Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

A new open-source simulation framework self-consistently tracks charge buildup in dielectric materials and finds repulsive electrostatic forces forming inside the micro-cavities of lunar regolith, matching experiments.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:13 UTC pith:6DLGFGSP

load-bearing objection Useful open-source Geant4 charging framework, but the headline repulsion claim rests on an unvalidated dielectric-interface approximation (Eq. 2) and an extrapolated photon benchmark. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.17332 v1 pith:6DLGFGSP submitted 2026-02-19 physics.app-ph astro-ph.EPcond-mat.mtrl-sci

g4chargeit: Geant4-based kinetic Monte Carlo simulations of charging in dielectric materials

Kush P. Gandhi , Advik D. Vira , William M. Farrell , Nikolai Simonov , Alvaro Romero-Calvo , Thomas M. Orlando , Phillip N. First , Zhigang Jiang This is my paper
classification physics.app-ph astro-ph.EPcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Kinetic Monte CarloGeant4Dielectric chargingLunar regolithElectrostatic dust loftingMicro-cavity chargeSelf-consistent electric fieldOpen-source simulation
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.

This paper introduces g4chargeit, an open-source kinetic Monte Carlo framework built on Geant4 that couples particle transport to the evolving electric field it creates. The central claim is that this self-consistent loop can resolve grain-scale charge heterogeneity in arbitrary dielectric geometries, something analytic grain-scale models cannot. Applied to lunar regolith, the simulations show charge accumulating inside the micro-cavities between irregularly packed grains, producing local repulsive electric pressures consistent with experimental observations of dust lofting. If correct, the framework provides a single multiscale tool that links microscopic scattering events to macroscopic charge patches and extends naturally to other dielectric charging problems.

Core claim

g4chargeit re-initializes the Geant4 simulation at each time step, loading a master list of all previously deposited charges and recomputing the electric field by superposing point-charge contributions with an adaptive octree and Barnes-Hut approximation, then feeds that field back into particle tracking. In hexagonally packed spheres the code reproduces the analytic hexagonally-packed-sphere model to within about 5% for solar-wind irradiation, and it finds net attraction between grains, as that model does. When the packing is made irregular or realistic (from X-ray microtomography), the same physics produces localized repulsive regions inside micro-cavities—regions of same-sign electric pre

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the iterative self-consistency loop: after each kinetic Monte Carlo iteration, deposited charges are appended to a master charge list; a custom class builds a charge octree and a field octree, uses Barnes-Hut summation of the point-charge potential (with a bin-averaged effective dielectric constant) to compute the electric field, adaptively refines high-gradient cells, and hands the resulting field to the Dormand-Prince stepper for the next iteration's trajectories. Charge dissipation enters macroscopically via the continuity equation for surface charge density. This loop converts stochastic scattering events into a time-evolving, geometry-resolved electrostatic

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the electric field can be computed by treating each deposited charge as a point charge in a medium whose permittivity is a volume-averaged inverse dielectric constant per octree bin, without solving the actual dielectric boundary-value problem at grain/vacuum interfaces; if this approximation distorts the fields inside micro-cavities, the sign and magnitude of the reported repulsive electric pressures are not assured.

What would settle it

Compute the same irregular or realistic grain geometry with a fully boundary-resolving electrostatic solver (e.g., a finite-element or boundary-element Poisson solution that enforces continuity of the normal displacement field at the SiO2/vacuum interfaces), feeding it the same deposited-charge distribution. If the electric pressure in the reported micro-cavities changes sign or drops by an order of magnitude, then the bin-averaged permittivity approximation is responsible for the repulsion claim.

