Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Halbach Magnetic Weber Bars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Halbach-array gradient of ~1 T/mm around a resonant sphere can bring a magnetic Weber bar's strain noise to ~10^-21/√Hz on resonance peaks and ~5×10^-20/√Hz broadband.

desk verdict A clean, internally consistent MWB design study: the on-resonance sensitivity holds up, but the abstract's 'demonstrated technology' claim outruns the body's own admission that the 1 T/mm gradient is not yet demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29388 v1 pith:QX663CCN submitted 2026-07-31 hep-ph astro-ph.IMgr-qchep-ex

Valerie Domcke , Itay M. Bloch This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.IMgr-qchep-ex
keywords gravitationalwavesresonantmassantennamagneticWeberbarHalbacharrayfieldgradientSQUIDreadoutbroadbandsensitivityring-downdetection
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

The paper proposes an upgraded magnetic Weber bar: a resonant sphere instrumented with surface pickup loops and surrounded by a Halbach array whose field is only about 1 T strong but whose spatial gradient reaches about 1 T/mm. Because a gravitational wave moves the sphere surface by δx, the flux change through a loop is proportional to (∂B_r/∂x)δx, so a large gradient makes tiny vibrations readable. The same gradient multiplies the thermomechanical noise, leaving the signal-to-thermomechanical-noise ratio unchanged; the gain therefore appears as a wider bandwidth and a lower broadband, SQUID-limited noise floor. With benchmark parameters (34-cm-radius, 4.2 K, 1.3-ton sphere, Q=10^7), the projected strain sensitivity is about 10^-21/√Hz around several ~10 kHz resonances and 5×10^-20/√Hz broadband at higher frequencies, with upgraded designs reaching 10^-23 to 10^-21/√Hz across 10 kHz–MHz.

What carries the argument

The key object is the displacement-to-flux transfer function ⟨A α_n ∂_r B_r⟩, where A is the effective instrumented area, α_n is the normalized radial surface displacement of mechanical mode n, and ∂_r B_r is the radial gradient of the Halbach field. The Halbach array (a periodic arrangement of permanent magnets with rotating magnetization, whose field decays as e^{-kz} with k=2π/λ) supplies the gradient ∂_r B_r ≈ 1 T/mm. The identity that carries the argument is that the signal and thermomechanical noise scale identically with this transfer function, so only the SQUID-noise-limited part of the sensitivity improves. The mechanical side is handled by expanding the sphere response in spheroida

What would settle it

Measure the actual radial gradient ∂B_r/∂r of a 1-mm-period Halbach array at the planned ~100 μm standoff from a curved surface. If it comes out at ~10^-3 T/mm rather than 1 T/mm, the SQUID-limited broadband strain noise in Eq. (15) rises by (B'_r)^{-2}, moving the claimed 5×10^-20/√Hz floor to ≳5×10^-17/√Hz; conversely, a prototype that verifies the S_h ∝ (B'_r)^{-2} scaling in the broadband regime would confirm the mechanism independently of the absolute gradient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the field gradient, not the field amplitude, controls the magnetic readout sensitivity of a resonant-mass gravitational-wave detector. Replacing the uniform ~10 T solenoid field (typical gradient B/L ≈ 10 T/m) with a ~1 T Halbach arrangement at 1 T/mm raises the displacement-to-flux transfer function by about two orders of magnitude. Signal and thermomechanical noise are both multiplied by this transfer function, so the ratio that sets the on-resonance peak is unchanged; the SQUID noise floor is not multiplied, so the enhanced signal lowers the off-resonance and broadband noise floor and broadens the band in which the peak sensitivity is approached. The paper suppor

