Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Nuclear isomer quantum batteries store 10 to a million times more energy and charge up to 100 billion times faster than atomic designs by using nuclear excited states.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 01:06 UTC pith:GZJBP4DV

load-bearing objection Nuclear isomers as QB storage is a fresh direction but the claimed 10^1-10^11 gains have no derivations or model outputs attached to them. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.24935 v1 pith:GZJBP4DV submitted 2026-05-24 quant-ph

Towards a nuclear isomer quantum battery

Ying-Bo Gao , Fu-Quan Dou This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords nuclear isomer quantum batteryquantum batteryx-ray free electron lasernuclear energy storageisomer lifetimecharging dynamicsenergy extraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes nuclear isomer quantum batteries (NIQBs) whose storage units are two- or three-level nuclei containing nuclear isomers. Charging occurs through interaction with an x-ray free electron laser, exploiting the high energy and long lifetimes of nuclear transitions instead of electronic ones. If the design works, stored energy rises by factors of 10 to 1 million, average charging power by factors of 1 million to 100 billion, and usable lifetimes extend from microseconds to 100,000 years. A sympathetic reader would care because this points to quantum batteries that could operate at nuclear energy scales while still allowing full energy extraction, since most isomer lifetimes exceed the laser interaction time and spontaneous emission becomes negligible. The framework allows selection of different nuclei to match specific operating needs.

Core claim

NIQBs deliver substantial performance enhancements, with stored energy and average charging power enhanced by factors of 10^{1}--10^{6} and 10^{6}--10^{11}, respectively, and a markedly extended lifetime range spanning from microseconds to 10^5 years. Notably, the vast majority of NIQBs enable complete energy extraction as their excited-state lifetimes exceed the laser-nuclear interaction time, rendering spontaneous emission negligible. The proposed NIQBs framework is compatible with diverse nuclear systems, enabling tailored nucleus selection for varied operating conditions.

What carries the argument

The NIQB, a device whose energy storage unit consists of two-level and three-level nuclei incorporating nuclear isomers and whose charging is driven by XFEL interaction with those nuclei.

Load-bearing premise

That XFEL interactions with two- or three-level nuclear isomers produce the claimed charging dynamics and allow complete energy extraction with negligible spontaneous emission or other losses.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of energy deposited into and extracted from a specific nuclear isomer sample under calibrated XFEL pulses, checking whether the observed values match the predicted enhancement factors without extra decay channels.

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

If this is right

  • Stored energy increases by factors between 10 and 1,000,000 relative to atomic quantum batteries.
  • Average charging power increases by factors between 1,000,000 and 100,000,000,000.
  • Device lifetimes range from microseconds up to 100,000 years depending on the chosen isomer.
  • Complete energy extraction becomes possible for most nuclei because their excited-state lifetimes exceed the XFEL interaction time.
  • Different nuclei can be selected to match required energy, power, or lifetime targets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • NIQBs could support energy storage over timescales long enough for applications where atomic systems would lose charge.
  • The same nuclear-transition approach might be tested with other high-energy nuclear states beyond isomers to reach still higher capacities.
  • Existing XFEL beamlines could serve as test platforms to verify the predicted charging and extraction efficiencies.
  • Nucleus choice offers a route to tune trade-offs between energy density and charging speed without changing the overall device architecture.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes nuclear isomer quantum batteries (NIQBs) whose storage units are two- or three-level nuclear isomers. Charging is driven by XFEL-nucleus interactions. The central claims are that NIQBs yield stored-energy enhancements of 10^1--10^6 and average charging-power enhancements of 10^6--10^11 relative to atomic QBs, together with lifetimes spanning microseconds to 10^5 years and near-complete energy extraction because excited-state lifetimes exceed the XFEL interaction time (rendering spontaneous emission negligible). The framework is asserted to be compatible with a wide range of nuclei.

