Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 43 references

Low-density polyethylene foams cut millimeter-wave filter scattering to under 1 percent, beating Styrofoam by several times at 280 GHz.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 10:14 UTC pith:2T6PQ2I6

load-bearing objection Solid instrumentation paper: first clean broadband decomposition of foam filter losses, already driving an SO SAT filter swap. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05003 v2 pith:2T6PQ2I6 submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO

In-Band Scattering and Absorption of Infrared Blocking Foam Filters for Millimeter-wave Cameras

Alex Thomas , Bugao Zou , Shreya Sutariya , Yuhan Wang , Gabriele Coppi , Samuel Day-Weiss , Nicholas Galitzki , Kathleen Harrington
show 6 more authors
Erin Healy Claire Lessler Aashrita Mangu Jeffrey McMahon Michael D. Niemack Edward J. Wollack
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO
keywords infrared blocking filterspolymer foamsmillimeter-wave transmittanceRayleigh scatteringMie scatteringZotefoamStyrofoamCMB instrumentation
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.

Millimeter-wave cameras for cosmic microwave background work need infrared-blocking foam filters that pass the science band with as little loss as possible. This paper measures Styroace-II and several Zotefoam formulations from 150 GHz to 2 THz and fits the spectra with a radiative-transfer model that separates dielectric absorption from Rayleigh, Mie, and secondary scattering. At a typical 5 cm thickness and 280 GHz, Styrofoam loses roughly 10 percent to scattering (absorption estimated under 5 percent), while ordinary HD30 Zotefoam is already better at about 3 percent scattering and under 0.3 percent absorption; the lowest-density LD15 and LD24 batches can push scattering below 1 percent with still-negligible absorption. Batch-to-batch scatter can reach two percentage points, so optical screening of each lot matters. The best measured LD24 batch has already replaced Styrofoam in a 220/280 GHz telescope, with predicted mapping-speed gains of tens of percent.

Core claim

A broadband transmittance model that includes dielectric absorption, Rayleigh and Mie scattering, and a Rayleigh–Mie secondary-scattering term shows that, for a 5 cm filter at 280 GHz, Styroace-II scatters ~10 percent while Zotefoam HD30 scatters ~3 percent (absorption bounded to ≲5 percent and ≲0.3 percent respectively by effective-medium theory); lower-density LD15 and LD24 can reduce scattering below 1 percent while keeping absorption negligible, and each loss channel is constrained at the ~0.1 percent transmittance level.

What carries the argument

The radiative-transfer transmittance T = exp[−w(αδ + αR + αM − 2 aRM αR αM / C)], which multiplies dielectric absorption with Rayleigh and Mie attenuations and a single detected secondary-scattering coupling, then normalizes every spectrum to a common 5 cm thickness so that batch performance can be compared at the 0.1 percent level.

Load-bearing premise

In-band absorption is treated as too small to detect in the fits and is therefore bounded only by Maxwell-Garnett theory that uses bulk polymer loss tangents and the polymer volume fraction inferred from density and refractive index.

What would settle it

Direct cryogenic in-band absorption or emission measurements on the same foam batches that return loss tangents larger than the Maxwell-Garnett upper bounds would overturn the claim that absorption remains negligible compared with scattering.

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

If this is right

  • Selecting an optically screened LD24 or LD15 batch can replace Styrofoam in 220/280 GHz cameras and raise mapping speed by tens of percent.
  • Batch-to-batch scattering differences of up to two percentage points make pre-deployment optical screening of every foam lot necessary for high-sensitivity instruments.
  • Higher-density Zotefoams (HD80, HD110) and carbon-loaded grades add excess in-band loss without improving infrared blocking and should be avoided for millimeter-wave filters.
  • The same cell-size and polyethylene absorption features that set infrared opacity also imply that low-density LD foams remain viable infrared blockers once mechanical lifetime is verified.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted sensitivity gains appear on-sky, other millimeter-wave and sub-millimeter instruments that still use Styrofoam or unscreened HD30 will have a clear upgrade path.
  • The same thin-shell scattering formalism could be reused to design custom foam densities that minimize loss at any chosen science band between 90 and 350 GHz.
  • Spatial inhomogeneities already seen in Styrofoam samples suggest that large-area filters may require multi-point transmittance maps rather than single-spot acceptance tests.

