Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Secondary electron yield from aluminium-coated foils for muon tagging and beam monitoring up to 60 MeV/c

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Aluminized foil secondary electrons tag and image continuous muon beams from 12 to 60 MeV/c, filling the intermediate-energy gap.

desk verdict First clean SEY numbers for negative muons on aluminized Mylar in the 12–60 MeV/c window; fills a real instrumentation gap with transparent methods and only minor caveats at the lowest momenta. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.03241 v1 pith:3CMHTBCE submitted 2026-07-03 physics.ins-det

Gianluca Janka , Michael W. Heiss , Maxime Lamotte , Xiao Zhao , Thomas Prokscha This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det
keywords secondaryelectronyieldmuontaggingaluminizedMylarfoilmicrochannelplatebeammonitoringlow-momentummuonscontinuousbeams
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

Continuous muon beams in the roughly 2.5–20 MeV/c window lack an efficient, low-material detector that can both time the particle and leave the beam largely undisturbed. This paper shows that a 7 µm Mylar foil coated with 50 nm aluminium on each side emits enough secondary electrons, when struck by negative muons of 12–60 MeV/c, for those electrons to be collected on position-sensitive microchannel plates and used as a reliable tag. After correcting for detector open-area ratio, electron transport, and momentum loss, the measured secondary-electron yields match the established proton literature for oxidized aluminium and rise toward lower velocities, exactly as expected from ion-induced emission. The same electron hits also reconstruct the transverse beam profile at the foil, giving a first demonstration of combined timing and non-invasive beam monitoring. Together the results open a practical path that links conventional thick scintillators at high momentum with the ultrathin carbon foils already used at keV energies.

What carries the argument

Secondary-electron yield (SEY) of the aluminized foil: the average number of electrons liberated per traversing muon, extracted from measured coincidence efficiencies after correcting for MCP open-area ratio, electron-transport acceptance, and momentum loss in the upstream material.

What would settle it

Repeat the measurement at 12 MeV/c with a thinner entrance scintillator or a pure time-of-flight selection that eliminates stopped-muon decays; if the plateau efficiency (and therefore the extracted SEY) changes significantly, the background-subtraction assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Secondary-electron emission from a thin aluminium-coated Mylar foil produces muon detection efficiencies that increase with falling particle velocity in the 12–60 MeV/c range, match literature secondary-electron yields for oxidized aluminium once instrumental corrections are applied, and allow both particle tagging and a proof-of-principle reconstruction of the muon beam spot.

Load-bearing premise

That the high-energy plateau of efficiency versus energy deposited in the stop scintillator cleanly selects only true traversing muons and excludes residual decay-electron background, especially at 12 MeV/c.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Foil tagging becomes more efficient, not less, as muon momentum drops toward the 2.5–20 MeV/c window where no standard continuous-beam detector exists.
  • Two high-open-area-ratio MCPs viewing both sides of the foil can push tagging efficiency above 50 % across the measured range.
  • The same foil-plus-MCP assembly supplies both the timing start signal and a live transverse beam image with minimal material budget.
  • Switching to nanometer-scale carbon foils would further reduce energy loss and multiple scattering while preserving comparable or higher SEY, extending the method to the lowest usable momenta.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The demonstrated beam-spot reconstruction already contains enough information for a future closed-loop beam-steering feedback system that never inserts a thick detector into the muon path.
  • Because SEY is a surface process, the same aluminium or carbon foil can be made arbitrarily thin without loss of tagging efficiency, limited only by mechanical stability and charge-up.
  • The method is charge-sign agnostic once Barkas-effect differences in stopping power are accounted for, so it should transfer directly to positive-muon beams of the same velocity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript measures secondary-electron emission from a 7 µm Mylar foil coated with 50 nm Al on both sides, using continuous negative muons at nominal momenta 12–60 MeV/c at PSI πE1. Electrons are collected by two position-sensitive MCPs (forward and backward) under a defined electric field; double coincidences of thin entrance and stop scintillators normalize the sample, and triple coincidences define the tagging efficiency ε_meas. After Geant4 momentum-loss corrections and an empirical transport-efficiency correction derived from reconstructed beamspots, the efficiencies are converted to secondary-electron yields γ via γ = −ln(1−ε_corr)/η_MCP. The yields rise toward lower velocity, agree with literature data for oxidized aluminium, and support a hypothetical dual-90 %-OAR-MCP efficiency that exceeds 50 % in the intermediate-momentum window. A proof-of-principle beam-profile reconstruction from MCP hit positions is also shown. The authors conclude that foil-based tagging is viable for the previously underserved 2.5–20 MeV/c gap and can be extended with ultrathin carbon foils.

