Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 33 references

High-quality Blazed Gratings through Synergy between E-Beam lithography and Robust Characterisation Techniques

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electron-beam lithography, combined with an unexposed apex region and thermal reflow, produces silicon blazed gratings with facet roughness as low as 0.39 nm and measured soft-X-ray efficiency matching an ideal-profile simulation.

desk verdict A solid EBL blazed-grating process study: AFM supports the fabrication claims, but the efficiency validation in Fig. 8 leans on an ideal profile and needs measured post-temper parameters before it convinces. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22697 v1 pith:5WWWFOKX submitted 2025-07-30 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Analía F. Herrero , Nazanin Samadi , Andrey Sokolov , Grzegorz Gwalt , Stefan Rehbein , Anke Teichert , Bas Ketelaars , Christian Zonnevylle
show 3 more authors
Thomas Krist Christian David Frank Siewert
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords blazedgratingelectron-beamlithographythermalreflowfacetroughnessantiblaze-to-blazeratiosoftX-rayopticsdiffractionefficiencyat-wavelengthmetrology
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

This paper argues that electron-beam lithography can replace mechanical ruling as a practical way to make high-quality blazed gratings for the EUV and soft-X-ray range. The authors show that a specific process chain—dose-stepped exposure of PMMA, a waiting step, thermal reflow, and leaving about 5% of each period unexposed at the apex—yields silicon gratings with facet roughness of 0.39 nm and an antiblaze-to-blaze angle ratio of 6.5. They validate the process with at-wavelength efficiency measurements that closely track a REFLEC simulation for a 0.75° blaze angle across 60 to 700 eV. If the method holds, it offers a flexible, locally adaptable alternative for instruments that need high-efficiency, low-scatter gratings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the process chain itself, with the antiblaze-to-blaze ratio as the controlling observable. The blaze facet is written as a staircase of dose steps (17 steps for the main result), the resist is annealed to smooth roughness, and the unexposed apex region counteracts the rounding that reflow otherwise causes; a custom Python-generated exposure file, later simplified by RAITH's gradient-cube primitive, encodes the dose gradient. The metrology loop—AFM for local profile and roughness plus at-wavelength efficiency and dispersion measurement at the BESSY II Optics Beamline—provides the feedback that makes the process reproducible.

What would settle it

Measure the blaze and antiblaze angles of the actual etched grating from Fig. 8 with AFM, feed that measured profile into a REFLEC simulation that also includes surface contamination, and compare the simulated efficiency to the measured at-wavelength curve; if the simulated curve does not reproduce the measured one, the reported agreement was coincidental rather than a validation of the process.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a manufacturing recipe that combines several individually known steps into a reliable blazed-grating process. The blaze facet is approximated in PMMA by electron-beam exposure with a graded dose; the sample is then kept waiting before development, thermally reflowed in a convection oven, and etched into silicon with Ar+ ions. The two decisive refinements are the waiting step, which stabilises the facet, and deliberately leaving about 5% of the apex unexposed, which keeps the apex sharp during reflow and raises the antiblaze-to-blaze ratio. The resulting etched grating shows a facet roughness of 0.39 nm and an antiblaze-to-blaze ratio of 6.5±0.5, and its measured first-order efficiency agrees well with the simulation of an ideal 0.75° blaze angle. The authors take this as evidence that EBL, with proper metrological feedback, can produce blazed gratings competitive with mechanically ruled ones while being easier to scale to higher line densities and to adapt for variable-line-space profiles.