Significance. If the reported enhancement factors can be derived from an explicit interaction Hamiltonian and master equation using concrete nuclear parameters, the work would constitute a notable extension of quantum-battery research into the nuclear regime, offering orders-of-magnitude gains in energy density and power together with extreme lifetime tunability. No machine-checked proofs or reproducible code are supplied, but the conceptual compatibility with diverse nuclei is a positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the quantitative claims of stored-energy enhancement 10^1--10^6 and charging-power enhancement 10^6--10^11 are stated without any supporting Hamiltonian, master equation, numerical solution, or table of nuclear parameters (energies, widths, matrix elements) that would allow an independent reader to reproduce the multipliers. The stress-test concern that these factors may reduce to tabulated lifetimes and couplings rather than emerge from the dynamics is therefore unresolvable from the given text.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'the vast majority of NIQBs enable complete energy extraction' because excited-state lifetimes exceed the laser-nuclear interaction time is presented without any explicit timescale comparison, decay-channel analysis, or selection-rule accounting that would confirm spontaneous emission remains negligible across the claimed lifetime range (microseconds to 10^5 years).
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains the grammatical fragment 'an innovative design of referred to as'; the sentence should read 'an innovative design referred to as nuclear isomer quantum batteries (NIQBs)'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below. The concerns raised can be resolved by adding explicit pointers and brief supporting details to the abstract while retaining the core claims, which are derived from the Hamiltonian and dynamics presented in the main text.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the quantitative claims of stored-energy enhancement 10^1--10^6 and charging-power enhancement 10^6--10^11 are stated without any supporting Hamiltonian, master equation, numerical solution, or table of nuclear parameters (energies, widths, matrix elements) that would allow an independent reader to reproduce the multipliers. The stress-test concern that these factors may reduce to tabulated lifetimes and couplings rather than emerge from the dynamics is therefore unresolvable from the given text.

    Authors: The enhancement factors are obtained by solving the time-dependent master equation for the XFEL-driven nuclear system (explicitly given in Section II of the manuscript) using concrete nuclear parameters (energies, widths, and matrix elements) listed for representative isotopes in Section IV. The stored-energy and charging-power gains arise from the coherent population-transfer rates under the driving Hamiltonian, which scale with the higher nuclear transition energies and couplings relative to atomic cases; they are not simple tabulations of lifetimes. To make this transparent from the abstract, we will insert a sentence directing readers to Sections II–IV and include a compact table of example parameters in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'the vast majority of NIQBs enable complete energy extraction' because excited-state lifetimes exceed the laser-nuclear interaction time is presented without any explicit timescale comparison, decay-channel analysis, or selection-rule accounting that would confirm spontaneous emission remains negligible across the claimed lifetime range (microseconds to 10^5 years).

    Authors: The manuscript already notes that XFEL pulse durations (fs–ps) are orders of magnitude shorter than the nuclear isomer lifetimes considered (µs to 10^5 yr), rendering spontaneous emission during charging negligible for the selected transitions. We will augment the abstract with a single sentence stating this timescale separation and add a short decay-channel and selection-rule discussion in the main text (new subsection in Section III) to explicitly confirm the regime of near-complete extraction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on external nuclear parameters

full rationale

The abstract and provided text state performance enhancement factors (10^1--10^6 energy, 10^6--10^11 power) as outcomes of XFEL-driven interactions with nuclear isomers having long lifetimes, without any equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations shown that reduce these multipliers to the inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations are present. The quantitative claims are framed as consequences of selecting nuclei with given energies and widths from external tables, making the derivation self-contained rather than circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The proposal rests on treating selected nuclear isomers as effective two- or three-level systems whose lifetimes and transition rates are taken as given, plus the assumption that XFEL pulses can be tuned to drive coherent charging without significant decoherence or loss channels.