Significance. If the extracted SEY trend and the background-control procedure hold, the work supplies the first quantitative muon SEY data set in the intermediate-momentum regime and a concrete, minimally invasive tagging-plus-monitoring concept that bridges existing scintillator and ultrathin-carbon techniques. The measurement is cleanly normalized, the conversion formula is standard, and the literature benchmark is parameter-free; these strengths make the result immediately useful for HIMB, MIXE and low-energy µSR instrumentation planning. The dual-MCP projection and the carbon-foil extrapolation further give the community a clear performance roadmap.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. III A and Fig. 2: the plateau cut that isolates traversing muons from decay-electron background is load-bearing for the 12 MeV/c (and to a lesser extent 16 MeV/c) SEY points. While the paper shows that the plateau is statistically flat and that accidentals are negligible, residual contamination at the few-percent level cannot be excluded from the present data alone. A quantitative upper limit on residual background (e.g., from a side-band or from a Geant4 decay-electron simulation folded with the measured energy spectrum) should be stated so that the systematic uncertainty on the lowest-momentum SEY can be assessed.
  2. Sec. IV B and Eq. (2): the transport efficiency ε_trans is obtained by integrating skewed-Gaussian fits to the reconstructed MCP beamspots. Because the mapping from foil to MCP is only approximately known (SIMION is qualitative and no mask calibration exists), the ~10 % correction carries an unquantified systematic. Propagating a conservative uncertainty on ε_trans into the final SEY points (especially the rising trend at low velocity) would strengthen the claim that the velocity dependence is not an artifact of acceptance.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 3 caption and Sec. III B: the limited DAQ time resolution is acknowledged, yet the spatial resolution that is actually achieved is never quoted; a one-sentence estimate would help the reader judge the monitoring claim.
  2. Eq. (4) and the surrounding text: the single-electron efficiencies η_MCP = 0.54(2) and 0.78(3) are taken from LEM measurements; a brief statement that these values remain valid for the secondary-electron energy spectrum expected here would close a small loophole.
  3. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8: the theoretical curve of Ref. [40] is shown but never compared quantitatively to the data; a short residual or χ^{2} statement would make the agreement claim more precise.
  4. Throughout: “90OAR” and “60OAR” appear both as subscripts and as plain text; consistent notation would improve readability.
  5. Sec. V, discussion of carbon foils: the Barkas-effect remark is correct but the positive-muon LEM points in Fig. 9 are the only experimental anchor; a sentence noting that the negative-muon carbon prediction remains untested would keep the extrapolation honest.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SEY is extracted from measured coincidences via standard formulas after independent corrections, then compared to external proton literature; minor self-citations are contextual only.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II (MCP efficiencies) and citations [5],[32]]
    "The effective single-electron detection efficiency of the MCPs, determined from dedicated measurements at the LEM beamline, is 0.54(2) for the upstream detector and 0.78(3) for the downstream detector, respectively. These values are in good agreement with the reported absolute detection efficiencies for MCPs of the same type [38]."