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

If this is right

  • For regularly packed spheres, g4chargeit reproduces the analytic electric-field evolution to within about 5% under solar-wind irradiation, validating the coupling of stochastic transport with continuum charge dissipation.
  • Irregular and realistic grain packings develop repulsive electrostatic forces within micro-cavities, providing a mechanistic route to grain lofting without invoking externally applied fields.
  • The particle-resolved approach captures higher-order multipole interactions that analytic multipole models miss, making it suitable for short-range forces between irregular grains.
  • Because geometry and material are user-defined inputs, the code can be applied to spacecraft charging, dielectric breakdown limits, electrodynamic dust shields, and other dielectric charging problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The repulsive-force result likely depends sensitively on the bin-averaged permittivity approximation; a boundary-resolving Poisson solve in the same geometry would tell whether the sign of the electric pressure in micro-cavities is robust or an artifact of smoothing the dielectric interface.
  • The static-geometry assumption means the code predicts precursor fields only; a natural extension is to couple grain dynamics once the electric pressure exceeds gravity or adhesion, which would test the lofting mechanism directly.
  • The simulated timescales reach seconds and fluences near 10^15 m^-2, far from the ~10^17 e-/m^2 fluences at which lofting is observed, so extrapolating these pressure patterns to longer times or adding solar-energetic-particle events could connect precursor fields to the lofting threshold.

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 presents g4chargeit, an open-source Geant4-based kinetic Monte Carlo framework for self-consistent, time-dependent simulation of electrostatic charging in dielectric materials. The method iteratively transports particles (photons, protons, electrons) using Geant4 physics lists, records deposited charges, computes the electric potential/field via adaptive octree and Barnes–Hut summation, and applies an ohmic dissipation law (Eq. B.1). The framework is benchmarked against the analytical model of Zimmerman et al. [26] for regularly packed spherical grains: the solar-wind case agrees to ~4.85%, while the photon case is extrapolated to saturation via a least-squares fit to Eq. B.1. The framework is then applied to irregularly packed and realistic X-ray-tomography-derived grain geometries, where the authors report charge accumulation in intergrain micro-cavities leading to repulsive electrostatic pressures (Eq. 3), which they interpret as consistent with the patched-charge model and experimental observations.

