Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Mass Spectrometry Studies of Hydrogen Ions Energy Distributions in an ECR- based Large Volume Plasma Source

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A compact 500 W ECR source appears to produce formation-zone negative hydrogen ion densities near 5.5×10^10 cm⁻³, on par with kilowatt-class filament and helicon volume sources.

desk verdict The raw H⁻ IEDF measurements are new and worth having, but the headline 5.5×10¹⁰ cm⁻³ formation-zone density is a back-calculation from an asserted λeff that the paper neither derives nor bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02226 v1 pith:5UQ5QZIH submitted 2026-08-03 physics.plasm-ph nucl-exphysics.acc-phphysics.atm-clus

Bibekananda Naik , Ramesh Narayanan , Debaprasad Sahu , Mainak Bandyopadhyay , Ashish Ganguli This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phnucl-exphysics.acc-phphysics.atm-clus PACS 52.70.Nc52.50.Sw
keywords negativehydrogenionsECRplasmasourcemassspectrometryionenergydistributionvolumeproductionlargefusionneutralbeamLangmuirprobe
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

Negative hydrogen ions are essential for fusion neutral-beam heating, but today's sources usually need megawatt RF power and cesium. The authors set out to show that a compact, 2.45 GHz electron-cyclotron-resonance (ECR) source, run at only 400–600 W, can support volume-mode H⁻ production in a large, one-meter expansion chamber. They measured H⁻ energy distributions 80 cm downstream with a molecular-beam mass spectrometer, combined them with Langmuir-probe data to obtain absolute densities, and then used an effective mean free path of about 12 cm to correct for collisional losses along the path. Their central result is an average H⁻ density of approximately 5.5×10^10 cm⁻³ in the formation zone (10–30 cm from the source), a value they argue is comparable to kilowatt-level filament and helicon sources. If the inference holds, ECR heating becomes a credible, power-efficient route to large-area, cesium-free negative-ion sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the effective mean free path for H⁻ loss, λeff ≈ 12.37 cm, which aggregates momentum-transfer scattering, electron detachment by electrons, atoms, and molecules, and mutual neutralization with positive ions. The authors treat H⁻ survival as an exponential probability exp[−(z0−z)/λeff], invert it to estimate upstream density, and average over the assumed production zone z = 10–30 cm. A second mechanism is the parallel-energy gain in the diverging magnetic field (adiabatic magnetic-moment conservation), which explains the beam-like IEDF peak at ~2–2.5 eV; and the density conversion itself rests on a Bohm-flux/Langmuir-probe calibration of MBMS counts (Appendix B).

What would settle it

Direct, calibration-free measurement of H⁻ density in the z = 10–30 cm zone (e.g., laser photodetachment or cavity ring-down spectroscopy) would confirm or refute the inferred 5.5×10^10 cm⁻³; alternatively, recomputing λeff from independently measured cross sections and neutral/electron densities and re-running the exponential inversion would test the sensitivity of the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a compact ECR plasma source, delivering only about 500 W of microwave power at 2.45 GHz into a 1 m diameter, 1 m tall expansion chamber, can generate volume-produced H⁻ densities of order 10^10 cm⁻³ in the region where the ions are actually formed. The evidence chain: mass-spectrometer counts at the probe (≈3–4×10^5 counts/s on axis) are converted to absolute densities using Langmuir-probe ion saturation current and an assumed equal detection aperture for all species; this yields n_H⁻ ≈ 3.9×10^8 cm⁻³ at 80 cm downstream and n_e ≈ 7×10^10 cm⁻³. Modeling all H⁻ loss processes (scattering, electron detachment, mutual neutralization) as an exponential attenuatio