    η_MCP values originate from the authors’ own prior LEM work (self-citation chain). However the values are independently cross-checked against external literature [38], enter only as a multiplicative detector-response factor, and do not force the extracted SEY to match the proton literature; the circularity is therefore minor and non-load-bearing for the central claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is experimental and self-contained. Double-coincidence events define the normalization (Eq. 1); transport efficiency is estimated from the paper’s own reconstructed beamspots (Sec. IV B, Fig. 5); MCP single-electron efficiencies η_MCP are taken from dedicated LEM measurements and cross-checked against external absolute efficiencies [38]; SEY is then obtained from the standard Poisson inversion γ = −ln(1−ε_corr)/η_MCP (Eq. 4). No free parameter is fitted to the muon data to force agreement with the literature SEY curves for oxidized Al or the theoretical model of Ref. [40]. The rising-SEY trend and the dual-MCP projection (Eq. 3) follow directly from the measured efficiencies. Self-citations ([5], [32], LEM-related works) supply only background context on carbon foils and beamline performance; they do not enter the load-bearing extraction or the literature benchmark. The plateau cut of Sec. III A / Fig. 2 is an experimental background-suppression choice, not a definitional circularity. Consequently the central claim—that the measured muon SEY matches oxidized-Al literature and rises toward lower velocity—rests on independent data and external comparisons, not on self-referential construction.

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

The central claim rests on standard secondary-emission phenomenology, measured detector efficiencies, and well-documented simulation tools. No new physical entities or free parameters are introduced to force the result; the only adjustable elements are experimental calibrations (MCP single-electron efficiency, transport fraction) that are independently measured or estimated.

free parameters (2)
  • MCP single-electron detection efficiencies η_MCP = 0.54(2) backward, 0.78(3) forward
    Taken from dedicated LEM measurements (0.54 and 0.78) and used to convert efficiency to SEY; not fitted to the present data set but still an external calibration constant that scales the absolute yield.
  • electron transport efficiency ε_trans = ~0.75–0.95 depending on p0
    Estimated from fitted skewed-Gaussian beamspots integrated over the active MCP area; enters the corrected efficiency and therefore the SEY. Momentum-dependent and not measured with a calibrated mask.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Secondary-electron emission is a surface process whose yield depends primarily on particle velocity and surface oxidation state, allowing direct comparison of muon data to proton literature on aluminium.
    Invoked throughout Sec. V and Figs. 7–8 to claim agreement with oxidized-Al data and to extrapolate performance to lower momenta.
  • domain assumption Accidental coincidences and residual decay-electron background are negligible once the energy-plateau cut is applied.
    Stated in Sec. III A after checking low-momentum runs and inspecting Fig. 2; underpins the purity of N_double and therefore of every efficiency.
  • domain assumption Geant4 (MIXE framework) and musrSim correctly predict muon momentum loss in the entrance scintillator and foil.
    Used in Sec. IV A and Fig. 4 to convert nominal beam momentum to the momentum at the foil for SEY plotting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secondary electron yield from aluminium-coated foils for muon tagging and beam monitoring up to 60 MeV/c." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3CMHTBCE

@misc{pith2026260703241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secondary electron yield from aluminium-coated foils for muon tagging and beam monitoring up to 60 MeV/c},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3CMHTBCE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.03241}
}
read the original abstract

The feasibility of foil-based muon tagging is investigated in the momentum range below 60 MeV/c, with particular focus on its applicability to the low-momentum range spanning approximately 2.5 MeV/c to 20 MeV/c, where no efficient and minimally invasive detection scheme is currently established for continuous beams. Secondary electron emission from a 7 um Mylar foil coated with 50 nm aluminium is investigated using a continuous negative muon beam with nominal momenta between 12 MeV/c and 60 MeV/c at the piE1 beamline at PSI. The emitted electrons are detected with position-sensitive microchannel plate detectors, enabling particle tagging and spatial characterization of the beam. The detection efficiency and corresponding secondary electron yield are extracted and benchmarked against literature data for protons, showing good agreement and confirming reliable muon tagging. The observed trend for negative muons is consistent with the well-established increase in ion-induced secondary electron emission toward lower particle velocities, suggesting improved performance in the low-momentum regime. A proof-of-principle reconstruction of the muon beam profile is demonstrated by correlating detected electron positions with their emission point at the foil. These results establish foil-based tagging as a viable approach for combined timing and minimally invasive beam monitoring, bridging the gap between high- and low-energy muon instrumentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the experimental setup. A continuous muon beam traverses a 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Detection efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Reconstructed transverse beam profile for 35 MeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Momentum loss ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Secondary electron yield for muons on aluminized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Relative momentum loss ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Detection efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Prokscha, E

    T. Prokscha, E. Morenzoni, K. Deiters, F. Foroughi, D. George, R. Kobler, A. Suter, and V. Vrankovic, The newµE4 beam at PSI: A hybrid-type large ac- ceptance channel for the generation of a high intensity surface-muon beam, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment595, 3...