Significance. If the reported results are robust, g4chargeit would be a valuable open-source tool that connects validated Geant4 scattering physics to grain-scale charge evolution in arbitrary dielectric geometries. The solar-wind regular-sphere benchmark is a genuine quantitative check, and the explicit treatment of stochastic photoemission and secondary-electron trajectories is a step beyond simplified analytical models. However, the central new claim—repulsive forces in micro-cavities of realistic/irregular grain packings—rests on an approximate treatment of dielectric polarization that is not validated by the ε_r=1 benchmark, and the connection to experimental observations is qualitative and extrapolated. The potential of the tool is clear, but the current evidence does not yet fully support the abstract's claim of repulsive forces consistent with observations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1.1, Eq. (2)] The field calculation replaces the dielectric boundary-value problem with a per-voxel volume-averaged inverse permittivity. This does not enforce the correct interface conditions for ∇·(ε∇φ)=−ρ_free at grain/vacuum boundaries; in particular, the normal component of E is discontinuous across a dielectric interface, and bound surface-polarization charges are omitted. Since the micro-cavity fields in Figs. 5–6 and the electric pressure of Eq. (3) are computed from this approximate field, the sign and magnitude of the reported repulsion are not assured. The only quantitative benchmark (§4.3.1) uses ε_r=1, i.e., no dielectric contrast, so this part of the electrostatics is untested. Please validate against an analytic dielectric-interface problem (e.g., a dielectric sphere in a uniform field or the two-sphere image-charge solution) or provide a quantitative estimate of the introduced error.
  2. [§4.3.1, Fig. 4a] The photon case is not directly simulated to saturation; the plateau value of 8.4×10^5 V/m at t_M=120 s is obtained by extrapolating a least-squares fit to Eq. B.1. The text nevertheless says the results are in 'excellent agreement' with Ref. [26]. Only the solar-wind case provides a direct quantitative benchmark (~4.85%). The photon comparison is an extrapolated model comparison, not a simulation result, and the factor-of-two difference from Ref. [26] is attributed to photoelectron energies without a converged simulation to confirm it. Please label the photon curve clearly as extrapolated and separate that from the validated SW benchmark.
  3. [§4.3.2–4.3.3, Figs. 5–6 and Eq. (3)] The central claim of 'repulsive electrostatic forces consistent with experimental observations' is supported only by qualitative sign patterns of electric pressure. The maximum computed pressure in the irregular case is ~0.1 N/m², corresponding to F_c~10^−13 N, which the authors state is three to four orders of magnitude below the experimental/patched-charge estimates cited (F_c~10^−10 N, fluences ~10^17 e−/m²). The simulations are static and run to only a few seconds of lunar-equivalent time. Thus the comparison is an extrapolation, not a quantitative validation. The claim in the abstract should be softened to 'qualitative agreement with the patched-charge model' unless the simulations are extended toward the relevant fluence regime or an explicit scaling argument is provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3] The text states that 'the deposited charge has no mobility' but then applies macroscopic ohmic dissipation via Eq. B.1. This is at least a terminology inconsistency; please clarify whether the model treats charges as immobile except for the continuum leakage term, and how that is reconciled with the point-charge master list.
  2. [§2.1.1] The sentence 'both the microscopic and macroscopic electric potentials and fields remain continuous... [35]' cites a DSMC/PIC paper that does not address dielectric interface conditions. The cited reference does not support the physical claim; either provide a proper electrostatic reference or remove the assertion.
  3. [§4.2 / Table 1] The relationship between 'Incident particles per n' and 'Particles at n=0' is not self-explanatory, especially for the solar-wind cases (80,000 incident vs. 13,060 at n=0). Please define what 'Particles at n=0' represents and why it differs from the incident count.
  4. [Throughout] Several typographical errors should be corrected: 'isotopic' for 'isotropic' in §4.2 and Fig. 2 caption, 'Columbic' for 'Coulombic' in §2.2, and 'Vary' for 'Very' in the author list/caption of Fig. 3. Also, the numerical values of DeltaOneStep and the octree refinement threshold DeltaE_th are not reported; a reproducibility statement with these parameters would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central simulation is self-contained, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation (Ref. [26]) and an explicitly labeled extrapolation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Particle transport uses Geant4 with externally validated low-energy Livermore/EPDL97/EEDL cross-sections (Appendix A), and the field is accumulated from previously deposited charges via direct Coulomb summation with an octree/Barnes–Hut approximation (Eq. 1, §2.1). The central micro-cavity repulsion result (§4.3.2–4.3.3) emerges from stochastic particle trajectories in the irregular/realistic grain geometries and is compared qualitatively with external experiments [24,42]; no parameter is fitted to produce that repulsion. The analytical benchmark [26] shares co-author W. M. Farrell, but it is used as a comparison, not as a constraint, and there is no uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from that work. Eq. B.1 is also taken from [26], but it is a standard ohmic-relaxation continuity equation and is negligible on the ~1.5 s timescales of the repulsion snapshots (dissipation time ~345 s for ε_r=3.9, σ=1e-13 Ω^-1 m^-1), so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The photon plateau in Fig. 4a is explicitly an extrapolation ('least-squares fit to Eq. B.1'), not presented as an independent prediction. The main technical caveat is Eq. 2's voxel-averaged inverse permittivity, which does not solve the dielectric boundary-value problem at grain/vacuum interfaces; this is a modeling approximation that could affect the magnitude/sign of the reported pressures, but it is not circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central simulation adds no new physics entities; it rests on Geant4's pre-validated cross sections, the analytical charging/dissipation model of Ref [26], and a custom homogenized-permittivity field solver. The only fitted/extrapolated quantity is the photon saturation field. The dielectric-boundary approximation is the least independently supported premise.