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a radial magnetic gradient of 1 T/mm can be maintained over the entire instrumented sphere surface at a sub-millimeter standoff; the paper's Sec. III itself notes that demonstrated undulator gradients are about three orders of magnitude lower, so if the realized gradient is smaller, the broadband sensitivity floor is raised by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A compact instrument based on this design would cover a broad 10 kHz–MHz search band for short-duration gravitational-wave bursts, a regime where no current detector has comparable strain sensitivity.
  • Because the response is dominated by the ring-down after the burst, a search can ignore the drive interval and the magnet's GW-driven motion to order 1/Q; the signal-to-noise calculation then becomes largely independent of the waveform.
  • The gradient upgrade does not change the thermomechanically limited on-resonance peak; instead it converts that same peak sensitivity into a wider frequency band around each resonance, which is what makes broadband searches possible.
  • With upgraded parameters, such as lower temperature, larger or hollow resonator, stronger gradients, or resonant LC coupling to reduce SQUID noise, the design reaches 10^-23–10^-21/√Hz and could in principle approach the BBN bound on a stochastic gravitational-wave background near 1 kHz.
  • The multi-mode calculation demonstrates that the many non-signal spheroidal modes below 12 kHz can be rejected by spectral and spatial filtering, so they do not spoil the sensitivity at the n22 signal resonances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's abstract says 'demonstrated technology,' but its Sec. III states that demonstrated undulator gradients are about three orders of magnitude below 1 T/mm; read charitably, the claimed sensitivity is a target that requires a dedicated array-development program, and every factor-of-10 shortfall in gradient raises the broadband floor by a factor of 100 in the SQUID-limited regime.
  • The same gradient-boost logic should transfer to any displacement-sensing detector whose readout is amplifier-noise limited, including hollow or levitated resonators; the essential scaling is that the signal-to-amplifier-noise ratio improves as (∂B_r/∂x)^2 while the signal-to-thermal-noise ratio is invariant.
  • A decisive near-term experiment would be a small-scale prototype that measures the SQUID coupling κ and the realized gradient; the projected sensitivity scales as κ^{-2} and (B'_r)^{-2}, and the paper leaves the full mutual-inductance and capacitance calculation to a future design, so these two numbers carry most of the uncertainty.
  • If the quality factor drops with mode order as 1/ω (which the paper notes is expected), the thermomechanical-to-SQUID crossover moves down from the optimistic 7 MHz toward ~1 MHz, shortening the useful high-frequency band; a frequency-dependent Q model would sharpen that boundary.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'Halbach Magnetic Weber Bar': a resonant-mass GW detector in which a MiniGRAIL-like solid sphere is surrounded by a Halbach array producing strong magnetic-field gradients, with printed pickup loops on the sphere read out by SQUIDs. The signal is the flux change induced by GW-driven surface displacement through δB ∼ B'_r δx. The authors derive the multi-mode response of an elastic sphere, compute thermomechanical and SQUID noise PSDs, and present strain-equivalent noise curves. For benchmark parameters (R=0.34 m, T=4.2 K, M=1.3×10^3 kg, Q=10^7, B'_r=1 T/mm) they report S_h^{1/2} ≈ 10^-21/√Hz near the first n22 resonances and ≈5×10^-20/√Hz broadband. They also give a time-domain ring-down analysis and discuss upgrades.