    2008

  2. [2]

    Prokscha, E

    T. Prokscha, E. Morenzoni, C. David, A. Hofer, H. Gl¨ uckler, and L. Scandella, Moderator gratings for the generation of epithermal positive muons, Applied Surface Science172, 235 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    Morenzoni, T

    E. Morenzoni, T. Prokscha, A. Suter, H. Luetkens, and R. Khasanov, Nano-scale thin film investigations with slow polarized muons, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter16, S4583 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    K. Khaw, A. Antognini, P. Crivelli, K. Kirch, E. Moren- zoni, Z. Salman, A. Suter, and T. Prokscha, Geant4 sim- ulation of the PSI LEM beam line: energy loss and muo- nium formation in thin foils and the impact of unmoder- ated muons on theµSR spectrometer, Journal of Instru- mentation10(10), P10025

  5. [5]

    Janka, M

    G. Janka, M. Mendes Martins, X. Ni, Z. Salman, A. Suter, and T. Prokscha, Improving the beam quality of the low-energy muon beamline at Paul Scherrer In- stitute: Characterization of ultrathin carbon foils, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams27, 054501 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Blundell, R

    S. Blundell, R. De Renzi, T. Lancaster, and F. L. Pratt, Muon Spectroscopy: An Introduction(Oxford University 10 Press, 2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Amato and E

    A. Amato and E. Morenzoni,Introduction to Muon Spin Spectroscopy(Springer, 2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Biswas, L

    S. Biswas, L. Gerchow, H. Luetkens, T. Prokscha, A. Antognini, N. Berger, T. E. Cocolios, R. Dressler, P. Indelicato, K. Jungmann, K. Kirch, A. Knecht, A. Papa, R. Pohl, M. Pospelov, E. Rapisarda, P. Re- iter, N. Ritjoho, S. Roccia, N. Severijns, A. Skawran, S. M. Vogiatzi, F. Wauters, L. Willmann, and A. Am- ato, Characterization of a continuous muon sou...

    work page doi:10.3390/app12052541 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Gerchow, S

    L. Gerchow, S. Biswas, G. Janka, C. Vigo, A. Knecht, S. M. Vogiatzi, N. Ritjoho, T. Prokscha, H. Luetkens, and A. Amato, Germanium array for non-destructive testing (GIANT) setup for muon-induced x-ray emission (MIXE) at the Paul Scherrer Institute, Review of Scientific Instru...

    2023

  2. [10]

    M. Aiba, A. Amato, A. Antognini, S. Ban, N. Berger, L. Caminada, R. Chislett, P. Crivelli, A. Crivellin, G. D. Maso,et al., Science case for the new high-intensity muon beams HIMB at PSI, arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05788 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Mandok, P

    L. Mandok, P. Isenring, H. Augustin, N. Berger, M. K¨ oppel, J. A. Krieger, H. Luetkens, T. Prokscha, T. Rudzki, A. Sch¨ oning, and Z. Salman, Advanced muon- spin spectroscopy with high lateral resolution using Si- pixel detectors, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013092 (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    Garcia, K

    F. Garcia, K. Fl¨ othner, A. Amato, S. Biswas, F. Brun- bauer, M. Heiss, G. Janka, D. Janssens, M. Lisowska, M. Meurer, H. Muller, B. Banto Oberhauser, E. Oliveri, G. Orlandini, D. Pfeiffer, T. Prokscha, L. Ropelewski, L. Scharenberg, J. Samarati, F. Sauli, M. van Stenis, R. V...