free parameters (4)
  • Electrical conductivity vartheta = 1e-13 Ohm^-1 m^-1 (~425 K)
    Fixed for all runs via Eq. B.2 from Ref [58]; controls dissipation rate and saturation field (Eq. B.1), so numerical results depend on it.
  • Photon-case saturation extrapolation = |E_x| ~ 8.4e5 V/m at t_M = 120 s
    Fig. 4a: photon results are extrapolated with a least-squares fit to Eq. B.1; this is a fit, not an independent prediction.
  • DeltaOneStep integration tolerance = 0.1 micrometer
    Set in DetectorConstruction; controls field-track accuracy and is chosen by hand without a convergence study.
  • Octree refinement threshold DeltaE_th = not specified (user-defined)
    Controls adaptive mesh refinement; no sensitivity or convergence analysis is reported.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Geant4 low-energy Livermore cross-sections (EPDL97, EEDL, EADL) are valid for SiO2 regolith at 1 eV–350 eV.
    Appendix A; all photoemission and secondary-electron yields inherit these cross-sections, with no in-situ validation in this paper beyond citing Geant4 validation.
  • domain assumption Deposited charges are immobile point charges; leakage is handled only by the macroscopic continuity equation B.1.
    Section 3 and Appendix B; ignores real charge mobility and transport within grains, which matters for longer timescales.
  • ad hoc to paper The electrostatic field in a heterogeneous dielectric is given by point-charge superposition with locally volume-averaged inverse permittivity (Eqs. 1–2).
    This avoids solving Poisson's equation with polarization boundary conditions; it is unvalidated and central to field values in cavities.
  • domain assumption Static grain geometry during simulation.
    Acknowledged in §4.3.2; the spheres do not move, so the code captures precursor fields but not lofting itself.
  • domain assumption The exponential charging-current law j exp(-sigma/Sigma) in Eq. B.1 from Ref [26] is appropriate for grain-scale charging.
    Inherited from the analytic model being benchmarked; the saturation parameter Sigma is not specified or independently derived here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17428 in / 12552 out tokens · 117873 ms · 2026-08-02T22:13:53.700455+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present g4chargeit, a kinetic Monte Carlo framework built on Geant4 for self-consistent simulation of time-dependent electrostatic charging in dielectric materials. The model explicitly incorporates stochastic particle transport and scattering processes using validated Geant4 cross-sections, while self-consistently evolving the electric potential and field. As a representative application, we simulate the charging of regolith grains under average dayside conditions on the Moon. The surface of the Moon, in addition to other airless planetary bodies, are regularly exposed to solar ultraviolet photons and solar-wind plasma, creating a radiation environment in which electrostatic interactions among regolith grains become significant. Until now, simulations of regolith charging have often relied on analytical approximations that oversimplify grain geometry and interaction mechanisms. Our Geant4-based simulations reveal charge accumulation within intergrain micro-cavities, leading to repulsive electrostatic forces consistent with experimental observations. The framework establishes a multiscale approach that links microscopic scattering events to the continuity equation of surface charge density and to the formation of macroscopic surface charge patches in complex grain geometries. Although demonstrated here for planetary regolith, the method is general and applicable to a broad range of dielectric charging problems. The code is openly available at https://github.com/kgandhi63/g4chargeit.git.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17332 by Advik D. Vira, Alvaro Romero-Calvo, Kush P. Gandhi, Nikolai Simonov, Phillip N. First, Thomas M. Orlando, William M. Farrell, Zhigang Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Self-consistent simulation framework of g4chargeit. N particles are sampled and transported through the geometry for the n-th iteration. The particle trajectories are saved in the ROOT file (denoted as Ri), and deposited charges are aggregated into a master charge list (denoted as Charges), which is used to compute the electric field. The custom AdaptiveSumRadialFieldMap.cc class (dashed box) is structured… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cross-section of hexagonally packed grains (with radius of 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Face illumination of (a) regularly packed grains, (b) irregularly packed grains, and (c) a realistic grain config [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) |Ex| plotted against the equivalent lunar time tM for the photon (orange) and SW (purple) cases at the point 37 µm above the midpoint between the sphere centers; red point in (b) and (c). The photon results are extrapolated using the expected extension (dashed orange line, least-squares fit to Eq. B.1). Results from Ref. [26] are overlaid for comparison (gray lines). (b,c) Interpolated electric-field v… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation results for irregularly packed grains under photon irradiation at (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 4.3.3. Realistic Grain Configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electric pressure (x-component) for the realistic packing of grains under photon irradiation at (a) tM ∼ 0.55 s (corresponding fluence Φ ∼ 1.4 × 1015m−2 ) and (b) tM ∼ 1.56 s (Φ ∼ 4.0 × 1015m−2 ), with the inset showing the electric pressure within a micro-cavity. The analogous results for SW irradiation are shown at (c) tM ∼ 1.31 s (Φ ∼ 1.7×1013m−2 ) and (d) tM ∼ 5.10 s (Φ ∼ 6.8 × 1013m−2 ). The zoomed-in… view at source ↗

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

58 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Casalegno, G

    M. Casalegno, G. Raos, R. Po, Methodological assessment of kinetic monte carlo simula- tions of organic photovoltaic devices: The treatment of electrostatic interactions, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics 132 (9) (2010) 094705.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/ jcp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3337909/15876736/094705_1_online.pdf, doi:10.1063/1.3337909

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3337909/15876736/094705_1_online.pdf 2010

