of gas-phase atomic tritium at the end of the transfer line falls below ~10^15 s^-1, or if no atomic T signal is detected at all, the production/extraction chain does not work as assumed. A simpler test is to compare atom production rates for a 250 nm and a 1 µm T2 film; if the rate does not scale with thickness, the linear-scaling assumption fails.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Doppler-free 1S–2S spectroscopy of atomic tritium becomes feasible, giving a triton charge radius measurement that tests few-body QED and ties together electronic, muonic, and scattering determinations of nuclear sizes.
  • A beta-decay endpoint measurement with atomic tritium avoids molecular final-state broadening, potentially improving the neutrino-mass limit by an order of magnitude and reaching below the inverted-ordering scale.
  • The same source can produce a slow beam of low-field-seeking deuterium atoms, serving as a benchmark for loading magnetic traps and for precision spectroscopy of D.
  • Pulsed operation with ~2 × 10^13 atoms per 1 ms pulse could be combined with Zeeman deceleration to produce slow beams at room temperature for experiments such as gravitational quantum states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The least-constrained step is the film-to-gas extraction efficiency: the paper estimates the in-film production rate but does not compute what fraction of those atoms actually leaves the T2 film and survives the trip to the trap; a prototype measurement at 0.2–0.4 K would settle whether the 10^15 s^-1 flux is real.
  • Because T–T scattering has a large negative scattering length and enhanced dipolar relaxation, trap loading may require higher flux than hydrogen loading; the source estimate already includes headroom, but the actual tolerable loss depends on trap volume and density.
  • The 50–200 atoms per beta-decay figure is based on a thin-film measurement at 250 nm; scaling to 1 µm assumes linear thickness and that the superfluid helium coating prevents thermal explosions in thicker films. Both assumptions are testable by measuring atom production in films of varying thickness.
  • The same buffer-gas-plus-magnetic-barrier transport concept could extend to other reactive species that cannot be wall-confined, though tritium is the most demanding case.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cryogenic source of atomic tritium based on pulsed RF dissociation of a solid T2 film below 1 K, augmented by self-dissociation from tritium beta-decay electrons. The atoms are to be cooled by 4He/3He buffer gas and confined radially by magnetic field gradients during transport to a magnetic trap. The central quantitative claim, stated in the abstract and conclusions, is that atomic-tritium fluxes exceeding 10^15 s^-1 at kinetic energies of ~100 mK can be delivered at the entrance of a magnetic trap. The design is motivated by applications to 1S-2S spectroscopy (triton charge radius) and to beta-decay neutrino-mass measurements. Section III.B contains the main estimate: a 1-µm T2 film with ~3x10^-3 moles yields a beta-decay rate of ~10^13 s^-1; using the measured ~50 atoms per beta decay gives a 'lower bound' of ~5x10^14 s^-1, and assuming linear scaling with film thickness gives ~2x10^15 s^-1.