  5. [13]

    X. Zhao, M. Heiss, F. Garcia, B. Zeh, I. Briki, K. Fl¨ othner, G. Janka, L. Scharenberg, B. Banto- Oberhauser, H. M¨ uller, S. Biswas, T. Prokscha, and A. Amato, Drift time calibration of the ultra-low ma- terial budget GEM-based TPC for MIXE, Journal of In- strumentation20(06...

  6. [14]

    L. N. Large and W. S. Whitlock, Secondary electron emission from clean metal surfaces bombarded by fast hydrogen ions, Proceedings of the Physical Society79, 148 (1962)

    1962

  7. [15]

    Kenro and Y

    K. Kenro and Y. Yasunori, Multiply emitted secondary electrons (MUSE) in ion-solid interactions and a time-of- flight analyzer system, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms33, 276 (1988)

    1988

  8. [16]

    Clouvas, H

    A. Clouvas, H. Rothard, M. Burkhard, K. Kro- neberger, C. Biedermann, J. Kemmler, K. O. Groen- eveld, R. Kirsch, P. Misaelides, and A. Katsanos, Sec- ondary electron emission from thin foils under fast-ion bombardment, Phys. Rev. B39, 6316 (1989)

    1989

  9. [17]

    Gelfort, H

    S. Gelfort, H. Kerkow, R. Stolle, V. Petukhov, and E. Ro- manovskii, Secondary electron yield induced by slowly moving heavy ions, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Ma- terials and Atoms125, 49 (1997), inelastic Ion-Surface C...

    1997

  10. [18]

    Vidovi´ c, A

    Z. Vidovi´ c, A. Billebaud, M. Fallavier, R. Kirsch, J.- C. Poizat, and J. Remillieux, Backward- and forward- electron-emission measurements for MeV H 0 projectiles incident on thin carbon foils: Correlation with the charge state of the emergent projectile, Phys. Rev. A56, 4807 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    S. M. Ritzau and R. A. Baragiola, Electron emission from carbon foils induced by keV ions, Phys. Rev. B58, 2529 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Ogawa, A

    H. Ogawa, A. Shimada, Y. Inoue, K. Ishii, and T. Kaneko, Secondary electron emission from a thin car- bon foil induced by equi-velocity protons and electrons of 0.5–3.5MeV/u, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Ma- terials and ...

    2011

  13. [21]

    A. G. Hill, W. W. Buechner, J. S. Clark, and J. B. Fisk, The emission of secondary electrons under high energy positive ion bombardment, Phys. Rev.55, 463 (1939)

    1939

  14. [22]

    Aarset, R

    B. Aarset, R. W. Cloud, and J. G. Trump, Electron emis- sion from metals under high-energy hydrogen ion bom- bardment, Journal of Applied Physics25, 1365 (1954)

    1954

  15. [23]

    G. Foti, R. Potenza, and A. Triglia, Secondary-electron emission from various materials bombarded with protons atE p <2.5 MeV, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985) 11, 659 (1974)

    1971

  16. [24]

    T. A. Thornton and J. N. Anno, Secondary electron emis- sion from 0.5–2.5-MeV protons and deuterons, Journal of Applied Physics48, 1718 (1977)

    1977

  17. [25]

    Castaneda, L

    C. Castaneda, L. McGarry, C. Cahill, and T. Essert, Sec- ondary electron yields from the bombardment of Al2O3 by protons, deuterons, alpha-particles and positively charged hydrogen molecules at energies in the range of 10 to 80 MeV, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics R...

