Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

The MIST-1 and MIST-2 multicusp ion sources for high-current H$_2^+$ beams

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A redesigned multicusp ion source doubles its extracted current to 7 mA, a factor of two over MIST-1, and runs stably for an hour at 6 mA.

desk verdict Credible factor-of-two total current increase from MIST-2, but the H2+ fraction is still an estimate at ~60%, below the 80% spec, so this is a promising progress report rather than a demonstrated solution. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03155 v1 pith:3JTD3HU2 submitted 2025-07-03 physics.acc-ph

Daniel Winklehner , Samuel Engebretson , Jarrett Moon , Joshua Villarreal , Philip Weigel , Eleanor Winkler , Parker landon This is my paper
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords multicuspionsourceH2+beamMIST-2filament-drivenarcdischargepermanentmagnetconfinementspacechargecompensationextractionsimulationcyclotroninjection
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 reports that MIST-2, the second iteration of a filament-driven multicusp H$_2^+$ source, extracts twice the total current of its predecessor: 7 mA versus roughly 3.5 mA, with one hour of stable operation at 6 mA. The doubling is presented as evidence that the redesign's core changes—an oxygen-free copper body with enlarged water-cooling channels, a tungsten-alloy plasma aperture, and a more compact extraction system that allows early space charge compensation—are working. The paper also compares permanent magnet materials and finds neodymium magnets outperform samarium-cobalt magnets in both total current and H$_2^+$ fraction, while removing the magnets entirely gives high H$_2^+$ purity but almost no current. If the results hold, the source is on a credible path toward the HCHC-XX cyclotron's requirement of 10 mA of H$_2^+$ with high purity and low emittance, though the paper itself notes the H$_2^+$ fraction at the new operating point is estimated at about 60% rather than measured.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MIST-2 source itself: a filament-driven multicusp plasma chamber whose alternating-pole permanent magnets confine the plasma, a 6 mm tungsten-alloy plasma aperture, and a compact multi-electrode extraction system (source at 15 kV, puller and the second lens negative) that creates a potential well for early space charge compensation. The mechanism is thermal and electrical: the oxygen-free copper body with embedded water passages keeps the source at room temperature at 6-7 mA, preventing outgassing and allowing steady operation, while the compact extraction stack shapes a low-emittance beam before it reaches the Faraday cup 255 mm downstream. Extraction simulations, previously benchmarked against measurements from the earlier source, provide the predicted emittance and beam size that anchor the claim that the beam meets the HCHC-XX emittance budget.

What would settle it

A species-resolved mass scan of the MIST-2 beam at 6-7 mA showing an H$_2^+$ fraction below 80%, or an emittance-scanner measurement of normalized rms emittance above $0.1\pi$ mm-mrad at the Faraday cup, would falsify the claim that the doubled current puts the source on track for the HCHC-XX requirements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MIST-2, built from lessons learned with MIST-1, delivers 7 mA of total extracted current—a factor of two over MIST-1—and sustains 6 mA for one hour while the source body remains near room temperature. The gains are attributed to replacing stainless steel with oxygen-free copper, enlarging all cooling channels, moving the front-plate magnets outside the vacuum, using off-the-shelf water-cooled filament feedthroughs, and adopting a compact extraction geometry with a negative puller and lens that gather space-charge-compensating electrons early. In a companion study, neodymium (Nd$_2$Fe$_{14}$B) magnets give higher total current and higher H$_2^+$ fraction than samarium-cobalt magnets, and no magnets at all produce a 90% H$_2^+$ fraction (counting only hydrogen species) but only 0.026 mA. The authors estimate an H$_2^+$ fraction of about 60% for the 7 mA beam, report a simulated normalized rms emittance of $0.079\pi$ mm-mrad from extraction simulations, and argue that a stronger discharge supply together with more filament heating should add roughly 80% more current to approach the HCHC-XX specification.