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

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports broadband (150 GHz–2 THz) transmittance spectra of Styroace-II and several Zotefoam formulations used as IR-blocking filters in CMB cameras, and fits them with a radiative-transfer model that includes dielectric absorption, Rayleigh and Mie scattering, and a Rayleigh–Mie secondary-scattering term. For a representative 5 cm stack at 280 GHz the authors report ~10% scattering and ≲5% absorption (effective-medium bound) for Styroace-II versus ~3% scattering and ≲0.3% absorption for HD30, with LD15/LD24 able to push scattering below ~1%. Model components are constrained at the ~0.1% transmittance level; batch-to-batch scattering variations of up to ~2 percentage points are quantified. On the basis of these results, the best measured LD24 batch has replaced Styroace-II in a Simons Observatory 220/280 GHz SAT.

Significance. The work supplies the first quantitative, multi-component decomposition of in-band scattering versus absorption for the polymer foams that dominate warm IR filtering in modern CMB instruments. High-SNR time-domain THz spectra, nested-sampling fits, multi-thickness and multi-batch coverage, and public data/code make the results immediately usable for optical design and mapping-speed forecasts. The batch-to-batch variability quantification and the concrete hardware decision (LD24 replacement) give the paper direct operational impact beyond a pure materials study. Strengths include explicit upper bounds rather than over-claimed detections for tan δ, and appendices that connect the phenomenological K parameters to thin-shell scattering theory.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.A, Table 2, Table 3, §6] §5.A, Eqs. (9)–(11), Table 2, and Table 3: In-band absorption is not detected in the spectral fits for non-carbon-loaded samples; the quoted ≲5% (Styrofoam) and ≲0.3% (HD30) figures are Maxwell–Garnett upper bounds from bulk polymer tan δ and density/neff. Optical-loading and mapping-speed claims in §6 and Table 3 treat these bounds as the working absorption values (with order-unity error). Please state more explicitly in the abstract, §6, and Table 3 caption that P_ems and the jbolo mapping-speed gains are upper-bound estimates, and that a true non-detection would reduce absorption loading further while leaving the scattering ranking unchanged.
  2. [§4.B, Table 1] §4.B and Table 1: A subset of Styrofoam samples yields unphysical (too low) loss-tangent posteriors attributed to spatial inhomogeneity; those samples are excluded from the joint fit and the largest upper bound is reported. Given that the deployed SO SAT filter was measured and stated to be consistent with the batch, please quantify how much of the deployed stack was sampled, and whether the ~10% scattering / ≲5% absorption figures remain valid if inhomogeneous patches occupy a non-negligible fraction of the clear aperture. A short statement of spatial sampling and repeatability would make the Styrofoam baseline more robust.
minor comments (8)
  1. Throughout: several typos and spelling inconsistencies (e.g., “polyethelyne,” “reasoanble,” “imoho-geneities,” “exluded,” “deskinned”). A careful copy-edit pass is needed.
  2. [§3.B] Eq. (1) and surrounding text: neff is obtained from phase after waterline masking; the reported batch-averaged values (HD30 1.016±0.002, Styrofoam 1.022±0.001) should note whether thickness uncertainty is folded into the error or only photon-noise weighting.
  3. [Fig. 5, Fig. 7] Fig. 5 and Fig. 7: darker = thicker is useful but hard to read in grayscale; consider line styles or a thickness legend for accessibility.
  4. [Fig. 8] Fig. 8: the four-panel layout is dense; labeling the absorption curves as “MG estimate (not fit)” in the legend would reinforce the distinction already made in the text.
  5. [§6] §6 Infrared: the radiative-exchange calculation (Eq. 19) and the comparison of 24-layer Styrofoam vs 16-layer LD24 are helpful, but the phrase “likely comparable IR blocking” should cite the shared PE vibrational features and cell-size similarity more explicitly as an assumption, not a measurement of this work.
  6. [Appendix E] Appendix E / Table 4: the mask for the 1113 GHz line (1080–1245 GHz) is much wider than the others; a one-line justification (blended features / residual wings) would help reproducibility.
  7. [Table 1] Table 1: single-sample batches correctly omit sample-variation uncertainties; consider marking those rows with a dagger or footnote so readers do not treat the point estimates as equally precise as multi-sample batches.
  8. [References] References: a few arXiv-only or “in preparation” items (e.g., Harrington et al. 2026; Wollack unpublished notes) should be updated or flagged as such at proof stage if journal policy requires.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ordinary spectroscopic fitting plus independent Maxwell–Garnett absorption bounds, not self-definitional predictions.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is empirical characterization, not a first-principles derivation that collapses onto its inputs. Broadband transmittance spectra are measured; a physically motivated radiative-transfer model (Rayleigh + Mie + secondary Rayleigh–Mie coupling + optional dielectric absorption) is fitted to those spectra (Eqs. 2–8, nested sampling of C, KRay, KMie, aRM, tan δ). Reported in-band scattering fractions for 5 cm filters are simply the evaluated model components at the band frequencies—standard parameter estimation, not a prediction forced by construction. Dielectric absorption is explicitly not detected for non-carbon-loaded foams; the ≲5% / ≲0.3% absorption bounds come from independent bulk polymer tan δ literature values combined with fractional polymer volume from density and measured neff via Maxwell–Garnett (Eqs. 9–11, Table 2), which is external to the transmittance fit. Optical-loading and mapping-speed numbers are downstream applications of those measured/estimated losses, not circular re-labelings of the fit. Microphysical length-scale inversions (Eqs. 15–16) are presented as order-of-magnitude consistency checks that disagree by a factor of ~2, not as claimed predictions. Self-citations (e.g., Day-Weiss SO SAT filter description, Wollack unpublished notes for the cell sketch) are contextual and not uniqueness theorems or load-bearing uniqueness claims. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or ansatz-smuggled-via-citation pattern is present for the central ranking of Styrofoam vs HD30 vs LD24/LD15.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard radiative-transfer and scattering theory plus Maxwell-Garnett effective-medium theory, with five free parameters per spectrum fitted by nested sampling. No new particles or forces are invented; the secondary-scattering coupling aRM is a phenomenological efficiency within an existing multiple-scattering expansion. Absorption is not free-fitted but bounded from bulk literature values.