Significance. The core idea is coherent and the derivations are standard and internally consistent: the Lobo-sphere mode expansion (Eqs. 7–15 and App. S.II) is appropriate, and the multi-mode, all-noise-mode treatment in App. S.IV is a genuine step beyond the single-mode approximations in earlier work. The paper's strength is that the sensitivity curves follow transparently from stated inputs, and the authors provide code and data for reproduction. However, the central numerical claims depend on an unproven 1 T/mm gradient sustained over a ~100 μm gap and on an approximate SQUID-coupling estimate; these are engineering extrapolations rather than demonstrated technology. If the gradient or coupling is worse by a modest factor, the headline broadband sensitivity degrades proportionally. The paper is a useful design study, but its 'demonstrated technology' framing needs correction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III / App. S.III] The abstract states that the quoted sensitivities are reachable 'with demonstrated technology', but the body does not support this. Sec. III says that only O(3) lower gradients have been demonstrated in macroscopic undulators and that the target 'would become viable' only with relaxed precision. App. S.III, Eq. (S19) shows the Halbach field falls as e^{-kz} with k=2π/λ≈6.3/mm for λ=1 mm, so the sphere surface must sit ≲100 μm from the array. Since the broadband strain ASD scales linearly with 1/B'_r (Eq. S41), a factor-3 shortfall raises the broadband floor from 5×10^-20 to ~1.5×10^-19/√Hz, and an order-of-magnitude shortfall invalidates the headline numbers. The abstract and main-text conclusions should be rephrased as projections based on target parameters, and the feasibility of a conformal sub-mm-gap Halbach array around a 0.34-m-radius sphere should be discussed quantitatively.
  2. [App. S.III / Eq. S41] The SQUID coupling κ≈0.002 is obtained from a simplified inductance model, L_p ∼ R^2/λ, with the full mutual-inductance and capacitance calculation explicitly deferred. The strain-equivalent noise in the SQUID-limited regime scales as κ^{-2} (Eq. S41), so κ is load-bearing for the broadened-bandwidth and broadband claims. A factor-3 error in κ changes the sensitivity by an order of magnitude. The paper should either supply a more robust estimate or present the main sensitivity curves as a family parametrized by κ, with a conservative baseline.
  3. [App. S.II / Sec. IV / App. S.VI] The benchmark assumes Q_n = Q = 10^7 for all included modes, while App. S.II itself notes that the quality factor is expected to drop at higher modes, typically as 1/ω. The high-frequency crossover estimate in Eq. (S40) explicitly depends on this flat-Q assumption and would move from ~7 MHz to ~1 MHz if Q drops by two orders. Since the abstract's 'several resonance peaks at ~10 kHz' include higher n22 modes, the flat-Q assumption should be relaxed or the claims restricted to the first few modes with a stated Q_n model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. S.I] The heading is typeset as 'NOT A TION' rather than 'NOTATION'.
  2. [App. S.V] 'are are short duration GW bursts' contains a duplicated word.
  3. [Sec. III] The phrase 'B′ ≃ T/mm over a distance of mm' is ambiguous: it conflates the gradient amplitude with the decay length of the Halbach field. Since e^{-kz} with k≈6.3/mm means the field changes substantially over ~0.16 mm, the gap and magnet-tolerance requirements should be stated explicitly.
  4. [App. S.II, Table S1] The row 'N^{-1}_{n2} ×10^3' would be easier to interpret if the entries were defined as magnitudes or signed values with units.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity projections are direct evaluations of standard mechanical/electromagnetic response formulas with declared benchmark inputs; the only self-citation provides baseline context and is not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the mechanical equation of motion (Eq. 2) through the modal response (Eq. 7), the signal and noise PSDs (Eqs. 10-13), and the strain-equivalent noise definition (Eq. 15). Every input entering the final sensitivity curves is a declared benchmark or a stated physical parameter: R=0.34 m, T=4.2 K, M=1.3e3 kg, Q=1e7, f1=3 kHz, alpha=0.3, eta=0.2/n^2, kappa=0.002, and B'_r=1 T/mm. None of these is fitted to reproduce the claimed output; the headline ASD values are arithmetic consequences of the quoted formulas with these inputs. The 'two orders of magnitude' gradient boost is the ratio of the assumed B'_r=1 T/mm to the uniform-field estimate B0/R~10 T/m via Eq. (1), not a hidden redefinition. The only self-citation is Ref. [15] (Domcke et al.), used for the original Magnetic Weber Bar concept, for the baseline noise PSD forms ('As in [15] we take...'), and for a comparison curve; this is background/benchmark support, not a load-bearing uniqueness claim or an ansatz imported to force the present result. The Sec. III admission that demonstrated undulator gradients are 'O(3) lower' than 1 T/mm, and the App. S.III warning that the Halbach field decays as e^{-kz} so the surface gap 'must be extremely small', are genuine technical-assumption risks, as is the deferred full mutual-inductance calculation for kappa. But these are feasibility/engineering uncertainties, not circularity: an assumption being optimistic or unproven does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The paper is self-contained against external, independently published resonant-sphere results (Lobo, MiniGRAIL, Schenberg), and no output quantity is used to define an input. I therefore find no circular step and score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or postulated entities; the only new object is the device configuration (Halbach array plus instrumented sphere), which is an engineering layout rather than an invented physical entity. The central projection depends on several chosen benchmark numbers (B'_r = 1 T/mm, Q = 10^7, κ ≈ 0.002, λ = 1 mm) plus standard sphere-mode and field-profile axioms; the authors are mostly transparent about which inputs are assumptions, though the abstract overstates the demonstrated status of the gradient.