Load-bearing premise

The higher current counts toward the goal only if the beam's H$_2^+$ purity and size remain as estimated—about 60% purity carried over from earlier experience, and an emittance taken from simulation rather than from a direct measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scaling holds, replacing the 22 A discharge supply with a stronger one and raising filament heating should push total extracted current past 10 mA, meeting the HCHC-XX current specification.
  • At the 6-7 mA operating point, the estimated H$_2^+$ fraction of about 60% is below the 80% purity requirement, so the next milestone is a species measurement rather than simply more current.
  • The neodymium magnet choice is supported by data: versus samarium-cobalt, it improves both total current and H$_2^+$ fraction across the tested discharge-voltage range.
  • The one-hour run at 6 mA with the source near room temperature shows the water-cooled copper design removes the thermal limit that constrained the earlier source.
  • The simulated normalized rms emittance of $0.079\pi$ mm-mrad at 255 mm, if confirmed by measurement, stays inside the HCHC-XX emittance budget of $0.1\pi$ mm-mrad.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the decisive next experiment is a mass-spectrum scan at the 6-7 mA operating point; the paper's 60% H$_2^+$ estimate is carried over from the earlier source, and neither purity nor emittance has yet been measured on MIST-2 at this current.
  • Inference: the no-magnet data point (90% H$_2^+$ but only 0.026 mA) sketches a trade-off between confinement and purity that a variable-strength cusp field could map, possibly locating an operating curve that meets both the 10 mA and 80% goals simultaneously.
  • Inference: because the 6.8 mA point was cut off only by the discharge supply's 22 A current limit, the source's true ceiling is untested; the predicted 80% gain is an extrapolation from scaling filament and discharge power, not a demonstrated result.
  • Inference: if purity cannot be raised inside the source itself, a downstream species filter would be required, trading some total current for the H$_2^+$ fraction the cyclotron needs.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports on two iterations of the MIT Multicusp Ion Source (MIST-1 and MIST-2) developed as ion sources for the HCHC-XX cyclotron, which requires 10 mA of H2+ with an H2+ fraction above 80% and a normalized rms emittance below 0.1 pi-mm-mrad. The authors present the mechanical, electrical, and control-system design of MIST-2, a study of permanent-magnet options (including a no-magnet configuration), and first commissioning results. The central experimental claim is an increase in total extracted current to roughly 7 mA with the MIST-2, about twice that of MIST-1. However, the body of the paper reports 6.8 mA only at the discharge power supply current limit with periodic trips, with stable operation at 6 mA for one hour. The paper also quotes an estimated H2+ fraction of about 60% based on previous experience rather than a measurement on MIST-2, and quotes a simulated, not measured, normalized rms emittance of 0.079 pi-mm-mrad.

Significance. The work is a useful engineering contribution: it documents a concrete redesign path for high-current multicusp H2+ sources, provides a careful mechanical and electrical description, and includes reproducible experimental data on total extracted current and on magnet-material effects. The open control-system code and the use of established simulation tools (IBSimu and Warp) are strengths. If the measured H2+ fraction and emittance at high current were to meet the HCHC-XX requirements, the demonstrated total-current increase would be significant. As the manuscript stands, however, the quantitative case for meeting the HCHC-XX specifications is incomplete: the headline '7 mA' is a transient value, the H2+ fraction is an estimate below the 80% requirement, and the emittance is simulated rather than measured. These gaps matter because the source is explicitly judged against the HCHC-XX requirements.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV D] The abstract states that the MIST-2 total extracted current was increased 'to 7 mA,' but Section IV D reports 6.8 mA only at the 22 A current limit of the discharge power supply, with over-current protection trips roughly every 5 minutes, and stable operation at 6 mA for one hour. The abstract should distinguish the stable demonstrated current (6 mA) from the transient maximum (6.8 mA), or the claim should be reworded so that '7 mA' is not presented as a stable operating point.
  2. [Section VI and Section IV C] The H2+ fraction for the MIST-2 high-current beam is not measured. Section VI states only 'From previous experience, we estimate an H2+ fraction of about 60% for this beam,' and the mass spectra in Section IV C were taken on MIST-1, not on the full MIST-2 at the 6-7 mA operating point. Because the redesign changes the backplate, magnets, and extraction geometry, the species balance could differ. At the stated 60% estimate, a 7 mA total current corresponds to only about 4.2 mA of H2+, well below the 10 mA H2+ requirement. The authors should measure the mass spectrum on MIST-2 at the high-current operating point, or clearly report the absence of such a measurement as a known limitation rather than implying compatibility with the HCHC-XX requirements.
  3. [Section IV D and Section III] The normalized rms emittance of 0.079 pi-mm-mrad quoted for the 6 mA beam is obtained from an IBSimu simulation, not from the Allison scanner measurements that the analysis beamline is designed to provide. The sentence 'Based on previous comparisons of IBSimu and measured emittances for the MIST-1, we trust this number' is a calibration argument, but it does not replace a measurement with a stated uncertainty for MIST-2. Since the HCHC-XX requirement is a normalized rms emittance below 0.1 pi-mm-mrad, the paper should either report an actual emittance measurement or clearly present the simulated value as a projection with appropriate caveats and sensitivity to the assumed ion temperature and space-charge compensation factor.
  4. [Section IV C and Figures 12-13] The magnet-comparison plots report ion fractions and total currents without error bars or stated uncertainties. The text notes large run-to-run variations in contaminants attributed to vacuum conditions and O-ring outgassing, but the figures do not quantify this variability. Because the magnet choice is a design decision based on these data, the absence of uncertainty estimates weakens the comparison. Please add error bars, state the statistical procedure, or explicitly explain why the differences are significant despite the scatter.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II B] The power supply manufacturer is spelled 'Matsusasda' in one place; this appears to be a typo for 'Matsusada.'
  2. [Section IV C] The comparison of H2+ fraction in Figure 12 is restricted to hydrogen species and excludes contaminants; while this is explained, the paper should also report the absolute H2+ fraction including contaminants, since the HCHC-XX specification concerns the purity of the extracted beam as a whole.
  3. [Section V A] The machine-learning outlook section, while interesting, is not connected to any results in this paper and could be shortened or moved to a separate publication or outlook note.
  4. [Title and Section I] The title as rendered, 'high-current H+ 2 beams,' should use a consistent notation such as 'H2+ beams' to avoid confusion with the H+ and H3+ species discussed in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's headline results are direct measurements, and its self-citations are standard prior-work references rather than load-bearing derivation inputs.