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency comparison assumes that a perfect triangular grating with a 0.75° blaze angle, simulated without surface contamination, is the correct reference for the fabricated grating; the paper does not feed the measured AFM profile into the simulation or report the actual blaze angle of the final etched grating after tempering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Facet roughness after etching reaches 0.39 nm, close to the nominal roughness of a bare silicon wafer, which directly suppresses diffuse scattering in spectrometer and monochromator applications.
  • Leaving about 5% of the apex unexposed preserves sharpness during thermal reflow, raising the antiblaze-to-blaze ratio from roughly 4 to 6.5±0.5 and thereby increasing diffraction efficiency.
  • Measured first-order efficiency of the final grating agrees with the REFLEC simulation for an ideal 0.75° blaze angle across the 60–700 eV range, indicating that the fabricated profile behaves like the designed one.
  • Because EBL writing time does not scale with line density the way mechanical ruling does, the method can reach 3448 lines/mm, where a single shot writes each facet, opening a route to high-density blazed gratings.
  • The process is locally adaptable, so it can be extended to variable-line-space gratings and other non-uniform profiles that mechanical ruling cannot produce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The process should extend naturally to multilayer-coated blazed gratings for the tender-X-ray range, where the high antiblaze-to-blaze ratio would boost efficiency; the paper cites that application as motivation but does not demonstrate it.
  • The observed sensitivity of the PMMA contrast curve to waiting time could be used deliberately as a post-writing trim knob for blaze angle, a control the paper reports but does not yet exploit.
  • A direct test on reflection zone plates with blazed groove profiles, as the authors propose, would show whether the recipe benefits focusing optics as well as plane gratings.
  • Feeding the measured AFM profile into the efficiency simulation would convert the 'very good agreement' claim into a quantitative validation; without it, the agreement could be coincidental if the real profile differs from the ideal in a compensating way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper reports an electron-beam-lithography route to silicon blazed gratings, using PMMA as a positive resist, graded-dose exposure, a waiting step, thermal reflow, and an unexposed apex region before ion-beam etching. The authors characterize facet roughness and blaze-to-antiblaze ratio with AFM and measure first-order diffraction efficiency at the BESSY II Optics Beamline. The main reported results are a facet roughness of 0.39 nm and an antiblaze-to-blaze ratio of 6.5±0.5 for a 600 lines/mm grating, together with an efficiency measurement described as being in very good agreement with a REFLEC simulation for a 0.75° blaze-angle grating.

Significance. If the fabrication route is reproducible, it offers a useful alternative to mechanical ruling for high-line-density and variable-line-space blazed gratings, with local pattern control as a clear advantage. The AFM parameter set in Table II and the use of at-wavelength efficiency feedback at BESSY II are strengths, and the authors explicitly disclose that the waiting-time data in Table I are not statistically significant. The main shortcoming is that the optical-performance claim rests on a comparison with an unspecified 'ideal' simulated profile rather than on the measured profile, so the validation leg of the central claim is still incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.B, Fig. 8] The central optical-performance claim is supported only by comparing measured efficiency with a REFLEC calculation for 'a blaze angle of 0.75° and an ideal antiblaze angle,' but the post-temper blaze and antiblaze angles of the measured grating are not reported, and the measured AFM profile is not used in the simulation. Table II and Fig. 7 show that tempering changes these angles, so the 0.75° assumption is not established as representative of the fabricated sample; in addition, 'ideal antiblaze angle' is never defined. Please either feed the measured AFM profile into REFLEC or report the measured angular parameters of the Fig. 8 sample and quantify the agreement with residuals; without this, the 'very good agreement' could be coincidental rather than a validation of the process.
  2. [§III.B, Fig. 8] The efficiency comparison is only qualitative: no uncertainty bars are shown for the measured efficiency, no residual or RMS deviation is given, and the conditions of the comparison are not quantified. Since the word 'very good' carries the weight of the central performance claim, a numerical error metric is needed before the agreement can be assessed.
  3. [§III.B, Table II] The antiblaze-to-blaze ratio is a central figure of merit for the process optimization, but the paper never defines how this ratio is extracted from AFM profiles (e.g., which portions of the period are fitted, how the apex and terrace regions are treated, and how the uncertainty is propagated). Without this definition, the quantitative comparisons in Table II and the claim of 6.5±0.5 for the final sample cannot be independently evaluated. Please add a precise description of the parameter-extraction routine.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§III.B, heading] The section heading 'F acet roughness and apex angle' contains a typo; it should read 'Facet roughness and apex angle.'
  2. [§III.A] The phrase 'pathortrapezoidshapes' is missing spaces and should read 'path or trapezoid shapes.'
  3. [§IV, Conclusion] The sentence 'Why find that by leaving 5% of the grating...' should read 'We find that by leaving 5% of the grating...'.
  4. [§IV, Conclusion] The word 'Up-comming' should be corrected to 'Upcoming.'
  5. [§II.A.1] The dose range '50µC cm−2 and 250µC cm−2' should use a consistent space before the unit, e.g., '50 µC cm⁻² and 250 µC cm⁻².'
  6. [Fig. 2] The caption and text do not define how 'selectivity' is computed; please state explicitly that it is the ratio of silicon etch rate to PMMA etch rate and describe how the quoted dispersion was obtained.
  7. [Fig. 8] The legend and axis labels of the efficiency panel are difficult to read in the reproduced figure; please add explicit labels for the measured and simulated curves, units on the axes, and a scale indicator for the AFM color maps.
  8. [Table I and §III.A] The paper includes waiting time as part of the final process in Fig. 3c) yet states that the Table I values are not statistically significant; please either provide a significance test or explicitly present the waiting-time step as based on qualitative observation rather than an established parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fabrication results and REFLEC efficiency comparison rest on independent measurements and an external simulation model.