Significance. If the claimed flux were actually delivered at the trap entrance, the source would be a major enabling step for tritium spectroscopy and for next-generation neutrino-mass experiments, which is a high-impact result. The paper builds on genuine experimental anchors: the Turku group's H dissociator fluxes (~10^14 s^-1, ref. [20]) and the measured ~50 T atoms per beta decay in 250-nm films (ref. [49]). It also honestly reviews the known obstacles — adsorption, solvation, and recombination — rather than ignoring them. However, the headline claim as written is not supported by the assembled estimates: the paper computes an in-film production rate, not a gas-phase flux at the trap entrance, and the extraction/transport efficiency is never quantified. The concept is defensible as a proposal, but the quantitative claim needs to be either substantially weakened or backed by a transport model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §III.B] The abstract and conclusions claim a delivered flux 'at the entrance of a magnetic trap' exceeding 10^15 s^-1, but §III.B only calculates a production rate 'of atoms in solid T2' (N_T ≈ 5x10^14 s^-1, or ≈2x10^15 s^-1 with the linear-thickness assumption). No desorption, extraction, or transport fraction from the T2 film to the trap entrance is computed. This is load-bearing because the only T gas-phase observation below 8 K (ref. [27]) found no signal below 8 K, and §II.A states that T 'cannot be stabilized in a container lined with the 4He helium film' due to solvation (E_s = 6-7 K). The proposed radial magnetic barrier and buffer-gas thermalization are plausible but remain schematic; the manuscript does not estimate the fraction of atoms that survive wall collisions, solvation, and recombination. Either a transport-efficiency estimate (even a rough one) must be added, or the central cl
  2. [§III.B] The factor of four between the 'lower bound' and the headline estimate rests entirely on the assumption that the 50-atoms-per-beta-decay yield measured in a 250-nm film scales linearly with thickness to 1 µm ('If we assume that the efficiency scales linearly with thickness, then it should increase to 200 events/decay'). No physical model is given for this scaling. The measured yield in the thin film already integrates beta-electron energy loss, atom diffusion, and in-film recombination; these processes need not scale linearly with thickness. The paper should either justify the scaling with a model or present the 2x10^15 s^-1 number only as an optimistic scenario, not as part of the main conclusion.
  3. [§II.A, §III.B] Even the lower-bound production rate assumes that atoms created inside the solid T2 matrix can leave the film and enter the gas phase. The paper does not discuss the escape mechanism from the solid matrix, passage through the overlaid superfluid helium film, or the competition with recombination during diffusion. Given that §II.A identifies the helium-film-covered wall as a severe loss channel for T, the absence of any quantitative loss budget between film production and the beginning of the transport tube is a serious gap. A single efficiency factor (even an order-of-magnitude estimate) would make the claim testable; without it, the numbers in §III.B cannot be compared with the abstract's 'flux at the entrance of a magnetic trap.'
  4. [Introduction; §III.B; Conclusions] The abstract states that the flux is achieved at kinetic energies of ~100 mK, but the quantitative analysis in §III.B is for buffer-gas temperatures of 0.4 K (4He) and 0.2 K (5% 3He-4He). Reaching ~100 mK is mentioned as an evaporative-cooling possibility ('we present how evaporative cooling during gas transport... can be used for reaching even lower temperatures'), but no derivation, estimate, or feasibility check is provided. Since the claimed energy is part of the central selling point for magnetic trapping and spectroscopy, this step should either be quantified or the claim should be restricted to the 0.2-0.4 K range with 100 mK presented as a future goal.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II.B / Table I] Table I lists 'T exp >10000' for the recombination cross-length l_rec, apparently from ref. [27]. Since that experiment did not stabilize T gas below 1 K, the meaning of this entry is unclear; a brief explanation would help.
  2. [General] There are numerous typographical slips that should be corrected: 'for for' in the Table II caption, 'HEV AC' for HEVAC, 'in sold T2' for 'in solid T2', and inconsistent spacing in '10 15 s−1' throughout the text.
  3. [References] Ref. [44] is cited as 'W. Swalley, Can. J. Chem. 82, 709 (1991)', but the correct author name for this series is most likely W. Stwalley; please verify and standardize.
  4. [§III.B] The sentence 'The average flux of 1015 atoms/s considered above consists of pulses 1 ms long followed by a 20 ms delay' appears without a preceding derivation of the 10^15 average flux; the reader is left to infer that this refers to the production-rate estimate. Please make the connection explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the headline flux is a production-rate estimate whose transport to the trap is not quantified, but the central estimate is based on independent measured inputs rather than on the result it claims to predict.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative chain is: (i) geometric T2 inventory gives ~1e13 beta decays/s; (ii) a prior ESR/ENDOR measurement [49] gives ~50 atoms per beta decay in 250 nm films; (iii) assuming linear thickness scaling to 1 µm gives ~2e15 atoms/s in the solid film. These are forward calculations from experimental inputs, not parameters fitted to the target flux, so no step is circular in the fit/predict sense. The abstract and conclusion quote this in-film production rate as a 'flux ... at the entrance of a magnetic trap' even though no desorption/transport efficiency is computed; that is a substantive missing validation (the paper itself defers to 'experimental tests of the source prototype'), but equating production with delivered flux is an unsupported assumption rather than an equivalence by construction. Self-citations [20] and [49] are load-bearing as measured reference values, but they are independent experiments and not unverified uniqueness or ansatz authorities; therefore they do not create circularity under the rules.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The load-bearing inputs are (a) measured values from the authors' prior experiments (H flux, T-in-film yields), (b) theoretical extrapolations for tritium surface and collision parameters, and (c) two explicit scaling assumptions (thickness, RF power) that lift the estimate past the headline threshold.