full rationale

The main claims of the paper are experimental measurements: total extracted current read from a Faraday cup, mass spectra fitted with Gaussians, and comparisons of magnet configurations. The factor-of-two improvement of MIST-2 over MIST-1 is a comparison of two independent experimental campaigns, not a quantity defined in terms of itself. The magnet study uses the authors' prior MIST-1 data as a control, which is legitimate experimental practice and does not reduce the new measurements to the prior results. The simulated normalized rms emittance of 0.079 pi-mm-mrad is a simulation result, and the authors explicitly justify trusting it by citing previous comparisons of IBSimu to measured MIST-1 emittances [Ref. 29]; that is a validation claim backed by independently measured data in earlier work, not a self-referential derivation. The estimated H2+ fraction of about 60% is labeled as an estimate from previous experience and is not used to derive the measured current increase; any concern about purity versus the HCHC-XX requirement is a correctness or completeness risk, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The paper is therefore self-contained in its derivation chain for the claims it actually makes.

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

The headline result, the factor-of-2 current increase, is a direct measurement with no free parameters. The parameters listed become load-bearing only if the paper's framed application (10 mA H2+, 80% purity, emittance below 0.1) is read as a demonstrated property of MIST-2, which it is not.

free parameters (3)
  • Ion temperature T_i in IBSimu = 2.5 eV
    Section III sets T_i = 2.5 eV in the plasma sheath model; this is an unmeasured input on which the simulated emittance (0.077) depends.
  • Space charge compensation factor = 80%
    Section III: IBSimu simulations assume 80% compensation when the beam is well-shielded; the simulated transverse size and emittance depend on this assumption.
  • Estimated H2+ fraction for MIST-2 high-current beam = ~60%
    Section VI: The paper estimates the MIST-2 H2+ fraction from previous MIST-1 experience rather than from a measured mass spectrum at 6-7 mA; this is a hand-assigned value used to argue the beam is high-purity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The H2+ fraction and beam quality of MIST-1 carry over to MIST-2.
    Section VI states 'From previous experience, we estimate an H2+ fraction of about 60% for this beam' for the MIST-2 high-current beam, transferring MIST-1 behavior without a new measurement.
  • domain assumption IBSimu's 1D plasma model and Warp's XY slice solver adequately represent the extraction and transport.
    Section III relies on these codes for the 10 mA design, emittance, and energy spread values; the accuracy is inferred from prior MIST-1 comparisons, not from MIST-2-specific verification.
  • domain assumption For mass spectra, all relevant ion species are singly charged and follow identical beam dynamics when dipole and quadrupole are scaled at a fixed ratio, so peak heights represent fractions.
    Section IV A states the species fraction analysis assumes this to use peak amplitudes without transport corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The MIST-1 and MIST-2 multicusp ion sources for high-current H$_2^+$ beams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JTD3HU2

@misc{pith2026250703155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The MIST-1 and MIST-2 multicusp ion sources for high-current H$_2^+$ beams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JTD3HU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03155}
}
abstract