free parameters (5)
  • C (scattering prefactor, cm^-1)
    Overall scale of scattering events per unit length; fitted per batch to transmittance spectra (§4, Table 1).
  • K_Ray (GHz)
    Characteristic frequency encoding Rayleigh (cell-wall) material properties; fitted (§4, Eq. 4).
  • K_Mie (GHz)
    Characteristic frequency encoding Mie (cell) material properties; fitted (§4, Eq. 3).
  • a_RM (dimensionless coupling efficiency)
    Secondary Rayleigh-Mie rescattering efficiency in [0,1]; fitted; only channel retained after model comparison (§4.A).
  • tan δ (loss tangent)
    Not detected for white foams; 95th-percentile upper bounds reported from fit, while field estimates use independent bulk values via Maxwell-Garnett (§4, §5.A).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Beer-Lambert multiplicative transmittance for independent absorption and scattering channels (T = exp[-w(αδ+αR+αM-S2)])
    Standard for weakly absorbing media; invoked throughout §4 and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Thin-shell Mie/Rayleigh efficiencies for closed-cell foams (Lange & Aragón expansion, ℓ ≪ d)
    Appendix B; used to connect fitted K parameters to microphysical d and ℓ.
  • domain assumption Maxwell-Garnett effective-medium theory in the dilute limit for neff and tan δ_eff
    §5.A Eqs. 9-11; supplies absorption bounds when fit does not detect loss.
  • domain assumption Fresnel reflections negligible (R ~ 10^-4 for neff ~ 1.01)
    Stated in §4; justifies omitting reflection terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Only Rayleigh-Mie secondary channel is retained (aRR = aMM = 0)
    Empirical model selection after testing higher-order channels; justified by residuals and cell-matrix structure (§4.A).
  • domain assumption Scattering kernels and forebaffle geometry for optical-loading integrals
    Appendix C and Eq. 18; standard phase-function treatment.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 26467 in / 3340 out tokens · 23515 ms · 2026-07-11T10:14:41.615266+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Expanded closed-cell polymer foams are widely used as thermal infrared (IR) blocking filters in millimeter-wave cameras, particularly for Cosmic Microwave Background observations. Precise knowledge of their millimeter-wave properties is essential for optimizing sensitivity. We present broadband (150 GHz - 2 THz) transmittance spectroscopy of Styroace-II and several Zotefoam filters, fitting their spectra with a radiative transfer model incorporating dielectric absorption and Rayleigh, Mie, and higher-order scattering. For a typical 5~cm thick filter stack at 280~GHz, Styroace-II exhibits ${\sim}10\%$ scattering with absorption estimated as ${\lesssim}5\%$ by effective-medium theory, while Zotefoam HD30 offers superior performance at ${\sim}3\%$ scattering and absorption likewise bounded to ${{\lesssim}0.3\%}$. Each model component is constrained at the ${\sim}0.1\%$ transmittance level for millimeter wavelengths. We observe batch-to-batch scattering variability of up to 2 percentage points in foams with multiple tested batches. Less commonly used Zotefoam formulations (LD15 and LD24) can further reduce in-band scattering to ${<}1\%$ while maintaining negligible in-band absorption and likely comparable IR blocking due to shared polyethylene absorption features and similar cell sizes. Based on this work, a filter constructed from the best measured LD24 batch has replaced the Styroace-II filter in a Simons Observatory 220/280 GHz Small Aperture Telescope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05003 by Aashrita Mangu, Alex Thomas, Bugao Zou, Claire Lessler, Edward J. Wollack, Erin Healy, Gabriele Coppi, Jeffrey McMahon, Kathleen Harrington, Michael D. Niemack, Nicholas Galitzki, Samuel Day-Weiss, Shreya Sutariya, Yuhan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Sketch of closed-cell foam composed of cells and cell wall