    1997

  18. [26]

    J. E. Borovsky, D. J. McComas, and B. L. Barraclough, The secondary-electron yield measured for 5–24 MeV protons on aluminum-oxide and gold targets, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms30, 191 (1988)

    1988

  19. [27]

    Hasselkamp, K

    D. Hasselkamp, K. Lang, A. Scharmann, and N. Stiller, Ion induced electron emission from metal surfaces, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods180, 349 (1981)

    1981

  20. [28]

    Koyama, T

    A. Koyama, T. Shikata, and H. Sakairi, Secondary elec- tron emission from Al, Cu, Ag and Au metal targets un- der proton bombardment, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics20, 65 (1981)

    1981

  21. [29]

    Svensson and G

    B. Svensson and G. Holm´ en, Electron emission from ion- bombarded aluminum, Journal of Applied Physics52, 6928 (1981)

    1981

  22. [30]

    Benka, A

    O. Benka, A. Schinner, T. Fink, and M. Pfaffenlehner, Electron-emission yield of Al, Cu, and Au for the impact of swift bare light ions, Phys. Rev. A52, 3959 (1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    R. A. Baragiola, E. V. Alonso, and A. O. Florio, Electron emission from clean metal surfaces induced by low-energy light ions, Phys. Rev. B19, 121 (1979)

    1979

  24. [32]

    Janka, H

    G. Janka, H. Ishchenko, Z. Salman, A. Suter, and T. Prokscha, Monitoring the tagging efficiency of the low- energy muon beamline through background analysis: In- sights into the long-term performance of ultrathin carbon foils, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams28, 082802 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Paul Scherrer Institute,πE1 Beamline (2026), accessed: 2026-04-24. 11

    2026

  26. [34]

    Grillenberger, C

    J. Grillenberger, C. Baumgarten, and M. Seidel, The High Intensity Proton Accelerator Facility, SciPost Phys. Proc. , 002 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    T. Hu, J. K. Ng, G. M. Wong, C. Chen, K. S. Khaw, M. Lyu, A. Papa, P. Schmidt-Wellenburg, D. Staeger, and B. Vitali, Beam test performance of a prototype muon trigger detector for the PSI muEDM experiment, Radiation Detection Technology and Methods , 1 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Jagutzki, V

    O. Jagutzki, V. Mergel, K. Ullmann-Pfleger, L. Spiel- berger, U. Spillmann, R. D¨ orner, and H. Schmidt- B¨ ocking, A broad-application microchannel-plate detec- tor system for advanced particle or photon detection tasks: large area imaging, precise multi-hit timing in- format...

    2002

  29. [37]

    D. A. Dahl, simion for the personal computer in reflec- tion, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry200, 3 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    Fehre, D

    K. Fehre, D. Trojanowskaja, J. Gatzke, M. Kunitski, F. Trinter, S. Zeller, L. P. H. Schmidt, J. Stohner, R. Berger, A. Czasch, O. Jagutzki, T. Jahnke, R. D¨ orner, and M. S. Sch¨ offler, Absolute ion detection efficiencies of microchannel plates and funnel microchannel plates ...

    2018

  31. [39]

    Allegrini, R

    F. Allegrini, R. W. Ebert, and H. O. Funsten, Carbon foils for space plasma instrumentation, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics121, 3931 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    A. F. Haque, M. Haque, S. Sultana, M. A. R. Pa- toary, M. S. Hossain, M. Maaza, and M. A. Uddin, Proton-induced secondary electron emission from ele- mental solids over the energy domain 1 keV–1000 MeV, Results in Physics15, 102519 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Allegrini, R

    F. Allegrini, R. F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, P. Wurz, and P. Bochsler, Determination of low-energy ion-induced electron yields from thin carbon foils, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms211, 487 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Shiroka, T

    T. Shiroka, T. Prokscha, E. Morenzoni, and K. Sedlak, GEANT4 as a simulation framework inµSR, Physica B: Condensed Matter404, 966 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    musrSim simulation,https://gitea.psi.ch/lmu/ musrsim, accessed: 2026-02-11

    2026

  36. [44]

    Sedlak, R

    K. Sedlak, R. Scheuermann, T. Shiroka, A. Stoykov, A. Raselli, and A. Amato, MusrSim and MusrSimAna - Simulation Tools forµSR Instruments, Physics Procedia 30, 61 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Ziegler, J

    J. Ziegler, J. Biersack, and U. Littmark,The Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids, Stopping and ranges of ions of matter (Pergamon, 1985)

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.