free parameters (3)
  • beta-dissociation yield scaling with film thickness = factor 4 (50 to 200 atoms per beta decay)
    Assumed linear scaling in §III.B ('If we assume that the efficiency scales linearly with thickness'); without it, the measured-only yield gives ~5×10^14 s^-1, below the advertised flux.
  • RF-power-to-flux scaling = 50× (10^14 to 5×10^15 s^-1 at 50 mW)
    §III.B: 'it can be ≳50 mW, which may potentially increase the atomic flux by a factor of 50'. Assumes flux scales linearly with RF power, although the measured H data saturate at 1 mW and collapse at ~2 mW.
  • dissociator operating temperatures = 0.4 K (pure 4He), 0.2 K (5% 3He-4He)
    Chosen operating points where the He vapor mean free path is comparable to the 1 cm tube diameter; presented as estimates, not derived from first principles.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Tritium adsorption and solvation energies on helium films (E_a ≈ 4-5 K on 4He, E_s ≈ 6-7 K in 4He) take the theoretical values used in Table I.
    Table I: theory only, no experiments for T; used to argue walls must be avoided, motivating the buffer-gas + magnetic design.
  • domain assumption T-T scattering length a_T ≈ -43 Å and T-4He elastic cross-section σ_el = 3.6×10^3 Ų are correct.
    Table II and refs. [42,44]; determines trap lifetime and buffer-gas thermalization. The T-4He value is explicitly extrapolated (*) from 3He data; [42] is a recent preprint.
  • domain assumption The cryogenic RF dissociator produces ~10^14 s^-1 of low-field-seeking H, and D fluxes are 5-10× lower.
    Refs. [20,22,31] (partly the authors' own group); the baseline from which T fluxes are scaled.
  • domain assumption Beta-decay self-dissociation of T2 yields ~50 atoms per decay, as measured for 250-nm films.
    Ref. [49], authors' own group; central input to the flux estimate, extrapolated to 1 µm films.
  • standard math The adsorption isotherm σ = nΛ e^{-E_a/T} (Eq. 1) governs surface coverage.
    The printed sign is inconsistent with the text ('surface coverage increases exponentially below 1 K') and with the standard σ ∝ exp(+E_a/T); a typo in a load-bearing formula.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cryogenic source of atomic tritium for neutrino-mass measurements and precision spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M34BKE3T

@misc{pith2026251108313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cryogenic source of atomic tritium for neutrino-mass measurements and precision spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M34BKE3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.08313}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We propose a concept for a cryogenic source of atomic tritium at sub-Kelvin temperatures and energies suitable for magnetic trapping. The source is based on the dissociation of solid molecular T2 films below 1 K by electrons from a pulsed RF discharge, a technique recently demonstrated for atomic hydrogen, combined with buffer-gas cooling and magnetic confinement. We analyze the key processes limiting the source performance, adsorption, spin exchange and recombination, and show that atomic tritium fluxes exceeding 1e15 1/s at kinetic energies of 100 mK can be achieved at the entrance to the magnetic trap. Such a source would enable Doppler-free two-photon 1S-2S spectroscopy in atomic tritium for high-precision measurements of the triton charge radius, providing a crucial benchmark for bound-state QED and improving the comparison between electronic, muonic, and scattering determinations of nuclear sizes in light systems. Beyond spectroscopy, an atomic tritium source avoids molecular final state broadening in the beta decay and is therefore necessary for next generation neutrino mass measurements; combined with detector technologies such as sub-eV resolution quantum sensors or cyclotron radiation emission spectroscopy, it enables an order of magnitude improvement compared to the current best experimental limit. Additionally, the source can be used to generate a beam of low field seeking deuterium atoms for loading magnetic traps, an important benchmark before trapping tritium atoms, which is useful for precision spectroscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.08313 by Aleksei Semakin, Caroline Rodenbeck, Eberhard Widmann, Francois Nez, Janne Ahokas, Magnus Schl\"osser, Marco R\"ollig, Paolo Crivelli, Pauline Yzombard, Sergey Vasiliev, Tom Kiilerich, Valery Nesvizhevsky.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the cryogenic source of D and T. Tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Helium vapor density as a function of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Low energy elastic scattering of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium on helium isotopes