free parameters (7)
  • Halbach radial gradient B'_r = 1 T/mm (benchmark; not yet demonstrated)
    Sets the displacement-to-flux transfer function; directly scales the broadband SQUID-limited sensitivity (Eq. S41). Body text says demonstrated undulator gradients are 'O(3) lower' (Sec. III).
  • Mechanical quality factor Q_n = 10^7, flat across modes
    Sets the thermomechanical-limited peak sensitivity (ASD ∝ Q^{-1/2}) and the resonance-peak structure; authors note Q is expected to drop at higher modes as 1/ω (App. S.II).
  • SQUID coupling κ = ≈0.002
    Derived from an inductance estimate L_p ≈ R²/λ with α≈1/√2 and L≈1 nH (App. S.III); broadband sensitivity scales as κ^{-2}; full mutual-inductance/capacitance calculation explicitly deferred.
  • Readout factor ⟨A α ∂B⟩ = 0.3 A B'_r (per-mode signed integrals −1.49…1.33)
    Mean magnitude of the signed four-quadrant integrals for the first ten modes (Eq. S18); the simplified main-text model uses 0.3, the numerical calculation uses exact per-mode values.
  • Halbach period λ = 1 mm
    Chosen benchmark; sets gradient scale (~kB_0) and field decay length (~160 μm), hence the sub-mm gap requirement between magnets and sphere surface (App. S.III).
  • Overlap simplification η = 0.2/n²
    Order-of-magnitude fit to the numerical overlaps (n=1: 0.3, n=2: 0.096 per Eq. S16); used in the simplified model and high-frequency scalings.
  • Sphere benchmark (R, T, M) = 0.34 m, 4.2 K, 1.3×10^3 kg
    MiniGRAIL-inspired external inputs, not fitted; chosen as 'readily available technology' for the headline sensitivity curve (Sec. IV).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Elastic-sphere eigenmode expansion; GW couples only to l=2 spheroidal modes with overlap η (Lobo formalism)
    Sec. II and App. S.II; standard theory of resonant-mass antennas, verified against Forward (1971) and Lobo (1995).
  • domain assumption Low-frequency regime ω_g R ≪ 1 with flat-space free-boundary conditions in the proper detector frame
    Sec. II and App. S.II; appropriate for R=0.34 m and kHz–MHz frequencies, justified by citation to [33].
  • domain assumption Magnets are static in the detector frame during drive and ring-down; GW-driven magnet motion is neglected at O(1/Q) because the support is quickly damped
    Sec. III (footnote 2) and App. S.V; load-bearing for treating the Halbach array as a fixed gradient source; the ring-down-focused signal estimate rests on it.
  • domain assumption Only thermomechanical and SQUID noise are relevant; the magnet support is massive/damped so its thermomechanical noise is neglected
    Sec. IV; ignores eddy-current/back-action effects from a conducting sphere (CuAl6%), which the authors explicitly defer in App. S.III.
  • domain assumption Planar Halbach field model B ~ B_0 e^{-kz} applies locally around the curved sphere (curvature radius ≫ period)
    App. S.III; the gradient magnitude and the mm-gap engineering estimate both follow from this idealization.
  • standard math Two-sided PSD conventions and the SNR integral of Eq. (14)
    App. S.I; standard signal-processing conventions, stated explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Halbach Magnetic Weber Bars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QX663CCN

@misc{pith2026260729388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Halbach Magnetic Weber Bars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QX663CCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29388}
}
abstract

Magnetic Weber Bars have been proposed to search for gravitational waves in the kHz to GHz regime by exploiting the mechanical deformation of a large magnet induced by a gravitational wave. Here we propose to increase the effectiveness of such devices by considering magnetic field configurations with strong gradients, albeit lower field strengths, such as Halbach arrays. We focus on one of the most challenging but most realistic signals, with short duration and low coherence, exploiting the ring-down period of the mechanical resonator. We show that with demonstrated technology this setup can reach sensitivities of $S_h^{1/2} \simeq 10^{-21}/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}$ at a broad set of frequencies around several resonance peaks at $\sim 10$ kHz, and $S_h^{1/2} \simeq 5 \cdot 10^{-20}/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}$ in a broadband search at higher frequencies. We discuss plausible upgrades to reach $S_h^{1/2} \simeq (10^{-23} - 10^{-21})/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}$ in a broadband search covering 10 kHz - MHz.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29388 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the proposed setup. Meridional pickup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Strain-equivalent noise amplitude spectral density for a resonant sphere with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [15]

    Magnets are Weber Bar Gravitational Wave Detectors,

    V. Domcke, S. A. R. Ellis, and N. L. Rodd, “Magnets are Weber Bar Gravitational Wave Detectors,”Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no. 23, 231401, 7 arXiv:2408.01483 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Gravitational Radiation,

    J. Weber, “Gravitational Radiation,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 18(1967) no. 13, 498–501

    1967

  3. [2]

    Resonant bar and microwave gravitational wave experiments,

    W. O. Hamilton, “Resonant bar and microwave gravitational wave experiments,” inGeneral Relativity and Gravitation, 1989: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, pp. 349–356, Cambridge University Press. 1990. [3]AURIGACollaboration, A. Vinante, “Present performance and future upgrades of the AURIGA capacitive...