full rationale

This is an experimental process-development paper, not a derivation chain. The central claims—facet roughness of 0.39 nm after etching, antiblaze-to-blaze ratio 6.5±0.5, and at-wavelength efficiency in agreement with REFLEC—are supported by independent characterization: AFM measurements of the fabricated grating and beamline efficiency measurements at BESSY II, compared against an external simulation code (REFLEC). No parameter is fitted to the efficiency data and then re-presented as a prediction. The REFLEC reference is an assumed ideal triangular profile with a 0.75° blaze angle and an ideal antiblaze angle; the paper does not report the post-tempering measured blaze angle of the Fig. 8 sample or feed the measured AFM profile into the simulation, so the comparison is less constraining than it could be and the agreement could in principle be coincidental if the real profile deviates from the assumed ideal. That is a validation-strength limitation, not circularity: the simulated efficiency is not defined in terms of the measured efficiency, and the measured roughness and angular ratio are not outputs of the simulation. The self-citations present (e.g., beamline and instrumentation descriptions [26,30]) are contextual and are not load-bearing for the fabrication or efficiency claims. No self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction step, and no self-citation chain forcing the conclusion was found. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The 'gradient cube' is a commercial e-beam writing mode from RAITH, not a scientific entity. The free parameters listed here are the tuned process conditions that make the recipe work.

free parameters (5)
  • Thermal reflow temperature = 125 °C (from a 105-125 °C scan)
    Table II: 120 °C for 120 min reduces roughness to 0.4 nm but lowers the antiblaze/blaze ratio to 3.8; 125 °C for 15-30 min is chosen as the operating point.
  • Thermal reflow time = 15-30 min
    Samples 4-7 in Table II show that 15 and 30 min at 125 °C give 0.5-0.6 nm roughness with ratios of 5.6-8.0, so the final process uses this range.
  • Apex unexposed fraction = 5% of the grating period
    Section III.B: 1% unexposed apex is insufficient; 5% is reported as the threshold for a significant improvement in the antiblaze/blaze ratio.
  • E-beam dose range per facet = 50-250 µC/cm²
    Section II.A.1: the dose gradient approximates the blaze facet; the range is chosen from the PMMA contrast curve and calibrated with AFM.
  • Waiting time between exposure and development = >72 h
    Table I: longer waiting gives 1.4 nm roughness and more stable height; the authors caution that the absolute values are not statistically significant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PMMA positive-resist contrast and development response follow the standard behavior described in ref. 31
    The whole dose-to-profile mapping relies on reproducible MIBK development and the delay-dependent contrast of PMMA.
  • domain assumption Thermal reflow of PMMA smooths facet roughness without destroying the blaze profile at the investigated periods
    The central process step in Section II.A.1 and Table II assumes annealing can operate in a regime where roughness reduction outweighs apex rounding.
  • domain assumption Ar+ ion beam etching transfers the PMMA profile into silicon with the measured selectivity and preserves the low roughness
    The final roughness and efficiency claims depend on this transfer step, whose exact etch parameters are not given.
  • domain assumption REFLEC simulations with ideal geometry and no contamination are an adequate reference for the measured efficiency
    Fig. 8 compares measured efficiency to an ideal 0.75° blaze-angle grating without including the measured AFM profile or surface contamination.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-quality Blazed Gratings through Synergy between E-Beam lithography and Robust Characterisation Techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WWWFOKX