    physics.atom-ph 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New calculations show tritium-helium elastic scattering cross sections enhanced at low energies by a near-threshold s-wave resonance, approaching common geometric values at higher energies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    U. D. Jentschura and G. S. Adkins,Quantum Electro- dynamics: Atoms, Lasers and Gravity(World Scientific, 2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Spin-polarized atomic hydrogen,

    I. F. Silvera and J. T. M. Walraven, “Spin-polarized atomic hydrogen,” (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986) p. 139

    1986

  3. [3]

    Greytak, D

    T. Greytak, D. Kleppner, D. Fried, T. Killian, L. Will- mann, D. Landhuis, and D. Moss, Physica B280, 20 (2000)

    2000

  4. [4]

    D. G. Fried, T. C. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S. C. Moss, D. Kleppner, and T. J. Greytak, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3811 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    A. D. Brandt, S. F. Cooper, C. Rasor, Z. Burkley, A. Matveev, and D. C. Yost, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 023001 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Scheidegger and F

    S. Scheidegger and F. Merkt, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 113001 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Amitet al., Physical Review A112, 033101 (2025)

    M. Amitet al., Physical Review A112, 033101 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Vasiliev, J

    S. Vasiliev, J. Ahokas, J. J¨ arvinen, V. Nesvizhevsky, A. Voronin, F. Nez, and S. Reynaud, Hyperfine Interac- tions240, 1 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Killian, P

    C. Killian, P. Blumer, P. Crivelli, O. Hanski, D. Kloppen- burg, F. Nez, V. Nesvizhevsky, S. Reynaud, K. Schreiner, M. Simon, S. Vasiliev, E. Widmann, and P. Yzombard, The European Physical Journal D77, 50 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Ahmadiet al., Nature557, 71 (2018)

    M. Ahmadiet al., Nature557, 71 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    L. O. A. Azevedo, R. J. S. Costa, W. Wolff, A. N. Oliveira, R. L. Sacramento, D. M. Silveira, and C. L. Cesar, Commun. Phys.6, 112 (2023), arXiv:2301.13248 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    C. J. Bakeret al., Nature Phys.21, 201 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Akeret al., Journal of Instrumentation16, T08015 (2021)

    M. Akeret al., Journal of Instrumentation16, T08015 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    A. A. Esfahaniet al., Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics44, 054004 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    A. A. S. Amadet al., New Journal of Physics27, 105006 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Bettiet al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 047 (2019)

    M. Bettiet al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 047 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Akeret al., Science388, 180 (2025), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adq9592

    M. Akeret al., Science388, 180 (2025), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adq9592

    doi:10.1126/science.adq9592 2025

  18. [18]

    K. G. Tschersich, J. P. Fleischhauer, and H. Schuler, Journal of Applied Physics104, 034908 (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    Scheideggeret al., Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics55, 155002 (2022)

    S. Scheideggeret al., Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics55, 155002 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Semakin, J

    A. Semakin, J. Ahokas, O. Hanski, S. Dvornichenko, T. Kiilerich, F. Nez, P. Yzombard, V. Nesvizhevsky, E. Widmann, P. Crivelli,et al., EPJD79, 23 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    I. F. Silvera and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 164 (1980)

    1980

  22. [22]

    M. E. Hayden and W. N. Hardy, J. Low Temp. Phys.99, 787 (1995)

    1995

  23. [23]

    T. Arai, M. Yamane, A. Fukuda, and T. Mizusaki1, J. Low Temp. Phys.112, 373 (1998)

    1998

  24. [24]