  2. [2]

    Guldbrand, L

    L. Guldbrand, L. G. Nilsson, L. Nordenskiöld, A monte carlo simulation study of electrostatic forces between hexagonally packed dna double helices, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics 85 (11) (1986) 6686–6698.arXiv:https://pubs. aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/85/11/6686/18962003/6686_1_online.pdf, doi:10.1063/1.451450

    work page doi:10.1063/1.451450 1986

  3. [3]

    T. Sun, V . Minhas, N. Korolev, A. Mirzoev, A. P. Lyubartsev, L. Nordenskiöld, Bottom-up coarse-grained modeling of dna, Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences V olume 8 - 2021 (2021).doi:10.3389/fmolb.2021.645527

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    T. Wang, K. Hess, G. J. Iafrate, Time-dependent ensemble monte carlo simulation for planar-doped gaas structures, Journal of Applied Physics 58 (2) (1985) 857–861. doi:10.1063/1.336155. 17

    work page doi:10.1063/1.336155 1985

  5. [5]

    Akturk, N

    A. Akturk, N. Goldsman, G. Pennington, Self-consistent ensemble monte carlo simulations show terahertz oscillations in single-walled carbon nanotubes, Journal of Applied Physics 102 (7) (2007) 073720.doi:10.1063/1.2794690

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2794690 2007

  6. [6]

    X. Q. Yu, C. HongFei, Z. QiuGang, W. JianZhao, S. WeiHong, Z. Hong, Z. JiQing, Z. WeiYing, C. Zhe, S. SiPei, J. XiangHong, Leakage current of grounded dielectrics in electron radiation as a diagnostic method to evaluate the deep charging hazards in space, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 63 (2) (2016) 1306–1313.doi:10.1109/TNS. 2016.2537839

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    J. Wang, R. Liu, R. Xiao, A. Ping, J. Liu, M. Zhang, Q. Li, Optimized design of slip ring assembly for aerospace to reduce deep dielectric charging, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 69 (4) (2022) 915–924.doi:10.1109/TNS.2022.3157670

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Fichthorn, W

    K. Fichthorn, W. Weinberg, Theoretical foundations of dynamical monte carlo simulations, The Journal of chemical physics 95 (2) (1991) 1090–1096.doi:10.1063/1.461138

    doi:10.1063/1.461138 1991

  9. [9]

    J. Wu, Y . Zhi, X. Dang, P. Wang, B. Zhang, Weak conductive channel effect of glass fabric on deep charging of polyimide in geo, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 72 (2) (2025) 164–174.doi:10.1109/TNS.2024.3519769

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Ramachandran, A

    T. Ramachandran, A. Ali, F. A. Deader, H. Shafeekali, L. Zheng, H. Butt, M. Rezeq, Dual influence of size and electric field on gold nanoparticles: Insights into 2d mono- layer assembly, Langmuir 41 (2) (2025) 1271–1280, pMID: 39772803.doi:10.1021/ acs.langmuir.4c03580

    2025

  11. [11]

    C. M. Katzan, D. J. Brinker, R. Kress, The effects of lunar dust accumulation on the performance of photovoltaic arrays (1991)

    1991

  12. [12]

    R. F. Willis, M. Anderegg, B. Feuerbacher, B. Fitton, Photoemission and Secondary Elec- tron Emission from Lunar Surface Material, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1973

    1973

  13. [13]

    Hazra, V

    S. Hazra, V . Réville, B. Perri, A. Strugarek, A. S. Brun, E. Buchlin, Modeling solar wind variations over an 11 year cycle with alfvén wave dissipation: A parameter study, The Astrophysical Journal 910 (2) (2021) 90.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe12e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe12e 2021

  14. [14]

    Popel, L

    S. Popel, L. Zelenyi, A. Golub’, A. Dubinskii, Lunar dust and dusty plasmas: Re- cent developments, advances, and unsolved problems, Planetary and Space Science 156 (2018) 71–84, dust, Atmosphere, and Plasma Environment of the Moon and Small Bodies. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2018.02.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2018.02.010 2018

  15. [15]

    Goodwin, Apollo 17: The NASA Mission Reports, vol

    R. Goodwin, Apollo 17: The NASA Mission Reports, vol. 1 (2002)

    2002

  16. [16]