Load-bearing premise

The extrapolated H⁻ density in the formation zone rests on the stated effective mean free path of 12.37 cm and on the assumption that mass-spectrometer counts are proportional to ion density times velocity with a single, species-independent detection aperture; if either is wrong, the headline number shifts by a large factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the formation-zone density of ~5.5×10^10 cm⁻³ is real, a single 500 W ECR source already approaches the negative-ion densities that kilowatt-class filament and helicon volume sources report, making ECR a viable low-power route for large-area fusion sources.
  • The inferred electronegativity of only ~0.55% at the measurement point means the downstream plasma is still electropositive; extraction schemes would need to collect the H⁻ before transport losses remove them.
  • The persistent dominance of H₃⁺ suggests a possible secondary H⁻ production channel (e + H₃⁺ → H₂ + H⁻), which, if confirmed, could be exploited to raise yield.
  • In configuration B, the high-energy H⁻ tail (up to ~20 eV) disappears with increasing pressure, indicating that collisional detachment preferentially removes fast ions; this energy-dependent loss must be accounted for in extracting high-energy beams.
  • The observed beam-like energy peak around 2 eV, explained by magnetic-moment conservation in the diverging field, implies that H⁻ ions arrive at an extraction grid with a controllable forward energy, which could simplify beam optics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 12.37 cm mean free path is the linchpin of the density extrapolation; because it appears in an exponential, a 20% uncertainty in its value changes the formation-zone density by a factor of several. A dedicated measurement or collisional-radiative model of the loss channels would be the natural next check.
  • The assumption that all ion species share the same MBMS detection area (A in Appendix B) is uncalibrated; a species-dependent transmission would shift the absolute densities and could alter the H⁻/positive-ion ratios.
  • If the density scaling persists when multiple CEPS units are arrayed, a multi-source configuration might reach the ~10^12 cm⁻³, ~1 eV plasma required in front of an ITER-class extraction grid—but that scaling remains to be demonstrated.
  • The method of using LP ion saturation plus MBMS relative yields could be extended to electronegative plasmas with finite H⁻ fraction by including the negative-ion contribution to the saturation current, which the present analysis neglects.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports H⁻ ion energy distribution function (IEDF) measurements in a large-volume ECR hydrogen plasma source using a Hiden HPR-60 molecular beam mass spectrometer, in two source configurations (transverse and in-line with plasma flow). It combines MBMS positive-ion counts with Langmuir probe ion saturation current to estimate downstream densities (n_H+ ≈ 9.6×10⁹ cm⁻³, n_H2+ ≈ 1.7×10¹⁰ cm⁻³, n_H3+ ≈ 4.3×10¹⁰ cm⁻³, n_H− ≈ 3.9×10⁸ cm⁻³ at 500 W, 2 mTorr), and then uses an assumed effective mean-free-path λeff ≈ 12.37 cm and an assumed production zone z = 10–30 cm to back-calculate an average formation-zone H⁻ density ≈ 5.5×10¹⁰ cm⁻³, which the authors compare favorably to kilowatt-level filament and helicon sources.