    I. F. Silvera and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 1268 (1980)

    1980

  25. [25]

    Shinkoda, M

    I. Shinkoda, M. W. Reynolds, R. W. Cline, and W. N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1243 (1986)

    1986

  26. [26]

    J. K. Steinberger,PhD. Thesis: Progress Towards High Precision Measurements on Ultracold Metastable Hydro- gen and Trapping Deuterium, Ph.D. thesis, MIT (2004)

    2004

  27. [27]

    Zero-field magnetic resonance studies of atomic tritium,

    E. Tjukanoff, P. Souers, and W. N. Hardy, “Zero-field magnetic resonance studies of atomic tritium,” (World Scientific, 1988) p. 105

    1988

  28. [28]

    A. I. Safonov, S. A. Vasilyev, A. A. Kharitonov, S. T. Boldarev, I. I. Lukashevich, and S. Jaakkola, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3356 (2001)

    2001

  29. [29]

    Shinkoda and W

    I. Shinkoda and W. Hardy, Journal of low temperature physics85, 99 (1991)

    1991

  30. [30]

    Pavloff and J

    N. Pavloff and J. Treiner, J. Low Temp. Phys.83, 331 (19951)

  31. [31]

    A. P. Mosk, M. W. Reynolds, and T. W. Hijmans, Phys. Rev. A64, 022901 (2001). 10

    2001

  32. [32]

    K. E. Kurten and M. Ristig, Phys. Rev. B31, 1346 (1985)

    1985

  33. [33]

    Saarela and E

    M. Saarela and E. Krotscheck, J. Low Temp. Phys.90, 415 (1993)

    1993

  34. [34]

    M. W. Reynolds, M. E. Hayden, and W. N. Hardy, Jour- nal of Low Temperature Physics84, 87 (1991)

    1991

  35. [35]

    W. C. Stwalley, Chem. Phys. Lett.4, 404 (1982)

    1982

  36. [36]

    Mayer and G

    R. Mayer and G. Seidel, Phys. Rev. B31, 4199 (1985)

    1985

  37. [37]

    H. F. Hess, Phys. Rev. B34, 3476 (1986)

    1986

  38. [38]

    H. F. Hess, G. P. Kochanski, J. M. Doyle, N. Masuhara, D. Kleppner, and T. J. Greytak, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 672 (1987)

    1987

  39. [39]

    Recently, a large mag- netic trap for H was built and tested in the University of Turku [40]

    reaching BEC in 1998 [4]. Recently, a large mag- netic trap for H was built and tested in the University of Turku [40]. The typical range of H densities confined in magnetic traps is between 10 11 and 10 14 cm−3 and minimum temperatures are several tens ofµK. The trappable low field seeking statesc(F= 1, 4 Isotope Ea on 4He Ea on 3He Es in 4He lrec, ˚A H ...

    1998

  40. [40]

    van Roijen, J

    R. van Roijen, J. J. Berkhout, S. Jaakkola, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 931 (1988)

    1988

  41. [41]

    Ahokas, A

    J. Ahokas, A. Semakin, J. J¨ arvinen, O. Hanski, A. Lap- tiyenko, V. Dvornichenko, K. Salonen, Z. Burkley, P. Crivelli, A. Golovizin, V. Nesvizhevsky, F. Nez, P. Yzombard, E. Widmann, and S. Vasiliev, Review of Scientific Instruments93, 023201 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    H. T. C. Stoof, J. M. V. A. Koelman, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. B38, 4688 (1988)

    1988

  43. [43]

    M. G. Elliott and B. Jones, arXivphysica.atom-ph, 2509.13426v (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    J. M. V. A. Koelman, H. T. C. Stoof, B. J. Verhaar, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. B38, 9319 (1988)

    1988

  45. [45]

    Swalley, Can

    W. Swalley, Can. J. Chem.82, 709 (1991)

    1991

  46. [46]

    J. M. Doyle,PhD. Thesis: Energy Distribution Measure- ments of Magnetically Trapped Spin-Polarized Atomic Hydrogen: Evaporative Cooling and Surface Sticking, Ph.D. thesis, MIT (1991)