intersections, included with permission from [10]. Microscope image of Styrofoam (b) and Zotefoam HD30 (c). dants, blue colorants, and two volatile blowing agents—butane and chloroethane—that vaporize and expand the softened poly￾mer.1,2 Fire retardants are included for safety as the blowing agents are not fully combusted during fabrication, wh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: One nominally 0.32 cm thick HD30 sample mounted in the collimated TeraFlash beam. Varying the locations of sample(s) within the beam yields no detectable difference in our transmittance measurement or model results. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Time [ps] 250 0 250 500 Photocurrent [nA] 5 0 5 10 Free-space reference 0.36 cm 0.72 cm 1.09 cm 2.54 cm 5.09 cm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Upper) Raw versus 15 GHz binned photocurrents for a 2.54 cm Zotefoam HD30 sample and free-space refer￾ence. (Lower) The corresponding transmittance spectrum with uncertainties. Uncertainties are used to weight the fitting. Binning is employed to mitigate residual low frequency sys￾tematic fringes. Data below 150 GHz and above 2,000 GHz where the low photocurrent limits accuracy are excluded from our analy… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Binned transmittance (upper) spectra normalized to a 5 cm thick filter and attenuation (lower) spectra for Styrofoam and Zotefoams. The dashed line is the secondary scattering model best fit for each batch. Sample thicknesses range from 0.1 to 5.1 cm, darker color indicates thicker samples. Convergence of the model fit from 150 GHz to 2 THz yields narrow parameter and mm￾wave performance constraints. The s… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HD80 and HD110 reach the diffuse scattering regime which yields phase errors as the decoherent phase information of scattered photons is recorded, impacting the measured ef￾fective refractive index. Diffuse scattering also results in an asymptotic attenuation limit which is not considered by our model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Transmittance models for example 5 cm thick filters. Solid (dashed) lines represent the highest (lowest) transmit￾tance batch of a given foam; shaded regions are the 2σ bounds. Zotefoam transmittance generally increases as density de￾creases. Styrofoam performs worse than the worst Zotefoam HD30 across all viable bands. Based on this result, a 220/280 GHz Styrofoam filter was replaced with an LD24 batch 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The intrinsic absorption and extrinsic scattering losses of polymer foams filters using a typical 5 cm thickness. Best (worst) batches use solid (dashed) lines. Shaded regions are 1σ bounds. Absorption is estimated from material properties and uncertainties are therefore not shown. Grey regions are typical atmospheric band windows. Secondary scattering is negligible below 500 GHz. Upper Left: The Styrofoam… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulated single Mie scattering kernels for a vacuum sphere suspended in HDPE (left) versus a thin HDPE shell with vacuum interior and exterior (right). The void sphere uses the ordinary Mie coefficients (Eqs. (25) and (26)), while the hollow polymer shell uses the Mie coefficients derived for this special case (Eqs. (36), and (37)) by [40]. In both cases, the scattering kernel narrows with increasing freq… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Measured transmittance at various angles arising due to scattering normalized by the in-line transmittance. Wider 50 GHz binning is employed due to lower SNR. Data near the open measurement (no sample; noise floor) at 15 degrees is noise dominated and therefore excluded. Narrower angles generally have higher transmittance as expected, while the 30 degree transmittance exceeding that of 15 degrees could be… 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