Significance. If the headline density were defensible, the result would be of considerable interest for volume-mode negative-ion source development, since it would suggest that a 500 W ECR source can match much larger and higher-power sources. The paper's raw IEDF data, the comparison between two configurations, and the explicit description of the density-inversion procedure are useful and provide a basis for further study. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the presented evidence: the λeff value is asserted without derivation, the MBMS-to-density conversion is uncalibrated, and the production-zone profile is assumed rather than measured or bounded. These are load-bearing issues because they directly control the factor ≈142 that produces the headline number.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (6)] The effective mean free path λeff ≈ 12.37 cm is the single most load-bearing input, yet it is asserted without derivation. The text mentions momentum-transfer, electron-detachment, atomic-hydrogen, molecular-hydrogen, and mutual-neutralization losses and cites [23], but gives no cross-sections, background densities, temperatures, or velocities. Since Eqs. (5)–(6) exponentiate λeff, the inferred density is exponentially sensitive: for z0 = 80 cm, z1 = 10 cm, z2 = 30 cm the amplification factor is (λ/20)(e^{70/λ} − e^{50/λ}), which is ≈142 at λ = 12.37 cm, ≈474 at λ = 10 cm, and ≈59 at λ = 15 cm. A 20% uncertainty in λeff changes the headline value by a factor of 2–3. Please provide the full derivation and a sensitivity/error analysis, or remove the formation-zone density claim.
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (2)–(10)] The H⁻ density anchor n_H−(z0) = 3.9×10⁸ cm⁻³ is obtained by treating MBMS peak counts as proportional to n_i v_i A with a single detection area A for all species, and by using peak count ratios rather than integrated IEDF fluxes. No calibration or manufacturer transmission data are given for mass/energy dependence of the Bessel-box/quadrupole system. Because the measured H⁻ IEDF (Fig. 8) has a broad high-energy tail, the peak count is not a robust proxy for total flux. Please quantify transmission corrections and integrate the IEDFs, or show that the peak-ratio approximation is accurate; otherwise the downstream density that enters Eq. (6) is not established.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (6)] The production zone z = 10–30 cm and uniform production are assumed based on [22], with no sensitivity analysis. The paper itself acknowledges the estimate is 'subject to uncertainties arising from the assumed production profile,' but it does not bound them. If production is concentrated closer to the source mouth (e.g., z = 5–15 cm), or follows a non-uniform profile, the average formation-zone density changes by a large factor because of the exponential weight exp[(80−z)/λeff]. Please provide an independent estimate of the production profile (e.g., from the axial Te/ne profiles or an H2(v) transport model) and a sensitivity study over plausible profiles.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs. §4.3] The abstract reports λeff ≈ 12.4 cm while §4.3 gives 12.37 cm; use consistent significant figures.
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (1)–(4), (7)–(8)] The formulas are dimensionally ambiguous when Te is in eV; the Boltzmann constant/electron charge is omitted in the printed equations. The numerical result corresponds to the correct Bohm velocity, but the equations as written cannot be followed literally.
  3. [Eq. (6)] Please define z1 and z2 explicitly and state the integration limits in the text; currently they appear only in the integral.
  4. [§4.1] There is a typo 'PＢＭＳ' (should be 'PSMS'). Also define the momentum-transfer collision frequency ν_m and give its value/source.
  5. [§4.3, comparison with [27–30]] The comparison with filament and helicon sources should state whether the quoted values are formation-zone densities, downstream densities, or extracted current densities; as written, the comparison may not be apples-to-apples.
  6. [§3.2, Fig. 8, Eq. (1)] S is described as the FWHM of the Normal distribution, but the equation uses S as the standard deviation; clarify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the H⁻ formation-zone density is a model-based back-calculation from a measured downstream density, not an input recycled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central estimate is not circular. The measured downstream H⁻ density n_H⁻(z0) ≈ 3.9 × 10^8 cm^-3 is obtained from MBMS counts and Langmuir-probe data via Appendix B; this is an independent measurement, not defined by the formation-zone result. The formation-zone average is then computed by inverting Eq. (4), n_H⁻(z0) = n_H⁻(z) exp(−(z0−z)/λ_eff), to obtain Eq. (5), and averaging over the assumed production region z = 10–30 cm with λ_eff ≈ 12.37 cm (Eq. (6)). This is a transparent back-calculation from measured data, not circular: λ_eff is introduced as a transport parameter from collision processes (ref. [23]), not fitted to force the final density to match a target, and the production-zone location comes from earlier plasma characterization. The large sensitivity to λ_eff and the unstated collision inputs are correctness/uncertainty concerns, and the paper itself concedes that 'this estimate is subject to uncertainties arising from the assumed production profile and the spatial variation of plasma parameters'; but uncertainty is not circularity. The self-citations to earlier CEPS/LVPS characterization are empirical support, not uniqueness theorems or ansatz smuggled in via citation. The comparison to filament/helicon sources uses external references [27–30]. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central density claim rests on a small number of measured inputs (counts, LP current, Te) and a large number of modeling assumptions. The most consequential unverified input is λeff, which controls the factor ≈142 back-extrapolation; the MBMS flux model and the uniform-production-window assumption also materially affect the result.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective mean free path λeff for H⁻ loss = 12.37 cm
    Stated without showing the cross-section/density inputs; central to the 142× back-extrapolation, so effectively a chosen/adopted parameter in this paper.
  • H⁻ production zone z1–z2 = 10–30 cm
    Assumed from earlier plasma characterization (ref 22); the average density estimate depends linearly on this window.
  • IEDF decomposition fit parameters = a_MB≈0.55, a_N≈0.45, Ti≈1.75 eV (A) / 4 eV (B), E0≈2.8 eV (A) / 2.0 eV (B), S≈0.9 eV (A) / 0.84 eV (B)
    Descriptive fit of the measured distributions; not central to the density claim but are fitted parameters.
  • P1 location / B1 in Appendix A beam-energy scenario = z1≈10 cm, r1≈8 cm, B1≈194 G, T⊥1≈2.65 eV
    Chosen to make the parallel-energy-gain scenario reproduce the observed 2.5 eV peak; illustrative rather than measured.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper MBMS count rate C_i equals n_i v_i A with a common collection area A and with v_i taken from Bohm/flow speed for all ion species.
    Appendix B; no calibration or correction for mass-dependent and energy-dependent transmission of the HPR-60.
  • ad hoc to paper H⁻ survival over distance follows exp(−Δz/λeff) with a single constant λeff for all loss channels.
    Section 4.3 Eq. (4); ignores energy-dependent cross-sections, magnetic-field effects, and a distributed production profile.
  • ad hoc to paper H⁻ production is uniform over z = 10–30 cm.
    Section 4.3 Eq. (6); necessary for the quoted average density, but not directly measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption Quasineutrality: n_e ≈ n_H+ + n_H2+ + n_H3+.
    Used in Section 4.3 to set total positive density; H⁻ is treated as a small correction, which is consistent with the measured electronegativity.
  • standard math Adiabatic invariance of the magnetic moment for H⁻ ions in the diverging field.
    Appendix A; standard for collisionless motion, but collisionality at 1–3 mTorr may compromise it.
  • domain assumption COMSOL simulation accurately represents the CEPS magnetic field topology.
    Section 2.3; used to locate the ECR surface and field-line geometry for the ion acceleration scenario.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass Spectrometry Studies of Hydrogen Ions Energy Distributions in an ECR- based Large Volume Plasma Source." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UQ5QZIH