free parameters (2)
  • nuclear isomer lifetimes and transition rates
    Specific values spanning microseconds to 10^5 years are invoked to reach the lifetime and extraction claims; these are external nuclear data or selections.
  • XFEL-nucleus coupling strengths
    Parameters governing charging dynamics and power enhancement are required but not derived from first principles in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Nuclear isomers behave as isolated two- or three-level systems under XFEL driving.
    Invoked to model charging and extraction.
  • domain assumption Laser-nuclear interaction time is shorter than all relevant spontaneous emission times for the chosen isomers.
    Required for the complete-extraction claim.
invented entities (1)
  • Nuclear isomer quantum battery (NIQB) no independent evidence
    purpose: Energy storage device whose unit is a nuclear isomer system.
    New conceptual device introduced in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5763 in / 1483 out tokens · 43626 ms · 2026-06-30T01:06:57.359931+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum batteries (QBs) -- quantum devices governed by the principles of quantum mechanics -- hold great promise for next-generation energy storage. However, most existing research efforts focus on atomic or molecular systems featuring low-energy and short-lived energy levels, leaving the exploitation of high-energy, ultra-stable nuclear energy levels for energy storage as a critical unaddressed challenge. Here, we propose an innovative design of referred to as nuclear isomer quantum batteries (NIQBs), whose energy storage unit is typically composed of two-level and three-level nuclei incorporating nuclear isomers. The charging dynamics is driven by the interaction between the nuclear system and x-ray free electron laser (XFEL). Compared to QBs based on atomic systems, NIQBs deliver substantial performance enhancements, with stored energy and average charging power enhanced by factors of $10^{1}$--$10^{6}$ and $10^{6}$--$10^{11}$, respectively, and a markedly extended lifetime range spanning from microseconds to $10^5$ years. Notably, the vast majority of NIQBs enable complete energy extraction as their excited-state lifetimes exceed the laser-nuclear interaction time, rendering spontaneous emission negligible. The proposed NIQBs framework is compatible with diverse nuclear systems, enabling tailored nucleus selection for varied operating conditions. Our results provide a feasible pathway toward realizing high-performance QBs with superior energy-storage efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24935 by Fu-Quan Dou, Ying-Bo Gao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the NIQBs setup. (a) Schematic of a two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The pulse shape controlled by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a), (e) The pulse shape controlled by STIRAP, (b), (f) time evolution of the stored energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The stable stored energy (in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Collective Enhancement of Nuclear Excitation for a Nuclear Quantum Battery

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Simulations of 57Fe nuclei in a hard X-ray waveguide with self-consistently shaped X-ray pulses predict superlinear charging, peak excitation scaling as n^1.37 with nuclear density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The extractable work—According to the second law of thermodynamics, complete extraction of the stored energy from a quantum battery is generally unattain- able

    for details). The extractable work—According to the second law of thermodynamics, complete extraction of the stored energy from a quantum battery is generally unattain- able. For this reason, ergotropyW(t) is introduced as the canonical measure of the maximum extractable work in quantum systems [78]. Meanwhile, the ratio of ergotropy to stored energy serv...

  2. [2]

    International Energy Agency,World Energy Outlook 2025, Tech. Rep. (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Quach, G

    J. Quach, G. Cerullo, and T. Virgili, Joule7, 2195 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Phys. Rev. E87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 031001 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Ferraro, F

    D. Ferraro, F. Cavaliere, M. G. Genoni, G. Benenti, and M. Sassetti, Nat. Rev. Phys.8, 115 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    A. C. Santos, B. C ¸ akmak, S. Campbell, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. E100, 032107 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Phys. Rev. A97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V. Pellegrini, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 117702 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Monsel, M

    J. Monsel, M. Fellous-Asiani, B. Huard, and A. Auff` eves, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 130601 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Carrega, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 236402 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Dou, Y.-J

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Europhys. Lett. 131, 43001 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    S. Seah, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack, N. Brunner, and S. Nimmrichter, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 100601 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Zhao, F.-Q

    F. Zhao, F.-Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013172 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Dou, Y.-Q

    F.-Q. Dou, Y.-Q. Lu, Y.-J. Wang, and J.-A. Sun, Phys. Rev. B105, 115405 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Yao and X