    J. R. Gaier, The Effects of Lunar Dust on EV A Systems During the Apollo Missions, Tech. rep., National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2007)

    2007

  17. [17]

    J. E. Colwell, S. Batiste, M. Horányi, S. Robertson, S. Sture, Lunar surface: Dust dy- namics and regolith mechanics, Reviews of Geophysics 45 (2) (2007).doi:10.1029/ 2005RG000184. 18

    2007

  18. [18]

    Christoffersen, J

    R. Christoffersen, J. F. Lindsay, S. K. Noble, M. A. Meador, J. J. Kosmo, J. A. Lawrence, L. Brostoff, A. Young, T. McCue, Lunar Dust Effects on Spacesuit Systems: Insights from the Apollo Spacesuits, Tech. rep., National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    Romero-Calvo, J

    A. Romero-Calvo, J. Hammerl, H. Schaub, Touchless potential sensing of differentially charged spacecraft using secondary electrons, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 59 (5) (2022) 1623–1633.doi:10.2514/1.A35355

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a35355 2022

  20. [20]

    Romero-Calvo, K

    A. Romero-Calvo, K. Champion, H. Schaub, Enabling ultraviolet lasers for touchless spacecraft potential sensing, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 51 (9) (2023) 2468– 2481.doi:10.1109/TPS.2023.3264914

    arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    T. M. Flanagan, J. Goree, Dust release from surfaces exposed to plasma, Physics of Plasmas 13 (12) (2006) 123504.doi:10.1063/1.2401155

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2401155 2006

  22. [22]

    T. E. Sheridan, A. Hayes, Charge fluctuations for particles on a surface exposed to plasma, Applied Physics Letters 98 (9) (2011) 091501.doi:10.1063/1.3560302

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3560302 2011

  23. [23]

    Z. Wang, D. Tian, Z. Ma, C. Zhao, Y . Liu, Y . Liu, Y . Ding, Z. Shen, An electrostatic lofting model based on adhesion separation characteristics for lunar dust, Planetary and Space Science 184 (2020) 104883.doi:10.1016/j.pss.2020.104883

    arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    X. Wang, J. Schwan, H.-W. Hsu, E. Grün, M. Horányi, Dust charging and transport on airless planetary bodies, Geophysical Research Letters 43 (12) (2016) 6103 – 6110.doi: 10.1002/2016GL069491

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl069491 2016

  25. [25]

    X. Wang, J. Schwan, N. Hood, H.-W. Hsu, E. Grün, M. Horányi, Experimental Methods of Dust Charging and Mobilization on Surfaces with Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation or Plasmas, Journal of Visualized Experiments 134 (2018) 57072.doi:10.3791/57072

    work page doi:10.3791/57072 2018

  26. [26]

    M. I. Zimmerman, W. M. Farrell, C. M. Hartzell, X. Wang, M. Horanyi, D. M. Hurley, K. Hibbitts, Grain-scale supercharging and breakdown on airless regoliths, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Planets 121 (10) (2016) 2150–2165.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1002/2016JE005049

    2016

  27. [27]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, F. Behner, L. Bellagamba, J. Boudreau, et al., Geant4—a sim- ulation toolkit, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Ac- celerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 506 (3) (2003) 250–303. doi:10.10...

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  28. [28]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce Dubois, M. Asai, G. Barrand, R. Capra, S. Chauvie, R. Chytracek, G. Cirrone, G. Cooperman, et al., Geant4 develop- ments and applications, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 53 (1) (2006) 270–278. doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826. 19

    arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asai, T. Aso, E. Bagli, A. Bagulya, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, B. Beck, A. Bogdanov, D. Brandt, et al., Recent developments in geant4, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 835 (2016) 186–225.doi:10.1016/ j.nima.2016.06.125

    2016

  30. [30]

    Chytracek, J

    R. Chytracek, J. McCormick, W. Pokorski, G. Santin, Geometry description markup lan- guage for physics simulation and analysis applications, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Sci- ence 53 (5) (2006) 2892 – 2896, cited by: 131.doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.881062

    arXiv 2006

  31. [31]

    Dagum, R

    L. Dagum, R. Menon, Openmp: An industry-standard api for shared-memory program- ming, IEEE Comput. Sci. Eng. 5 (1) (1998) 46–55.doi:10.1109/99.660313

    doi:10.1109/99.660313 1998

  32. [32]