@misc{pith2026260802226,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass Spectrometry Studies of Hydrogen Ions Energy Distributions in an ECR- based Large Volume Plasma Source},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UQ5QZIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02226}
}
read the original abstract

Plasma is produced in a Large Volume Plasma Source (LVPS; dia. = 1 m, height = 1m) using CW microwaves (= 400 - 600 W, 2.45 GHz), in a compact ECR plasma source (CEPS) attached to LVPS, at hydrogen gas pressures = 1 - 3 mTorr. Plasma expands along the CEPS magnetic field into LVPS. A Hiden Analytical HPR 60 molecular beam mass spectrometer (MBMS) is used to measure the H^- ion energy distribution functions (IEDFs) in the downstream plasma. Previous plasma characterization studies in LVPS indicated favourable downstream plasma conditions for volume production of H^- ions. Measurements conducted with the MBMS probe aligned facing the plasma flow = 80 cm downstream, gave typical H^- count rates = 3 x 10^5 counts /s, at = 400 W, = 1 mTorr, along with a distinct high energy tail (<= 20 eV). These and other results are analyzed in detail. The positive ion spectrum showed the H_3^+ count to be consistently high in all cases (= 60-70 %); the counts for H_2^+ and H^+ were =30-35 % and a =few %. Combining the Langmuir probe (LP) and MBMS data it is possible to determine the approximate densities in front of the MBMS probe aperture. At = 500 W and = 2 mTorr, one finds: n_(H^+) = 9.6 x 10^9 cm^(-3), n_(H_2^+) = 1.7 x 10^10 cm^(-3) and n_(H_3^+) = 4.3 x 10^10 cm^(-3). The corresponding H^- density, = 80 cm downstream is n_(H^-) = 3.9 x 10^8 cm^(-3). Accounting for all H^- losses due to scattering and destruction, one finds the effective mean free path for H^- loss to be = 12.4 cm. Noting that H^- formation takes place about = 10 - 30 cm downstream of the source exit, the approximate average H^- density in the formation zone is determined as = 5.5 x 10^10 cm^(-3). This value is remarkably encouraging for H^- production in volume mode, considering the large chamber volume and area, as well as the very moderate power used for the experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references

  1. [23]

    Collision processes in low-temperature hydrogen plasmas

    Janev, Ratko K., Detlev Reiter, and Ulrich Samm. "Collision processes in low-temperature hydrogen plasmas." (2003)

    2003

  2. [22]

    Investigation of ECR-produced hydrogen plasmas suitable for large area applications

    Shweta Sharma, “ Investigation of ECR-produced hydrogen plasmas suitable for large area applications”, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Energy Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India, 2025

    2025

  3. [1]

    Enhancement mechanism of H -production and suitable configurations for materials processing in a magnetized sheet plasma

    Ramos, Henry J., Michelle Marie S. Villamayor, Aubrey Faith M. Mella, Janella Mae R. Salamania, Matthew Bryan P. Villanueva, and Rommel Paulo B. Viloan. "Enhancement mechanism of H -production and suitable configurations for materials processing in a magnetized sheet plasma." In International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series, 32 (2014) :1460339