    1989

  4. [4]

    Sensitivity of the spherical gravitational wave detector MiniGRAIL operating at 5 K,

    L. Gottardi, A. de Waard, A. Usenko, G. Frossati, M. Podt, J. Flokstra, M. Bassan, V. Fafone, Y. Minenkov, and A. Rocchi, “Sensitivity of the spherical gravitational wave detector MiniGRAIL operating at 5 K,”Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 102005, arXiv:0705.0122 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Spherical gravitational wave detectors: MiniGRAIL and Mario Schenberg,

    C. F. Da Silva Costa and O. D. Aguiar, “Spherical gravitational wave detectors: MiniGRAIL and Mario Schenberg,”J. Phys. Conf. Ser.484(2014) 012012

    2014

  6. [6]

    Rare Events Detected with a Bulk Acoustic Wave High Frequency Gravitational Wave Antenna,

    M. Goryachev, W. M. Campbell, I. S. Heng, S. Galliou, E. N. Ivanov, and M. E. Tobar, “Rare Events Detected with a Bulk Acoustic Wave High Frequency Gravitational Wave Antenna,”Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) no. 7, 071102,arXiv:2102.05859 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Author Correction: The multi-mode acoustic gravitational wave experiment: MAGE [doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35670-y],

    W. M. Campbell, M. Goryachev, and M. E. Tobar, “Author Correction: The multi-mode acoustic gravitational wave experiment: MAGE [doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35670-y],”Sci. Rep.13(2023) no. 1, 10638,arXiv:2307.00715 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Experimental Limits on Planetary Mass Primordial Black Hole Mergers,

    W. M. Campbell, L. Mariani, M. E. Tobar, and M. Goryachev, “Experimental Limits on Planetary Mass Primordial Black Hole Mergers,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 135(2025) no. 25, 251402,arXiv:2506.03609 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Detectability of gravitational wave events by spherical resonant-mass antennas,

    G. M. Harry, T. R. Stevenson, and H. J. Paik, “Detectability of gravitational wave events by spherical resonant-mass antennas,”Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 2409–2420

    1996

  2. [10]

    Microwave apparatus for gravitational waves observation,

    R. Ballantiniet al., “Microwave apparatus for gravitational waves observation,” arXiv:gr-qc/0502054

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Complete model of a spherical gravitational wave detector with capacitive transducers. Calibration and sensitivity optimization,

    L. Gottardi, “Complete model of a spherical gravitational wave detector with capacitive transducers. Calibration and sensitivity optimization,”Phys. Rev. D 75(2007) 022002,arXiv:gr-qc/0608097

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gravitational Wave Detection with High Frequency Phonon Trapping Acoustic Cavities,

    M. Goryachev and M. E. Tobar, “Gravitational Wave Detection with High Frequency Phonon Trapping Acoustic Cavities,”Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no. 10, 102005,arXiv:1410.2334 [gr-qc]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 129901 (2023)]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Searching for New Physics with a Levitated-Sensor-Based Gravitational-Wave Detector,

    N. Aggarwal, G. P. Winstone, M. Teo, M. Baryakhtar, S. L. Larson, V. Kalogera, and A. A. Geraci, “Searching for New Physics with a Levitated-Sensor-Based Gravitational-Wave Detector,”Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) no. 11, 111101,arXiv:2010.13157 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Electromagnetic cavities as mechanical bars for gravitational waves,

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and M. Wentzel, “Electromagnetic cavities as mechanical bars for gravitational waves,”Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no. 8, 084058,arXiv:2303.01518 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Superconducting Levitated Detector of Gravitational Waves,

    D. Carney, G. Higgins, G. Marocco, and M. Wentzel, “Superconducting Levitated Detector of Gravitational Waves,”Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no. 18, 181402, arXiv:2408.01583 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches above 10 kHz,

    N. Aggarwalet al., “Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches above 10 kHz,”Living Rev. Rel.28(2025) no. 1, 10,arXiv:2501.11723 [gr-qc]. [18]LIGO ScientificCollaboration, J. Aasiet al., “Advanced LIGO,”Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 074001,arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc...