We present two iterations of the Multicusp Ion Source Technology at MIT (MIST) sources, designed to fulfill the requirements of the HCHC-XX cyclotron design. The HCHC-XX is a novel compact cyclotron accelerating H$_2^+$. Beam is injected through a radio-frequency quadrupole buncher-accelerator (embedded in the cyclotron yoke) and utilizes so-called vortex motion during acceleration. If successful, it will deliver 10 mA of protons at 60 MeV in CW mode. This scheme requires a low-emittance, high-current initial beam with high H$_2^+$ purity. We briefly summarize the design and previous results of the MIST-1 ion source and, for the first time, the detailed design of the new and improved MIST-2, including the mechanical, electrical, and control system design. We further show experimental results of using the MIST-2 backplate on the MIST-1 body, present a study using different types of permanent magnets for confinement (including no magnets), and finally, we present first results of the MIST-2 in full operation. In this first commissioning run, we were able to increase the total extracted current from the MIST-2 to 7 mA - a factor of 2 over the MIST-1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. MIST-2 CAD rendering–exploded view. Calling out the most important features. The water jacket around the plasma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. MIST-2 Extraction system CAD rendering–cut view. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The analysis beam line with diagnostic equipment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Wiring schematic for the ion source. The red square [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Particle trajectories from an IBSimu simulation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. A sample spectrum with Neodymium magnets, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Total extracted beam versus filament heating current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Mass spectrum with the MIST-2 backplate. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. A sample spectrum with no magnets installed in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Results of the magnet study, showing the ion fractions of each species for each magnet type and MFC setting. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of total beam current versus discharge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Photograph of a high-current beam exiting the ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In a multicusp ion source, the plasma electrons and ions are confined in a magnetic field produced by perma- nent magnet bars arranged in an alternating configura- tion (cf

    For the full details of the MIST-1 design, we refer the reader to the references above. In a multicusp ion source, the plasma electrons and ions are confined in a magnetic field produced by perma- nent magnet bars arranged in an alternating configura- tion (cf. Section II A 1). Ionization is facilitated by a hot filament emitting electrons, which are acce...

    work page

  2. [2]

    1 shows an exploded view of the MIST-2 ion source up to the Faraday cup located 255 mm after the plasma aperture

    MIST-2 source body FIG. 1 shows an exploded view of the MIST-2 ion source up to the Faraday cup located 255 mm after the plasma aperture. The most important mechanical pa- 3 rameters are listed in TABLE I. The plasma chamber, back plate, and front plate are made from oxygen-free high conductivity copper (OFHC), also known as Cu-101. The inside of the plas...

    work page

  3. [3]

    2 and list the nominal voltages for 10 mA total beam current extraction in TABLE II

    MIST-2 extraction system We show a close-up cut view of the extraction system in FIG. 2 and list the nominal voltages for 10 mA total beam current extraction in TABLE II. These are based on the simulations presented in Section III and correspond well to the values we found experimentally in Section IV. The source voltage is fixed at 15 kV. This is necessi...

    work page

  4. [4]

    first contaminant cluster

    Design differences versus MIST-1 The MIST-2 is an upgrade over the MIST-1, imple- menting lessons-learned from past runs. The most sig- nificant differences in design are: • Change of main material for fabrication. The original choice of stainless steel for it’s high yield strength and melting point proved problematic due to it being a bad heat conductor ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    J. M. Conrad, W. C. Louis, and M. H. Shaevitz, Annual Reviews 63:, 45 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    J. M. Conrad, M. H. Shaevitz, I. Shimizu, J. Spitz, M. Toups, and L. Winslow, Physical Review D 89, 072010 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Alonso, C

    J. Alonso, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Bungau, J. M. Conrad, B. Dutta, Y. D. Kim, E. Marzec, D. Mishins, S. H. Seo, M. Shaevitz, J. Spitz, A. Thompson, L. Waites, and D. Winklehner, Physical Review D 105, 052009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    IsoDAR@Yemilab: A Conceptual Design Report for the Deployment of the Isotope Decay-At-Rest Experiment in Korea's New Underground Laboratory, Yemilab

    J. R. Alonso, K. M. Bang, R. Barlow, L. Bartoszek, A. Bungau, L. Calabretta, J. M. Conrad, S. Kayser, Y. D. Kim, K. S. Park, S. H. Seo, M. H. Shaevitz, J. Spitz, L. H. Waites, and D. Winklehner, “IsoDAR@Yemilab: A Con- ceptual Design Report for the Deployment of the Isotope Decay-At-Rest Experiment in Korea’s New Underground Laboratory, Yemilab,” (2021), ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Winklehner, Physical Sciences Forum 8, 21 (2023)