    2014

  4. [2]

    Plasma property investigations during negative ion beam extraction in a half-sized ITER NBI ion source at ELISE test facility

    Yordanov, D. , D. Wünderlich, R. Riedl, C. Wimmer, A. Heiler, A. Döring, and Ursel Fantz. "Plasma property investigations during negative ion beam extraction in a half-sized ITER NBI ion source at ELISE test facility." Fusion Engineering and Design 217 (2025): 115130

    2025

  5. [3]

    Low -energy H -beam injectors for particle accelerators: upgrade requirements, challenges and future plans

    Welton, Robert F., Baoxi Han, Anna Alexander, Dan Bollinger, Weidong Chen, Morgan Dehnel, Dan Faircloth et al. "Low -energy H -beam injectors for particle accelerators: upgrade requirements, challenges and future plans." (2025)

    2025

  6. [4]

    Positive and negative ion sources for magnetic fusion

    Hemsworth, Ronald Stephen, and Takashi Inoue. "Positive and negative ion sources for magnetic fusion." IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 33, no. 6 (2005): 1799-1813

    2005

  7. [5]

    Hydrogen passivation in semiconductors

    Stavola, M. "Hydrogen passivation in semiconductors." Acta Physica Polonica A 82, no. 4 (1992): 585-598

    1992

  8. [6]

    Negative hydrogen ion sources for accelerators

    Moehs, Douglas P., Jens Peters, and Joseph Sherman. "Negative hydrogen ion sources for accelerators." IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 33, no. 6 (2005): 1786-1798

    2005

Show all 31 references
  1. [7]

    , Revolutionizing Interstellar Travel: Investigating Hydrogen and Oxygen Plasma as Cutting -Edge Rocket Propellants for Highly Efficient Thrusters

    Nadar, R. , Revolutionizing Interstellar Travel: Investigating Hydrogen and Oxygen Plasma as Cutting -Edge Rocket Propellants for Highly Efficient Thrusters. Acceleron Aerospace Journal 2, no. 1(2024), 126–130

    2024

  2. [8]

    Intense, mixed -energy hydrogen beams for CTR injection

    Berkner, Klaus H., Robert V . Pyle, and J. Warren Stearns. "Intense, mixed -energy hydrogen beams for CTR injection." Nuclear fusion 15, no. 2 (1975): 249-254

    1975

  3. [9]

    Overview of the design of the ITER heating neutral beam injectors

    R. S. Hemsworth et al. "Overview of the design of the ITER heating neutral beam injectors." New Journal of Physics 19, no. 2 (2017): 025005

    2017

  4. [10]

    Negative hydrogen ion sources for fusion: From plasma generation to beam properties

    U. Fantz, S. Brief, A. Heiler, C. Wimmer, and D. Wünderlich. "Negative hydrogen ion sources for fusion: From plasma generation to beam properties." Frontiers in Physics 9 (2021): 709651

    2021

  5. [11]

    Diagnostic neutral beam for ITER—concept to engineering

    A. Chakraborty et al. "Diagnostic neutral beam for ITER—concept to engineering." IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 38, no. 3 (2009): 248-253

    2009

  6. [12]

    Work function of Cs-free materials for enhanced H− surface production

    Friedl, Roland, Sofia Cristofaro, and Ursel Fantz. "Work function of Cs-free materials for enhanced H− surface production." In AIP Conference Proceedings 2011, no. 1 (2018): 050009

    2011

  7. [13]

    Negative hydrogen ion production mechanisms

    Bacal, Marthe, and Motoi Wada. "Negative hydrogen ion production mechanisms." Applied physics reviews 2, no. 2 (2015): 021305

    2015

  8. [14]

    Development and studies on a compact electron cyclotron resonance plasma source

    Ganguli, A., R. D. Tarey, N. Arora, and R. Narayanan. "Development and studies on a compact electron cyclotron resonance plasma source." Plasma Sources Science and Technology 25, no. 2 (2016): 025026

    2016

  9. [15]

    Studies on plasma production in a large volume system using multiple compact ECR plasma sources

    Tarey, R. D., A. Ganguli, D. Sahu, R. Narayanan, and N. Arora. "Studies on plasma production in a large volume system using multiple compact ECR plasma sources." Plasma Sources Science and Technology 26, no. 1 (2017): 015009

    2017

  10. [16]

    Sharma, R

    Naik, Bibekananda, S. Sharma, R. Narayanan, D. Sahu, M. Bandyopadhyay, A. Chakraborty, M. J. Singh, R. D. Tarey, and A. Ganguli. “Hydrogen plasma Characterization in an ECR based Large V olume Plasma Source Under Different Cusp Magnetic Field Topologies, Asian Journal of Physi...