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The Simons Observatory: Astro2020 decadal project whitepaper,

    The Simons Observatory Collaboration, M. H. Abitbolet al., “The Simons Observatory: Astro2020 decadal project whitepaper,” arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:1907.08284 (2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  2. [2]

    The design and integrated performance of SPT -3G,

    J. A. Sobrin, A. J. Anderson, A. N. Bender,et al., “The design and integrated performance of SPT -3G,” The Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.258, 42 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Snowmass 2021 CMB-S4 white paper,

    K. Abazajian, A. Abdulghafour, G. E. Addison,et al., “Snowmass 2021 CMB-S4 white paper,” (2022)

    2021

  4. [4]

    The POLARBEAR exper- iment,

    Z. D. Kermish, P . Ade, A. Anthony,et al., “The POLARBEAR exper- iment,” inMillimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VI,vol. 8452 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference SeriesW. S. Holland and J. Zmuidzinas, eds. (2012), p. 84521C

    2012

  5. [5]

    The Simons Observatory: design, integration, and testing of the small aperture telescopes,

    N. Galitzki, T. Tsan, J. Spisak,et al., “The Simons Observatory: design, integration, and testing of the small aperture telescopes,” (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Simons Observatory: on-sky performance of radio-transparent multi-layer insulation using styroace-ii styrofoam,

    S. Day-Weiss, N. Galitzki, A. Takeuchi,et al., “Simons Observatory: on-sky performance of radio-transparent multi-layer insulation using styroace-ii styrofoam,” Appl. Opt.65, 1614 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    BICEP/Keck. XIX. Extremely Thin Composite Polymer Vacuum Windows for BICEP and Other High- throughput Millimeter-wave Telescopes,

    P . A. R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri,et al., “BICEP/Keck. XIX. Extremely Thin Composite Polymer Vacuum Windows for BICEP and Other High- throughput Millimeter-wave Telescopes,” The Astrophys. J.1000, 238 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Optical constants of far infrared materials. 3: plastics,

    D. R. Smith and E. V. Loewenstein, “Optical constants of far infrared materials. 3: plastics,” Appl. Opt.14, 1335–1341 (1975)

    1975

  9. [9]

    Multiple Rayleigh scattering of electromagnetic waves,

    E. Amic, J. M. Luck, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, “Multiple Rayleigh scattering of electromagnetic waves,” J. de Physique I7, 445–483 (1997)

    1997

  10. [10]

    Optical properties of low-density polymer composites and dielectric mixtures,

    E. Wollack, “Optical properties of low-density polymer composites and dielectric mixtures,” (2026). Unpublished Measurement and Analysis Notes

    2026

  11. [11]

    TeraToptica,

    A. Thomas and S. Sutariya, “ TeraToptica,” DOI: http://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.18438202 (2026)

    2026

  12. [13]

    Coherent broadband continuous-wave terahertz spectroscopy on solid-state samples,

    A. Roggenbuck, H. Schmitz, A. Deninger,et al., “Coherent broadband continuous-wave terahertz spectroscopy on solid-state samples,” New J. Phys.12, 043017 (2010)

    2010

  13. [14]