    D. Winklehner, Physical Sciences Forum 8, 21 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Stetson, S

    J. Stetson, S. Adam, M. Humbel, W. Joho, and T. Stammbach, in 13th International Conference on Cy- clotrons and their Applications (1992) p. 4

    1992

  3. [11]

    Neutrino yield and neutron shielding calculations for a high-power target installed in an underground setting,

    A. Bungau, J. Alonso, R. Barlow, L. Bartozsek, J. Con- rad, M. Shaevitz, J. Spitz, and D. Winklehner, “Neutrino yield and neutron shielding calculations for a high-power target installed in an underground setting,” (2024), arXiv:2409.10211 [hep-ex]

    2024

  4. [12]

    While ML has found substantive use in early phases of accelerator design, real-time commissioning and main- tenance are typically left to human drivers

    through uncertainty quantification [41]. While ML has found substantive use in early phases of accelerator design, real-time commissioning and main- tenance are typically left to human drivers. As ac- celerator stacks become more complicated, however, seamless operation become...

  5. [13]

    Iso- DAR@Yemilab: Preliminary Design Report – Volume I: Cyclotron Driver,

    D. Winklehner, J. Spitz, J. R. Alonso, J. M. Con- rad, J. Moon, A. Herrod, S. De Neuter, E. Forton, D. Joassin, E. Van der Kraaij, and G. W´ ery, “Iso- DAR@Yemilab: Preliminary Design Report – Volume I: Cyclotron Driver,” (2024), arXiv:2404.06281 [hep-ex, physics:physics]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Winklehner, J

    D. Winklehner, J. Conrad, D. Koser, J. Smolsky, and L. Waites, in Proceedings of the 12th International Par- ticle Accelerator Conference , Vol. IPAC2021 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2021) pp. 4 pages, 0.582 MB

    2021

  7. [15]

    H¨ oltermann, J

    H. H¨ oltermann, J. Conrad, D. Koser, B. Koubek, H. Podlech, U. Ratzinger, M. Schuett, J. Smolsky, M. Syha, L. Waites, and D. Winklehner, in Proceed- ings of the 12th International Particle Accelerator Con- ference, Vol. IPAC2021 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2021) p...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Baumgarten, Phys

    C. Baumgarten, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14, 114201 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Winklehner, J

    D. Winklehner, J. M. Conrad, D. Schoen, M. Yampol- skaya, A. Adelmann, S. Mayani, and S. Muralikrishnan, New Journal of Physics 24, 023038 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Enabling a Multi- Purpose High-Energy Neutron Source Based on High- Current Compact Cyclotrons,

    L. L. Snead, D. Winklehner, D. Whyte, S. Zinkle, Z. Hartwig, and D. Sprouster, “Enabling a Multi- Purpose High-Energy Neutron Source Based on High- Current Compact Cyclotrons,” (2023), arXiv:2302.09011 [physics]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Winklehner, J

    D. Winklehner, J. R. Alonso, and J. Conrad, Jour- nal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2024), 10.1007/s10967-024-09533-3

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    J. R. Alonso, R. Barlow, J. M. Conrad, and L. H. Waites, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 533 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    M. G. Hamid Ait Abderrahim, Sustainability 13, 12643 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Winklehner, A

    D. Winklehner, A. Adelmann, A. Gsell, T. Kaman, and D. Campo, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 20, 124201 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    S. Peng, T. Ma, B. Cui, W. Wu, Y. Jiang, Z. Guo, and J. Chen, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2743, 012056 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Castro, G

    G. Castro, G. Torrisi, L. Celona, D. Mascali, L. Neri, G. Sorbello, O. Leonardi, G. Patti, G. Castorina, and S. Gammino, Review of Scientific Instruments87, 083303 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    J. R. Alonso, L. Calabretta, D. Campo, L. Celona, J. Conrad, R. G. Martinez, R. Johnson, F. Labrecque, M. H. Toups, D. Winklehner, and L. Winslow, Review of Scientific Instruments 85, 02A742 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Alonso, S

    J. Alonso, S. Axani, L. Calabretta, D. Campo, L. Celona, J. M. Conrad, A. Day, G. Castro, F. Labrecque, and D. Winklehner, Journal of Instrumentation 10, T10003 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    W. Wu, S. Peng, T. Ma, H. Ren, J. Zhang, T. Zhang, Y. Jiang, K. Li, Y. Xu, A. Zhang, J. Wen, Z. Guo, and J. Chen, Review of Scientific Instruments 90, 101501 (2019), publisher: American Institute of Physics