    2024

  11. [17]

    Ganguli et al., Indian Patent #301583, #345453, Patentee: IIT Delhi (2006)

    A. Ganguli et al., Indian Patent #301583, #345453, Patentee: IIT Delhi (2006)

    2006

  12. [18]

    Experimental Studies of Hydrogen Plasma Produced by Compact ECR Plasma Source

    Singh, Priti, Ashish Ganguli, Ramesh Narayanan, and Debaprasad Sahu. "Experimental Studies of Hydrogen Plasma Produced by Compact ECR Plasma Source." IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 53, no. 9(2025): 2188-2203

    2025

  13. [19]

    https://www.comsol.com/

  14. [20]

    Characterization of Hydrogen Plasma in an ECR based Large V olume Plasma Chamber

    Sharma, Shweta, D. Sahu, R. Narayanan, S. Kar, M. Bandyopadhyay, A. Chakraborty, M. J. Singh, R. D. Tarey, and A. Ganguli. "Characterization of Hydrogen Plasma in an ECR based Large V olume Plasma Chamber." In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2244, no. 1(2022): 012055

    2022

  15. [21]

    Preliminary Investigations on Detection of Hydrogen Negative Ions at the Downstream of a Large V olume ECR Plasma Source

    Naik, Bibekananda, Shweta Sharma, Ramesh Narayanan, Debaprasad Sahu, Mainak Bandyopadhyay, Arun Chakraborty, Mahendrajit Singh, Ram Dattatraya Tarey, and Ashish Ganguli. "Preliminary Investigations on Detection of Hydrogen Negative Ions at the Downstream of a Large V olume ECR...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Lichtenberg

    Lieberman, Michael A., and Allan J. Lichtenberg. Principles of plasma discharges and materials processing. John Wiley & Sons, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Measured cross sections for the formation of H - by collisions between H3+ ions and electrons

    Peart, B., R. A. Forrest, and K. Dolder. "Measured cross sections for the formation of H - by collisions between H3+ ions and electrons." Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 12, no. 20 (1979): 3441-3443

    1979

  18. [26]

    Low -pressure hydrogen plasmas explored using a global model

    Samuell, Cameron M., and Cormac S. Corr. "Low -pressure hydrogen plasmas explored using a global model." Plasma Sources Science and Technology 25, no. 1 (2016): 015014

    2016

  19. [27]

    Method for extracting volume produced negative ions

    Bacal, M., J. Bruneteau, and P. Devynck. "Method for extracting volume produced negative ions." Review of scientific instruments 59, no. 10 (1988): 2152-2157

    1988

  20. [28]

    Primary electron drift in a volume hybrid multicusp H− ion source

    Courteille, C., J. Bruneteau, F. P. G. Valckx, Z. Sledziewski, and M. Bacal. "Primary electron drift in a volume hybrid multicusp H− ion source." Review of scientific instruments 64, no. 11 (1993): 3265-3269

    1993

  21. [29]

    High density negative hydrogen ion production in a high power pulsed helicon discharge

    Santoso, Jesse, Hannah V . Willett, and Cormac S. Corr. "High density negative hydrogen ion production in a high power pulsed helicon discharge." Plasma Sources Science and Technology 27, no. 10 (2018): 10LT03

    2018

  22. [30]

    Characterization of hydrogen plasma in a permanent ring magnet based helicon plasma source for negative ion source research

    Pandey, Arun, Debrup Mukherjee, Dipshikha Borah, M. Bandyopadhyay, Himanshu Tyagi, Ratnakar Yadav, and Arun Chakraborty. "Characterization of hydrogen plasma in a permanent ring magnet based helicon plasma source for negative ion source research." Plasma Physics and Controlled...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Current -free double -layer formation in a high - density helicon discharge

    Charles, Christine, and Rod Boswell. "Current -free double -layer formation in a high - density helicon discharge." Applied Physics Letters 82, no. 9 (2003): 1356-1358

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.