    R. Brun, F. Rademakers, Root — an object oriented data analysis framework, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 389 (1) (1997) 81–86, new Computing Techniques in Physics Research V .doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(97)00048-x 1997

  33. [33]

    Meagher, Geometric modeling using octree encoding, Computer Graphics and Image Processing 19 (2) (1982) 129–147.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-664X(82) 90104-6

    D. Meagher, Geometric modeling using octree encoding, Computer Graphics and Image Processing 19 (2) (1982) 129–147.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-664X(82) 90104-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0146-664x(82 1982

  34. [34]

    Z. Gan, Z. Xu, Efficient implementation of the barnes-hut octree algorithm for monte carlo simulations of charged systems, Science China Mathematics 57 (7) (2014) 1331–1340

    2014

  35. [35]

    R. S. Martin, J.-L. Cambier, Octree particle management for DSMC and PIC simulations, Journal of Computational Physics 327 (2016) 943–966.doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.01.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2016.01.020 2016

  36. [36]

    J. R. Dormand, P. J. Prince, A family of embedded runge–kutta formulae, Journal of Com- putational and Applied Mathematics 6 (1980) 19–26

    1980

  37. [37]

    W. M. Farrell, D. M. Hurley, V . J. Esposito, J. L. McLain, M. I. Zimmerman, The statistical mechanics of solar wind hydroxylation at the Moon, within lunar magnetic anomalies, and at Phobos, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 122 (1) (2017) 269–289. doi:10.1002/2016JE005168

    work page doi:10.1002/2016je005168 2017

  38. [38]

    A. D. Vira, E. M. Mone, E. A. Ryan, P. T. Connolly, K. Smith, C. D. Roecker, K. E. Mesick, T. M. Orlando, Z. Jiang, P. N. First, Designing a boron nitride polyethylene composite for shielding neutrons, APL Materials 11 (10) (2023) 101104.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apm/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5. 0163377/18147885/101104_1_5.0163377.pdf,doi:10.1063/5.0163377. 20

    doi:10.1063/5 2023

  39. [39]

    C. B. Sullivan, A. A. Kaszynski, Pyvista: 3d plotting and mesh analysis through a streamlined interface for the visualization toolkit (vtk), Journal of Open Source Software 4 (37) (2019) 1450.doi:10.21105/joss.01450

    doi:10.21105/joss.01450 2019

  40. [40]

    245 (2020) 06004

    Galli, Massimiliano, Tejedor, Enric, Wunsch, Stefan, A new pyroot: Mod- ern, interoperable and more pythonic, EPJ Web Conf. 245 (2020) 06004. doi:10.1051/epjconf/202024506004

    arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    W. M. Farrell, J. S. Halekas, M. Horányi, R. M. Killen, C. Grava, J. R. Szalay, M. Benna, P. E. Clark, M. R. Collier, A. Colaprete, J. Deca, R. C. Elphic, S. Fatemi, Y . Fu- taana, M. Holmström, D. M. Hurley, G. Y . Kramer, P. R. Mahaffy, M. N. Nishino, S. K. Noble, Y . Saito, A. R. Poppe, K. D. Retherford, X. Wang, S. Yokota, The Dust, Atmosphere, and Pl...

    2023

  42. [42]

    N. Hood, A. Carroll, R. Mike, X. Wang, J. Schwan, H. Hsu, M. Horányi, Laboratory Investigation of Rate of Electrostatic Dust Lofting Over Time on Airless Planetary Bodies, Geophysical Research Letters 45 (24) (Dec. 2018).doi:10.1029/2018GL080527

    work page doi:10.1029/2018gl080527 2018

  43. [43]

    G. R. Olhoeft, D. W. Strangway, Dielectric properties of the first 100 meters of the Moon, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 24 (3) (1975) 394–404.doi:10.1016/ 0012-821X(75)90146-6

    1975

  44. [44]

    Z. Li, C. Michelet, S. Incerti, V . Ivanchenko, M. Novak, S. Guatelli, H. Seznec, Implemen- tation of the epics2017 database for photons in geant4, Physica Medica 95 (2022) 94–115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.01.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.01.008 2022

  45. [45]