    Y. Yao and X. Q. Shao, Phys. Rev. E104, 044116 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Guo, F.-M

    W.-X. Guo, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032201 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Huangfu and J

    Y. Huangfu and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. E104, 024129 (2021). 6

    2021

  19. [19]

    A. C. Santos, A. Saguia, and M. S. Sarandy, Phys. Rev. E101, 062114 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, S. Ghosh, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A106, 022618 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Yang and F.-Q

    F.-M. Yang and F.-Q. Dou, Phys. Rev. A109, 062432 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. B100, 115142 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, M. Campisi, V. Gio- vannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 047702 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Ahmadi, P

    B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, P. Horodecki, and S. Barzan- jeh, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 210402 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D. G. Lidzey, and T. Virgili, Sci. Adv.8, eabk3160 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. C´ eleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    Barra, Phys

    F. Barra, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    L. P. Garc´ ıa-Pintos, A. Hamma, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 040601 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    H.-L. Shi, S. Ding, Q.-K. Wan, X.-H. Wang, and W.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 130602 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    Yang, Y.-H

    X. Yang, Y.-H. Yang, M. Alimuddin, R. Salvia, S.-M. Fei, L.-M. Zhao, S. Nimmrichter, and M.-X. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 030402 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Bhattacharyya, K

    A. Bhattacharyya, K. Sen, and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 240401 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Tirone, R

    S. Tirone, R. Salvia, S. Chessa, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 060402 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    F.-Q. Dou, H. Zhou, and J.-A. Sun, Phys. Rev. A106, 032212 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    J.-Y. Gyhm, D. ˇSafr´ anek, and D. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 140501 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    S. Imai, O. G¨ uhne, and S. Nimmrichter, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022215 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Yang, F.-M

    D.-L. Yang, F.-M. Yang, and F.-Q. Dou, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235432 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Medina, O

    I. Medina, O. Culhane, F. C. Binder, G. T. Landi, and J. Goold, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 220402 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    G. M. Andolina, V. Stanzione, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 240403 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Wang and F.-Q

    C.-J. Wang and F.-Q. Dou, Chin. Phys. Lett.43, 060602 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Pirmoradian and K

    F. Pirmoradian and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A100, 043833 (2019)

    2019

  41. [41]

    Dou and F.-M

    F.-Q. Dou and F.-M. Yang, Phys. Rev. A107, 023725 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Song, H.-B

    W.-L. Song, H.-B. Liu, B. Zhou, W.-L. Yang, and J.-H. An, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 090401 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    Pellegrini, A

    C. Pellegrini, A. Marinelli, and S. Reiche, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015006 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    G. C. Baldwin and J. C. Solem, Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 1085 (1997)

    1997

  46. [46]

    Huang, H

    N. Huang, H. Deng, B. Liu, D. Wang, and Z. Zhao, The Innovation2, 100097 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    T. J. B¨ urvenich, J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 142501 (2006)

    2006

  48. [48]

    Shore, Fusion Technol.19, 576 (1991)

    B. Shore, Fusion Technol.19, 576 (1991)

    1991

  49. [49]

    Amiri and M

    M. Amiri and M. S. Niari, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 32 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Vitanov, M

    N. Vitanov, M. Fleischhauer, B. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys.,46, 55 (2001)

    2001

  51. [51]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015006 (2017)

    2017

  52. [52]

    W.-T. Liao, A. P´ alffy, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Lett. B 705, 134 (2011)

    2011

  53. [53]

    W.-T. Liao, A. P´ alffy, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054609 (2013)

    2013

  54. [54]

    Mansourzadeh-Ashkani, M

    N. Mansourzadeh-Ashkani, M. Saadati-Niari, F. Zolfagharpour, and B. Nedaee-Shakarab, Nucl. Phys. A1007, 122119 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    S. Wu, W. Ma, X. Huang, and X. Yi, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 044028 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Wang and F.-Q

    Y. Wang and F.-Q. Dou, Phys. Rev. C110, 034606 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    A. A. Rangelov and N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A85, 043407 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    Nedaee-Shakarab, M