@misc{pith2026250722697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-quality Blazed Gratings through Synergy between E-Beam lithography and Robust Characterisation Techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WWWFOKX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22697}
}
read the original abstract

Maintaining the highest quality and output of photon science in the VUV-, EUV-, soft- and tender-X-ray energy ranges requires high-quality blazed profile gratings. Currently, their availability is critical due to technological challenges and limited manufacturing resources. In this work we discuss the opportunity of an alternative method to manufacture blazed gratings by means of electron-beam lithography (EBL). We investigate the different parameters influencing the optical performance of blazed profile gratings produced by EBL and develop a robust process for the manufacturing of high-quality blazed gratings using polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as high resolution, positive tone resist and ion beam etching.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Efficiency calculation using REFLEC for the efficiency of a Silicon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Selectivity rates of Si/PMMA for different set-ups. The different colors correspond to different wafers and test of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Manufacturing process and metrology methods used to control the processing of the gratings. a) shows the skeleton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Facet roughness up to 1.5 nm is obtained for the structures on resist (PMMA) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. AFM profiles of the thermal annealed fields: (top) at 120 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. AFM profiles on PMMA of the high line density test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. a) Dispersion curves of the etched gratings without being annealed (blue) and after tempering for three different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. AFM measurements of the grating before etching (top) and after etching (bottom). The facet roughness was 0.74 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eriksson , author J

    author author M. Eriksson , author J. F. \ van der Veen , \ and\ author C. Quitmann ,\ 10.1107/S1600577514019286 journal journal J. Synchrotron Rad. \ volume 21 ( year 2014 ),\ 10.1107/S1600577514019286 NoStop

    work page doi:10.1107/s1600577514019286 2014

  2. [2]

    author author J. H. \ Underwood , author C. K. \ Malek , author E. M. \ Gullikson , \ and\ author M. Krumrey ,\ 10.1063/1.1145754 journal journal Review of Scientific Instruments \ volume 66 ,\ pages 2147 ( year 1995 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article-pdf/66/2/2147/19083826/2147\_1\_online.pdf https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/artic...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1145754 1995

  3. [3]

    Lin , author L

    author author H. Lin , author L. Zhang , author L. Li , author C. Jin , author H. Zhou , \ and\ author T. Huo ,\ 10.1364/OL.33.000485 journal journal Opt. Lett. \ volume 33 ,\ pages 485 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.33.000485 2008

  4. [4]

    Cocco , author G

    author author D. Cocco , author G. Cutler , author M. Sanchez del Rio , author L. Rebuffi , author X. Shi , \ and\ author K. Yamauchi ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.05.001 journal journal Physics Reports \ volume 974 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2022 ) ,\ note wavefront preserving X-ray optics for Synchrotron and Free Electron Laser photon beam transport ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.05.001 2022

  5. [5]

    o ller , author M. Nagasono , author M. St\

    author author J. Gaudin , author C. Ozkan , author J. Chalupsk\' y , author S. Bajt , author T. Burian , author L. Vy s \' i n , author N. Coppola , author S. D. \ Farahani , author H. N. \ Chapman , author G. Galasso , author V. H\' a jkov\' a , author M. Harmand , author L. Juha , author M. Jurek , author R. A. \ Loch , author S. M\" o ller , author M. ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Krzywinski , author R

    author author J. Krzywinski , author R. Conley , author S. Moeller , author G. Gwalt , author F. Siewert , author C. Waberski , author T. Zeschke , \ and\ author D. Cocco ,\ 10.1107/S1600577517016083 journal journal Journal of Synchrotron Radiation \ volume 25 ,\ pages 85 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1107/s1600577517016083

  7. [7]

    Sokolov , author Q

    author author A. Sokolov , author Q. Huang , author F. Senf , author J. Feng , author S. Lemke , author S. Alimov , author J. Knedel , author T. Zeschke , author O. Kutz , author T. Seliger , author G. Gwalt , author F. Sch\" a fers , author F. Siewert , author I. V. \ Kozhevnikov , author R. Qi , author Z. Zhang , author W. Li , \ and\ author Z. Wang ,\ ...