    2025

  9. [21]

    One-Sided Fluxes—A Magnetic Curiosity?,

    J. C. Mallinson, “One-Sided Fluxes—A Magnetic Curiosity?,”IEEE Trans. Magn.9(1973) no. 4, 678–682

    1973

  10. [22]

    Design of Permanent Multipole Magnets with Oriented Rare Earth Cobalt Material,

    K. Halbach, “Design of Permanent Multipole Magnets with Oriented Rare Earth Cobalt Material,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth.169(1980) no. 1, 1–10

    1980

  11. [23]

    Practical Concepts for Design, Construction and Application of Halbach Magnets in Magnetic Resonance,

    P. Bl¨ umler and H. Soltner, “Practical Concepts for Design, Construction and Application of Halbach Magnets in Magnetic Resonance,”arXiv:2305.17227 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  12. [24]

    Halbach Magnetic Weber Bar: Figure-Reproduction Code and Data

    V. Domcke and I. M. Bloch, “Halbach Magnetic Weber Bar: Figure-Reproduction Code and Data.”https: //github.com/ItayBM/HalbachMagneticWeberBar,

  13. [25]

    Multidirectional, multipolarization antennas for scalar and tensor gravitational radiation,

    R. L. Forward, “Multidirectional, multipolarization antennas for scalar and tensor gravitational radiation,” Gen. Rel. Grav.2(1971) no. 2, 149–159

    1971

  14. [26]

    What can we learn about GW physics with an elastic spherical antenna?,

    J. A. Lobo, “What can we learn about GW physics with an elastic spherical antenna?,”Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 591,arXiv:gr-qc/0006102

    1995 arXiv

  15. [27]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments. Oxford University Press, 2007

    2007

  16. [28]

    LIGO Detector Characterization in the first half of the fourth Observing run,

    I. Asparuhov,Staggered undulator X-ray source for low emittance electron storage ring. Theses, Universit´ e Grenoble Alpes, June, 2023. https://theses.hal.science/tel-04207215. [29]LIGOCollaboration, S. Soniet al., “LIGO Detector Characterization in the first half of the fourt...

    2023

  17. [30]

    ForA= 4πR2/ √ 2, we therefore find|⟨Aα n22∂rBr⟩|/(A∂rBr)≃0.34, motivating the approximation⟨Aα n22∂rBr⟩= 0.3AB ′ r 103 104 Frequency f [Hz] 10 23 10 22 10 21 10 20 10 19 10 18 Strain ASD Sh [1/ Hz] Snoise h SSQUID h Sth h FIG. S1. Strain-equivalent noise amplitude spectral den...

  18. [31]

    A Hollow sphere as a detector of gravitational radiation,

    E. Coccia, V. Fafone, G. Frossati, J. A. Lobo, and J. A. Ortega, “A Hollow sphere as a detector of gravitational radiation,”Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 2051–2060, arXiv:gr-qc/9707059

    1998 arXiv

  19. [32]

    The design strain sensitivity of the schenberg spherical resonant antenna for gravitational waves,

    V. Liccardo, C. H. Lenzi, R. M. Marinho, O. D. Aguiar, C. Frajuca, F. da Silva Bortoli, and C. A. Costa, “The design strain sensitivity of the schenberg spherical resonant antenna for gravitational waves,”Sci. Rep.13 (2023) no. 1, 17706,arXiv:2302.01232 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [33]

    Covariant eigenmode overlap formalism for gravitational wave signals in electromagnetic cavities,

    J. Gu´ e, T. Krokotsch, and G. Moortgat-Pick, “Covariant eigenmode overlap formalism for gravitational wave signals in electromagnetic cavities,” arXiv:2602.08507 [gr-qc]

  21. [34]

    Internal Friction in Solids. 1. Theory of Internal Friction in Reeds,

    C. Zener, “Internal Friction in Solids. 1. Theory of Internal Friction in Reeds,”Phys. Rev.52(1937) 230–235

    1937

  22. [35]

    Broadband and Resonant Approaches to Axion Dark Matter Detection,

    Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi, and J. Thaler, “Broadband and Resonant Approaches to Axion Dark Matter Detection,”Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) no. 14, 141801, arXiv:1602.01086 [hep-ph]. 8 Halbach Magnetic Weber Bars Supplemental Material In this Supplemental Material we give additional inf...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.