    Compact cw terahertz spectrometer pumped at 1.5 µm wavelength,

    D. Stanze, A. Deninger, A. Roggenbuck,et al., “Compact cw terahertz spectrometer pumped at 1.5 µm wavelength,” J. Infrared, Millimeter, Terahertz Waves32, 225–232 (2011)

    2011

  14. [15]

    Absorption, transmission, and scattering of expanded polystyrene at millimeter- wave and terahertz frequencies,

    C. Dietlein, J. Bjarnason, E. Grossman, and Z. Popovic, “Absorption, transmission, and scattering of expanded polystyrene at millimeter- wave and terahertz frequencies,” Proc. SPIE - The Int. Soc. for Opt. Eng.6948(2008)

    2008

  15. [16]

    Modeling the effects of scattering and absorption on the transmission of light in polycrystalline materials,

    M. H. Shachar, G. Uahengo, E. H. Penilla,et al., “Modeling the effects of scattering and absorption on the transmission of light in polycrystalline materials,” J. Appl. Phys.128, 083103 (2020)

    2020

  16. [17]

    H. C. van de Hulst,Light Scattering by Small Particles(Dover Publica- tions, Inc., Mineola, NY , 1957)

    1957

  17. [18]

    dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences,

    J. S. Speagle, “dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences,” Mon. Notices Royal Astron. Soc.493, 3132–3158 (2020)

    2020

  18. [19]

    Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to markov chain monte carlo methods for astro- nomical data analyses,

    F . Feroz and M. P . Hobson, “Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to markov chain monte carlo methods for astro- nomical data analyses,” Mon. Notices Royal Astron. Soc.384, 449–463 (2008)

    2008

  19. [20]

    Microwave dielectric constant and conductivity measurements in the phthalocyanines,

    M. A. Abkowitz and A. I. Lakatos, “Microwave dielectric constant and conductivity measurements in the phthalocyanines,” The J. Chem. Phys.57, 5033–5036 (1972)

    1972

  20. [21]

    Radio-transparent multi-layer insulation for radiowave receivers,

    J. Choi, H. Ishitsuka, S. Mima,et al., “Radio-transparent multi-layer insulation for radiowave receivers,” Rev. Sci. Instruments84(2013)

    2013

  21. [22]

    Miscellaneous data on materials for millimetre and submil- limetre optics,

    J. Lamb, “Miscellaneous data on materials for millimetre and submil- limetre optics,” Int. J. Infrared Millim. Waves17, 1997–2034 (1996)

    1997

  22. [23]

    ISO 489:2022 plastics — determination of refractive index,

    International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 489:2022 plastics — determination of refractive index,” (2022)

    2022

  23. [24]

    P . F . Goldsmith,Quasioptical Systems: Gaussian Beam Quasioptical Propagation and Applications, IEEE Press Series on RF and Microwave Technology (Wiley-IEEE Press, New Y ork, NY , 1998)

    1998

  24. [25]

    Bohren and D

    C. Bohren and D. Huffman,Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles(Wiley, 1983)

    1983

  25. [26]

    Introduction to the maxwell garnett approximation: tutorial,

    V. Markel, “Introduction to the maxwell garnett approximation: tutorial,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A33, 1244–1256 (2016)

    2016

  26. [27]

    Plastazote® HD30 product information (december 2017),

    “Plastazote® HD30 product information (december 2017),” https://www.zotefoams.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ PIS-A024-Plastazote-HD30.pdf (2017)

    2017

  27. [28]

    Styrofoam ® insulation products: Styroace-ii (xps3ba),

    Dupont, “Styrofoam ® insulation products: Styroace-ii (xps3ba),” https://www.dupontstyro.co.jp/styrofoam/product/styrofoam.php?ac= 1&fm=product (2025)

    2025

  28. [29]

    Polystyrene (general purpose) gpps,

    British Plastics Federation, “Polystyrene (general purpose) gpps,” https: //www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/polymers/GPPS.aspx

  29. [30]

    Typical engineering properties of high den- sity polyethylene,

    INEOS, “Typical engineering properties of high den- sity polyethylene,” https://www.ineos.com/globalassets/ ineos-group/businesses/ineos-olefins-and-polymers-usa/ products/technical-information--patents/new/ ineos-typical-engineering-properties-of-hdpe.pdf