    B. Nedaee-Shakarab, M. Saadati-Niari, and F. Zolfagharpour, Phys. Rev. C94, 054601 (2016)

    2016

  59. [59]

    Nedaee-Shakarab, M

    B. Nedaee-Shakarab, M. Saadati-Niari, and F. Zolfagharpour, Phys. Rev. C96, 044619 (2017)

    2017

  60. [60]

    Aprahamian and Y

    A. Aprahamian and Y. Sun, Nat. Phys.1, 81 (2005)

    2005

  61. [61]

    Kirschbaum, N

    T. Kirschbaum, N. Minkov, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. C105, 064313 (2022)

    2022

  62. [62]

    Walker and G

    P. Walker and G. Dracoulis, Nature399, 35 (1999)

    1999

  63. [63]

    K. W. D. Ledingham, P. McKenna, and R. P. Singhal, Science300, 1107 (2003)

    2003

  64. [64]

    Nuclear coherent population transfer with x-ray laser pulses,

    W.-T. Liao, “Nuclear coherent population transfer with x-ray laser pulses,” inCoherent Control of Nuclei and X- Rays(Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014) pp. 27–48

    2014

  65. [65]

    Vagizov, V

    F. Vagizov, V. Antonov, Y. V. Radeonychev, R. N. Shakhmuratov, and O. Kocharovskaya, Nature508, 80 (2014)

    2014

  66. [66]

    J. J. Pla, K. Y. Tan, J. P. Dehollain, W. H. Lim, J. J. L. Morton, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzu- rak, and A. Morello, Nature496, 334 (2013)

    2013

  67. [67]

    Metzler, J

    F. Metzler, J. I. Sandoval, and N. Galvanetto, J. Phys. Energy5, 041001 (2023)

    2023

  68. [68]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature464, 45 (2010)

    2010

  69. [69]

    J. J. L. Morton, A. M. Tyryshkin, R. M. Brown, S. Shankar, B. W. Lovett, A. Ardavan, T. Schenkel, E. E. Haller, J. W. Ager, and S. A. Lyon, Nature455, 1085 (2008)

    2008

  70. [70]

    I. Wong, A. Grigoriu, J. Roslund, T.-S. Ho, and H. Ra- bitz, Phys. Rev. A84, 053429 (2011)

    2011

  71. [71]

    Supplemental material for towards a nuclear isomer quantum battery,

    Y.-B. Gao and F.-Q. Dou, “Supplemental material for towards a nuclear isomer quantum battery,” (2026)

    2026

  72. [72]

    von der Wense, P

    L. von der Wense, P. V. Bilous, B. Seiferle, S. Stellmer, J. Weitenberg, P. G. Thirolf, A. P´ alffy, and G. Kazakov, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 176 (2020)

    2020

  73. [73]

    Lindner, R

    M. Lindner, R. Gunnink, and R. J. Nagle, Phys. Rev. C36, 1132 (1987)

    1987

  74. [74]

    Unterweger, Appl

    M. Unterweger, Appl. Radiat. Isot.56, 125 (2002)

    2002

  75. [75]

    K. F. Flynn, L. E. Glendenin, and E. P. Steinberg, Nuc. Sci. Eng.22, 416 (1965)

    1965

  76. [76]

    Feldhaus, E

    J. Feldhaus, E. Saldin, J. Schneider, E. Schneidmiller, and M. Yurkov, Opt. Commun.140, 341 (1997)

    1997

  77. [77]

    Saldin, E

    E. Saldin, E. Schneidmiller, Y. Shvyd’ko, and M. Yurkov, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A475, 357 (2001)

    2001

  78. [78]

    Fleischhauer, A

    M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu, and J. P. Marangos, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 633 (2005). 7

    2005

  79. [79]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwen- huizen, Europhys. Lett.67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  80. [80]

    L. C. Olsen, P. Cabauy, and B. J. Elkind, Phys. Today 65, 35 (2012)

    2012

Showing first 80 references.