    2019

  20. [28]

    Schweizer, U

    W. Schweizer, U. Ratzinger, B. Klump, and K. Volk, Review of Scientific Instruments 85, 02A743 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Joshi, M

    N. Joshi, M. Droba, O. Meusel, and U. Ratzinger, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As- sociated Equipment 606, 310 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Ehlers and K

    K. Ehlers and K. Leung, Review of Scientific Instruments 54, 677 (1983)

    1983

  23. [31]

    Wutte, S

    D. Wutte, S. Freedman, R. Gough, Y. Lee, M. Leit- ner, K. Leung, C. Lyneis, D. Pickard, M. Williams, and Z. Xie, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 142, 409 (1998). 12

    1998

  24. [32]

    Y. Lee, R. Gough, W. Kunkel, K. Leung, L. Perkins, D. Pickard, L. Sun, J. Vujic, M. Williams, and D. Wutte, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 119, 543 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Winklehner, S

    D. Winklehner, S. Axani, P. Bedard, J. Conrad, J. Corona, F. Hartwell, J. Smolsky, A. Tripathee, L. Waites, P. Weigel, T. Wester, and M. Yampolskaya, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2011 (American In- stitute of Physics, 2018) p. 030002

    2011

  26. [34]

    Winklehner, J

    D. Winklehner, J. M. Conrad, J. Smolsky, and L. H. Waites, Review of Scientific Instruments 92, 123301 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Winklehner, J

    D. Winklehner, J. Conrad, J. Smolsky, L. Waites, and P. Weigel, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2244, 012013 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Winklehner and D

    D. Winklehner and D. Leitner, Journal of Instrumenta- tion 10, T10006 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Weigel, M

    P. Weigel, M. Busza, A. Namazov, J. Park, J. Villarreal, L. H. Waites, and D. Winklehner, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 1056, 168590 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Duckitt and J

    W. Duckitt and J. Abraham, in Proc. Cyclotrons’19, In- ternational Conference on Cyclotrons and their Applica- tions No. 22 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland,

  31. [39]

    Koser, L

    D. Koser, L. Waites, D. Winklehner, M. Frey, A. Adel- mann, and J. Conrad, Frontiers in Physics 10 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Duckitt, J

    W. Duckitt, J. Abraham, D. Marcato, and G. Savarese, in Proc. ICALEPCS’23, International Conference on Ac- celerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Sys- tems No. 19 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland,

  33. [41]

    Epics - experimental physics and industrial control sys- tem,

    “Epics - experimental physics and industrial control sys- tem,” https://epics-controls.org/

  34. [42]

    rfq-dip-epics,

    “ rfq-dip-epics,” https://github.com/ DanielWinklehner/rfq-dip-epics

  35. [43]

    Kalvas, O

    T. Kalvas, O. Tarvainen, T. Ropponen, O. Steczkiewicz, J. ¨Arje, and H. Clark, Review of Scientific Instruments 81, 02B703 (2010), publisher: American Institute of Physics

    2010

  36. [44]

    Friedman, R

    A. Friedman, R. H. Cohen, D. P. Grote, S. M. Lund, W. M. Sharp, J.-L. Vay, I. Haber, and R. A. Kishek, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 42, 1321 (2014), conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science

    2014

  37. [46]

    Villarreal, D

    J. Villarreal, D. Winklehner, D. Koser, and J. M. Conrad, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 5, 025009 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    Adelmann, SIAM/ASA Journal on Un- certainty Quantification 7, 383 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1061928

    A. Adelmann, SIAM/ASA Journal on Un- certainty Quantification 7, 383 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1061928

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    Kaiser, C

    J. Kaiser, C. Xu, A. Eichler, A. Santamaria Garcia, O. Stein, E. Br¨ undermann, W. Kuropka, H. Dinter, F. Mayet, T. Vinatier, F. Burkart, and H. Schlarb, Sci. Rep. 14, 15733 (2024)

    2024

  40. [49]

    Outlook towards deployable continual learn- ing for particle accelerators,

    K. Rajput, S. Lin, A. Edelen, W. Blokland, and M. Schram, “Outlook towards deployable continual learn- ing for particle accelerators,” (2025), arXiv:2504.03793 [cs.LG]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [2020]

    285–288, https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW- Cyclotrons2019-THA03

    pp. 285–288, https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW- Cyclotrons2019-THA03

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.