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.27.016833

  8. [8]

    Werner , author P

    author author S. Werner , author P. Guttmann , author F. Siewert , author A. Sokolov , author M. Mast , author Q. Huang , author Y. Feng , author T. Li , author F. Senf , author R. Follath , author Z. Liao , author K. Kutukova , author J. Zhang , author X. Feng , author Z.-S. \ Wang , author E. Zschech , \ and\ author G. Schneider ,\ 10.1002/smtd.20220138...

    work page doi:10.1002/smtd.202201382

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Wen , author Q

    author author S. Wen , author Q. Huang , author A. Sokolov , author Y. Zhuang , author S. Lemke , author T. Seliger , author Y. Yu , author J. Viefhaus , author R. Qi , author Z. Zhang , \ and\ author Z. Wang ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2023.109979 journal journal O...

  2. [10]

    o chel , author J. Buchheim , author F. Eggenstein , author A. Firsov , author G. Gwalt , author O. Kutz , author S. Lemke , author B. Nelles , author I. Rudolph , author F. Sch \

    author author F. Siewert , author B. L \" o chel , author J. Buchheim , author F. Eggenstein , author A. Firsov , author G. Gwalt , author O. Kutz , author S. Lemke , author B. Nelles , author I. Rudolph , author F. Sch \" a fers , author T. Seliger , author F. Senf , author A...

    doi

  3. [11]

    Dziarzhytski , author F

    author author S. Dziarzhytski , author F. Siewert , author A. Sokolov , author G. Gwalt , author T. Seliger , author M. R \" u bhausen , author H. Weigelt , \ and\ author G. Brenner ,\ 10.1107/S1600577517013066 journal journal Journal of Synchrotron Radiation \ volume 25 ,\ pa...

    doi

  4. [12]

    author author D. L. \ Voronov , author S. Park , author E. M. \ Gullikson , author F. Salmassi , \ and\ author H. A. \ Padmore ,\ 10.1364/OE.495374 journal journal Opt. Express \ volume 31 ,\ pages 26724 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Fujii , author K

    author author Y. Fujii , author K. Aoyama , \ and\ author J. Minowa ,\ 10.1109/JQE.1980.1070454 journal journal IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics \ volume 16 ,\ pages 165 ( year 1980 ) NoStop

    1980

  6. [14]

    Philippe , author S

    author author P. Philippe , author S. Valette , author O. M. \ Mendez , \ and\ author D. Maystre ,\ 10.1364/AO.24.001006 journal journal Appl. Opt. \ volume 24 ,\ pages 1006 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

    1985 doi

  7. [15]

    Nie , author Y

    author author Q. Nie , author Y. Xie , \ and\ author F. Chang ,\ 10.1063/5.0004903 journal journal AIP Advances \ volume 10 ,\ pages 065216 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0004903/12824975/065216\_1\_online.pdf https...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Zha , author D

    author author S. Zha , author D. Li , author Q. Wen , author Y. Zhou , \ and\ author H. Zhang ,\ 10.3390/mi13071000 journal journal Micromachines \ volume 13 ( year 2022 ),\ 10.3390/mi13071000 NoStop

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    author author D. L. \ Voronov , author S. Park , author E. M. \ Gullikson , author F. Salmassi , \ and\ author H. A. \ Padmore ,\ 10.1364/OE.460740 journal journal Opt. Express \ volume 30 ,\ pages 28783 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Henke , author W

    author author W. Henke , author W. Hoppe , author H. Quenzer , author P. Staudt-Fischbach , \ and\ author B. Wagner ,\ in\ 10.1109/MEMSYS.1994.555624 booktitle Proceedings IEEE Micro Electro Mechanical Systems An Investigation of Micro Structures, Sensors, Actuators, Machines ...