  30. [31]

    Dielectric Properties of Low- Loss Polymers for mmW and THz Applications,

    S. Sahin, N. K. Nahar, and K. Sertel, “Dielectric Properties of Low- Loss Polymers for mmW and THz Applications,” J. Infrared, Millimeter, Terahertz Waves40, 557–573 (2019)

    2019

  31. [32]

    New method of measuring low values of dielectric loss in the near millimetre wavelength region using untuned cavities,

    D. T. Llewellyn-Jones, R. J. Knight, P . H. Moffat, and H. A. Gebbie, “New method of measuring low values of dielectric loss in the near millimetre wavelength region using untuned cavities,” IEE Proceedings: Phys. Sci. Meas. Instrum. Manag. Educ. Rev.127, 535–540 (1980)

    1980

  32. [33]

    A review of metal mesh filters,

    P . A. R. Ade, G. Pisano, C. Tucker, and S. Weaver, “A review of metal mesh filters,” inMillimeter and Submillimeter Detectors and Instrumen- tation for Astronomy III,vol. 6275 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference SeriesJ. Zmuidzinas, W. S. Holland, S. Withington, and W. D. Duncan, eds. (2006), p. 62750U

    2006

  33. [34]

    Transition-Edge Sensors,

    K. D. Irwin and G. C. Hilton, “Transition-Edge Sensors,” inCryogenic Particle Detection,vol. 99 C. Enss, ed. (2005), p. 63

    2005

  34. [35]

    Bolocalc: a sensitivity calculator for the design of simons observatory,

    C. A. Hill, S. M. Bruno, S. M. Simon,et al., “Bolocalc: a sensitivity calculator for the design of simons observatory,” inMillimeter, Submil- limeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy IX,J. Zmuidzinas and J.-R. Gao, eds. (SPIE, 2018), p. 137

    2018

  35. [36]

    The Simons Observatory: Commissioning of the mid-frequency small aperture telescopes,

    K. Harringtonet al., “The Simons Observatory: Commissioning of the mid-frequency small aperture telescopes,” (2026). In preparation

    2026

  36. [37]

    Diamond-loaded poly- imide aerogel scattering filters and their applications in astrophysical and planetary science observations,

    K. R. Helson, C. Y . Y . Chan, S. Arseneau,et al., “Diamond-loaded poly- imide aerogel scattering filters and their applications in astrophysical and planetary science observations,” (2025)

    2025

  37. [38]

    Plastazote® LD24 product information,

    Polyfoams, “Plastazote® LD24 product information,” https://www. polyformes.co.uk/res/LD24.pdf (2017)

    2017

  38. [39]

    Scattering of electromagnetic waves from two concentric spheres,

    A. L. Aden and M. Kerker, “Scattering of electromagnetic waves from two concentric spheres,” J. Appl. Phys.22, 1242–1246 (1951)

    1951

  39. [40]

    Mie scattering from thin anisotropic spher- ical shells,

    B. Lange and S. R. Aragón, “Mie scattering from thin anisotropic spher- ical shells,” J. Chem. Phys.92, 4643–4650 (1990)

    1990

  40. [41]

    Water vapor spectrum near 600 GHz,

    D. A. Stephenson and R. G. Strauch, “Water vapor spectrum near 600 GHz,” J. Mol. Spectrosc.35, 494–495 (1970)

    1970

  41. [42]

    Submillimeter microwave spectrum ofh 2 16O,

    F . C. De Lucia, P . Helminger, R. L. Cook, and W. Gordy, “Submillimeter microwave spectrum ofh 2 16O,” Phys. Rev. A5, 487–490 (1972)

    1972

  42. [43]

    Frequency mea- surement of pure rotational transitions of h2o from 0.5 to 5 thz,

    F . Matsushima, H. Odashima, T. Iwasaki,et al., “Frequency mea- surement of pure rotational transitions of h2o from 0.5 to 5 thz,” J. Mol. Struct.352-353, 371–378 (1995). Molecular Structure and Spec- troscopy

    1995

  43. [44]

    IR Blocking Foams Data & Analysis,

    A. Thomas, “IR Blocking Foams Data & Analysis,” (2026)

    2026