    1991

  47. [47]

    Ahokas, O

    J. Ahokas, O. Vainio, J. J¨ arvinen, V. V. Khmelenko, D. M. Lee, and S. Vasiliev, Phys. Rev. B79, 220505R (2009)

    2009

  48. [48]

    G. W. Collins, P. C. Souers, J. L. Maienschein, E. R. Mapoles, and J. R. Gaines, Phys. Rev. B45, 549 (1992)

    1992

  49. [49]

    Sheludiakov,PhD

    S. Sheludiakov,PhD. Thesis: Magnetic Resonance Study of Atomic Hydrogen Stabilized in Matrices of Hydrogen Isotopes below 1K, Ph.D. thesis, University of Turku (2017)

    2017

  50. [50]

    Sheludiakov, J

    S. Sheludiakov, J. Ahokas, J. J¨ arvinen, L. Lehtonen, O. Vainio, S. Vasiliev, D. M. Lee, and V. V. Khmelenko, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.19, 2834 (2017)

    2017

  51. [51]

    Jochemsen, M

    R. Jochemsen, M. Morrow, A. Berlinsky, and W. Hardy, Physica B+C109-110, 2108 (1982), 16th International Conference on Low Temperature Physics, Part 3

    1982

  52. [52]

    B. W. Statt, W. N. Hardy, A. J. Berlinsky, and E. Klein, Journal of Low Temperature Physics61, 471 (1985)

    1985

  53. [53]

    Recommended values for the latent heat of evaporation of liquid 4he, https://pages.uoregon.edu/rjd/vapor17.htm,

    R. J. Donnelly, “Recommended values for the latent heat of evaporation of liquid 4he, https://pages.uoregon.edu/rjd/vapor17.htm,”

  54. [54]

    van Dijk, M

    H. van Dijk, M. Durieux, J. R. Clement, and J. K. Logan, Journal of research of the National Bureau of Standards. Section A, Physics and chemistry64A, 4 (1960)

    1960

  55. [55]

    Kaufman, T

    W. Kaufman, T. Roser, and B. Vuaridel, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment335, 17 (1993)

    1993

  56. [56]

    Y. H. Huang and G. B. Chen, Cryogenics46, 833 (2006)

    2006

  57. [57]

    Huffmanet al., Cryogenics64, 40 (2014)

    P. Huffmanet al., Cryogenics64, 40 (2014)

    2014

  58. [58]

    O’Shaughnessyet al., Nucl

    C. O’Shaughnessyet al., Nucl. Instr. Meth.611, 171 (2009)

    2009

  59. [59]

    A. A. Esfahaniet al., arXivphysics.ins-det, 2503.08807v (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Matveev, C

    A. Matveev, C. G. Parthey, K. Predehl, J. Alnis, A. Beyer, R. Holzwarth, T. Udem, T. Wilken, N. Ko- lachevsky, M. Abgrall, D. Rovera, C. Salomon, P. Lau- rent, G. Grosche, O. Terra, T. Legero, H. Schnatz, S. Weyers, B. Altschul, and T. W. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 230801 (2013)

    2013

  61. [61]

    Ishikawaet al., Cryogenics50, 507 (2010)

    K. Ishikawaet al., Cryogenics50, 507 (2010)

    2010

  62. [62]

    Anthony-Petersenet al., Phys

    R. Anthony-Petersenet al., Phys. Rev. D110, 072006 (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Helffrich, M

    J. Helffrich, M. Maley, M. Krusius, and J. C. Wheatley, Journal of Low Temperature Physics66, 277 (1987)

    1987

  64. [64]

    S. D. Hogan, A. W. Wiederkehr, H. Schmutz, and F. Merkt, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 143001 (2008)

    2008

  65. [65]

    The propertiees of multilayer 3he-4he mixture films,

    R. B. Hallock, “The propertiees of multilayer 3he-4he mixture films,” (Elsevier Science B.V., 1995) pp. 321– 443

    1995

  66. [66]

    Schou and H

    J. Schou and H. Sørensen, J. Appl. Phys.49, 816 (1978)

    1978

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.