    1994

  11. [19]

    Shi , author K

    author author Z. Shi , author K. Jefimovs , author L. Romano , \ and\ author M. Stampanoni ,\ 10.3390/mi11090864 journal journal Micromachines \ volume 11 ( year 2020 ),\ 10.3390/mi11090864 NoStop

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Schleunitz \ and\ author H

    author author A. Schleunitz \ and\ author H. Schift ,\ 10.1088/0960-1317/20/9/095002 journal journal Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering \ volume 20 ,\ pages 095002 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    author author J. A. \ McCoy , author R. L. \ McEntaffer , \ and\ author C. M. \ Eichfeld ,\ 10.1116/1.5048197 journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B \ volume 36 ,\ pages 06JA01 ( year 2018 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvb/article-pdf/doi...

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Borzenko , author Y

    author author T. Borzenko , author Y. Koval , \ and\ author V. Kudryashov ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9317(94)90168-6 journal journal Microelectronic Engineering \ volume 23 ,\ pages 337 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994 doi

  15. [23]

    Guzenko \ and\ author C

    author author V. Guzenko \ and\ author C. David ,\ @noop journal journal Patent No \ volume 2019P20969WO ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  16. [24]

    Schleunitz , author V

    author author A. Schleunitz , author V. A. \ Guzenko , author A. Schander , author M. Vogler , \ and\ author H. Schift ,\ 10.1116/1.3634013 journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B \ volume 29 ,\ pages 06F302 ( year 2011 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.a...

    doi

  17. [25]

    Follath , author J

    author author R. Follath , author J. S. \ Schmidt , author M. Weigand , \ and\ author K. Fauth ,\ 10.1063/1.3463201 journal journal AIP Conference Proceedings \ volume 1234 ,\ pages 323 ( year 2010 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/1234/1/323/1...

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    a fers , author P. Bischoff , author F. Eggenstein , author A. Erko , author A. Gaupp , author S. K \

    author author F. Sch \" a fers , author P. Bischoff , author F. Eggenstein , author A. Erko , author A. Gaupp , author S. K \" u nstner , author M. Mast , author J.-S. \ Schmidt , author F. Senf , author F. Siewert , author A. Sokolov , \ and\ author T. Zeschke ,\ 10.1107/S160...

    doi

  19. [27]

    author author D. E. \ Starr , author M. Hävecker , author A. Knop-Gericke , author M. Favaro , author S. Vadilonga , author M. Mertin , author G. Reichardt , author J.-S. \ Schmidt , author F. Siewert , author R. Schulz , author J. Viefhaus , author C. Jung , \ and\ author R. ...

  20. [28]

    Nečas \ and\ author P

    author author D. Nečas \ and\ author P. Klapetek ,\ doi:10.2478/s11534-011-0096-2 journal journal Open Physics \ volume 10 ,\ pages 181 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Ne c as , author M

    author author D. Ne c as , author M. Valtr , \ and\ author P. Klapetek ,\ 10.1038/s41598-020-72171-8 journal journal Scientific Reports \ volume 10 ,\ pages 15294 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    u ttecke , \ and\ author F. Sch \

    author author A. Sokolov , author M. G. \ Sertsu , author A. Gaupp , author M. L \" u ttecke , \ and\ author F. Sch \" a fers ,\ 10.1107/S1600577517016800 journal journal Journal of Synchrotron Radiation \ volume 25 ,\ pages 100 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi

  23. [31]

    Mortelmans , author D

    author author T. Mortelmans , author D. Kazazis , author V. A. \ Guzenko , author C. Padeste , author T. Braun , author H. Stahlberg , author X. Li , \ and\ author Y. Ekinci ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2020.111272 journal journal Microelectronic Engineering \ volume 225 ,...

    2020

  24. [32]

    u nther , author N. Langhoff , author M. Bretschneider , author Y. H\

    author author A. Erko , author A. Firsov , author R. Gubzhokov , author A. Bjeoumikhov , author A. G\" u nther , author N. Langhoff , author M. Bretschneider , author Y. H\" o hn , \ and\ author R. Wedell ,\ 10.1364/OE.22.016897 journal journal Opt. Express \ volume 22 ,\ page...

    doi

  25. [33]

    Braig , author H

    author author C. Braig , author H. L\" o chel , author R. Mitzner , author W. Quevedo , author P. Loukas , author M. Kubin , author C. Weniger , author A. Firsov , author J. Rehanek , author M. Brzhezinskaya , author P. Wernet , author A. F\" o hlisch , \ and\ author A. Erko ,...

    doi

Pith tools

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