    Albqoor, E

    A. Albqoor, E. Ababneh, S. Okoor, I. Zahran, Validation of electromagnetic physics models and electron range in geant4 brachytherapy application, Nuclear Engineering and Tech- nology 55 (1) (2023) 229–237.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.09.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.net.2022.09.018 2023

  46. [46]

    S. Li, A. R. Poppe, T. M. Orlando, B. M. Jones, O. J. Tucker, W. M. Farrell, A. R. Hendrix, Formation of lunar surface water associated with high-energy electrons in Earth’s magneto- tail, Nature Astronomy 7 (12) (2023) 1427–1435.doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02081-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02081-y 2023

  47. [47]

    W. D. Carrier, Lunar soil grain size distribution, The Moon 6 (3–4) (1973) 250–263. doi:10.1007/BF00562206

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00562206 1973

  48. [48]

    Goguen, A

    J. Goguen, A. Sharits, A. Chiaramonti, T. Lafarge, E. Garboczi, Three-dimensional characterization of particle size, shape, and internal porosity for Apollo 11 and Apollo 14 lunar regolith and JSC-1A lunar regolith soil simulant, Icarus 420 (2024) 116166. 21 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116166

    arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    J. S. Halekas, G. T. Delory, R. P. Lin, T. J. Stubbs, W. M. Farrell, Lunar surface charging during solar energetic particle events: Measurement and prediction, Jour- nal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 114 (A5) (2009).arXiv:https: //agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009JA014113, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014113

    work page doi:10.1029/2009ja014113 2009

  50. [50]

    Kelsey, R

    M. Kelsey, R. Agnese, Y . Alam, I. A. Langroudy, E. Azadbakht, D. Brandt, R. Bunker, B. Cabrera, Y .-Y . Chang, H. Coombes, R. Cormier, M. Diamond, E. Edwards, E. Figueroa- Feliciano, J. Gao, P. Harrington, Z. Hong, M. Hui, N. Kurinsky, R. Lawrence, B. Loer, M. Masten, E. Michaud, E. Michielin, J. Miller, V . Novati, N. Oblath, J. Orrell, W. Perry, P. Red...

    arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    D. E. Cullen, J. H. Hubbell, L. Kissel, Epdl97: the evaluated photo data library ‘97 version, Tech. rep., Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States) (09 1997). doi:10.2172/295438

    work page doi:10.2172/295438 1997

  52. [52]

    Perkins, D

    S. Perkins, D. Cullen, S. Seltzer, Tables and graphs of electron-interaction cross sections from 10 ev to 100 gev derived from the llnl evaluated electron data library (eedl), z=1 to 100, Unknown -1 (10 1991).doi:10.2172/5691165

    work page doi:10.2172/5691165 1991

  53. [53]

    S. T. Perkins, D. E. Cullen, M. H. Chen, J. Rathkopf, J. Scofield, J. H. Hubbell, Tables and graphs of atomic subshell and relaxation data derived from the llnl evaluated atomic data library (eadl), z=1–100, Tech. rep., Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States) (10 1991).doi:10.2172/10121422

    work page doi:10.2172/10121422 1991

  54. [54]

    J. H. SCOFIELD, 6 - radiative transitions, in: B. CRASEMANN (Ed.), Atomic Inner-Shell Processes, Academic Press, 1975, pp. 265–292.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-196901-1.50012-1

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-196901-1.50012-1 1975

  55. [55]

    J. F. Ziegler, J. P. Biersack, The Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter, Springer-Verlag US, 1985.doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-8103-1_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-8103-1_3 1985

  56. [56]

    Ziegler, The Stopping and Ranges of Ions in Matter, Pergamon, 2013

    J. Ziegler, The Stopping and Ranges of Ions in Matter, Pergamon, 2013

    2013

  57. [57]

    Drouin, P

    D. Drouin, P. Hovington, R. Gauvin, Casino: A new monte carlo code in c language for electron beam interactions—part ii: Tabulated values of the mott cross section, Scanning 19 (1) (1997) 20–28.doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sca.4950190103. 22

    work page doi:10.1002/sca.4950190103 1997

  58. [58]

    R. J. L. Grard (Ed.), Photon and particle interactions with surfaces in space, V ol. 37 of Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 1973.doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2647-5. 23

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2647-5 1973