Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

On the influence of uncertainties in scattering potentials on quantitative analysis using keV ions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For backscattered He ions at tens of keV, standard screened Coulomb potentials overestimate the multiple-scattering background, yet the resulting systematic uncertainty in quantitative analysis stays below 3 percent.

desk verdict A useful sensitivity study that quantifies how screened-potential choice shifts MEIS/LEIS results by a few percent, with the caveat that the headline uncertainty is an estimate without formal error propagation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02045 v1 pith:ING5YHXA submitted 2019-08-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Barbara Bruckner , Tomas Strapko , Mauricio A. Sortica , Peter Bauer , Daniel Primetzhofer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords medium-energyionscatteringscreenedCoulombpotentialmultiplescreeninglengthcorrectionelectronicstoppingquantitativebeamanalysisMonteCarlosimulationtrajectoryselection
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 asks whether uncertainties in the screened Coulomb potential that governs keV ion-atom collisions corrupt quantitative analysis by ion scattering. For backscattered He ions with tens of keV primary energy, the answer is no in practice: the standard TFM and ZBL potentials both overestimate the multiple-scattering background, yet the resulting systematic uncertainty in extracted thickness, composition, and electronic stopping stays below 3 percent for the conditions investigated. The robustness comes from trajectory selection, since the analytical high-energy edge is set by single-scattering collisions at small impact parameters, where the potential is well known, while the uncertain part of the potential affects mainly the background. Transmitted light ions are even less sensitive when electronic stopping dominates, and heavier ions such as Ne become the case where the potential choice matters.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the analysis is the decomposition of a simulated backscattering spectrum by depth slab and by number of collisions, compared with the experimental spectrum in two regions: the high-energy edge, where a single backscattering collision dominates and normalization is safe, and the low-energy multiple-scattering background, where the potential at large impact parameters is tested. A simulation with a 15-degree cutoff shows that the background is mostly built from projectiles that suffered at least three collisions, and an angular window of 10-20 degrees defines the relevant distances of closest approach. A single linear screening-length correction factor ca, inserted into the screened Coulomb potential, is varied until the background intensity matches; the fitted ca values are then mapped onto distances of closest approach to compare different energies and geometries.

What would settle it

Take a thin film of known thickness and record its backscattered-ion spectrum at several primary energies from 20 keV up to 100 keV and at several detector angles. Fit each spectrum with the same screening-length correction factor ca: if the ca values that reproduce the multiple-scattering background drift by more than the quoted 3 percent with energy or angle, the single-factor potential description fails; conversely, if one ca reproduces all spectra, the transferability claim holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for He projectiles at 25-100 keV, Monte-Carlo simulations using either the TFM or the ZBL screened Coulomb potential reproduce single scattering at the high-energy edge but overestimate the multiple-scattering background, meaning the real potential is weaker at large impact parameters than both models. Fitting the background fixes a linear screening-length correction of ca = 0.87 at 30 keV, and the series of spectra shows the correction factor decreasing as the probed distance of closest approach grows. Nevertheless, the quantities that ion-beam analysis wants, thickness, composition, and electronic stopping, change by only 1-3 percent across the plausible potential range, because they are extracted from spectral features that single scattering dominates. The same trajectory-selection argument explains why transmitted He is nearly unaffected by potential changes while transmitted Ne, for which nuclear stopping dominates, responds at a level comparable to a 10 percent change in electronic stopping.

Load-bearing premise

The entire uncertainty estimate assumes that the multiple-scattering background is dominated by collisions with deflection angles around 10 to 20 degrees, so one fitted screening factor represents the potential at the interaction distances that matter; if a different angular range dominates elsewhere, the correction factors need not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thicknesses, compositions, and electronic stopping values extracted from backscattered He spectra at tens of keV carry a systematic uncertainty below 3 percent from the choice of potential.
  • For light ions in transmission, screening uncertainties are negligible when electronic stopping dominates, so energy-loss values from transmission experiments need no potential correction.
  • For heavier projectiles such as Ne in transmission, nuclear stopping dominates and screening corrections shift the peak position by roughly 0.6 keV per 0.1 change in ca, comparable to a 10 percent change in electronic stopping, so the potential uncertainty cannot be ignored there.
  • In marker experiments using B+ on a TiN/W stack, screening corrections do not shift the W peak position, so energy-loss determinations from delta-layer peak positions remain robust.
  • Implantation depth profiles are more sensitive: a 10 percent change in screening or electronic stopping moves the He profile maximum by about 5 percent of the range, and for Ne the screening change alone moves it by roughly 10 percent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the trajectory-selection principle implies that any ion-beam method that deliberately rejects multiply scattered events inherits this robustness, while methods such as implantation or radiation-damage modeling that integrate all trajectories do not benefit from it.
  • The decreasing correction factors toward lower energies suggest that at low-energy ion scattering energies a linear ca may saturate or break down; a direct angular-resolved measurement at few-keV energies would test whether the potential correction is non-linear in distance.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same background-fitting scheme to films of different thicknesses at a fixed energy: the paper's analysis predicts that the composite background fraction and the fitted ca should be essentially thickness-independent, separating potential error from straggling and interface roughness.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a comparison of time-of-flight MEIS spectra for 25-100 keV He backscattered from a thin HfN film and for B+ backscattered from a TiN/W/Si stack with Monte-Carlo simulations using the TRBS code and either the Thomas-Fermi-Moliere (TFM) or the Universal (ZBL) screened Coulomb potential. The authors find that at these low energies both potentials overestimate the multiple-scattering background, with TFM giving a better overall description; at 30 keV a linear screening-length correction ca=0.87 is required to reproduce the measured background. They argue that this potential uncertainty translates into a systematic uncertainty of about 1-2% in spectrum-width determinations (thickness, electronic stopping) and about 3% in the extracted electronic stopping when comparing the two potentials, leading to the abstract's claim of "<3% uncertainty in quantitative analysis." For transmission geometry they find negligible influence of the potential on peak positions for He projectiles, but more pronounced effects for Ne and for simulated implantation profiles.

Significance. The manuscript addresses a practical and timely question for ion-beam analysis: how strongly do uncertainties in the interatomic scattering potential affect quantitative MEIS/LEIS results? Its strengths include the use of independently characterized thin films, a series of primary energies for He, layer-resolved TRBS simulations, and explicit cross-checks through cutoff-angle variation and collision-number decomposition. The finding that backscattering geometries effectively select trajectories that suppress the influence of potential uncertainties is a useful and nontrivial message for practitioners. However, the headline uncertainty figure (<3%) is derived from model spread and sequential fits rather than a formal error propagation, and the paper would benefit substantially from a quantitative sensitivity analysis to support the central quantitative claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1.1, Fig. 3] The screening correction ca=0.87 is obtained by a sequential fitting procedure: first the electronic stopping Se is adjusted to match the width of the Hf peak, then ca is varied to reduce the multiple-scattering background. No uncertainties are reported for either parameter, and no joint confidence region is shown. Because changing Se also alters the energy at which deeper-scattered particles contribute to the background, ca and Se may be partially degenerate; the statement that the measured background is lower than predicted by the uncorrected potential depends on this identifiability. Please quantify the covariance, for example by a contour plot of the fit residuals as a function of both ca and Se, or otherwise demonstrate that the extracted ca is uniquely constrained.
  2. [Section 3.1.1, Fig. 4] The conversion of fitted screening corrections into interaction distances assumes that the multiple-scattering background is dominated by collisions with deflection angles around 15 degrees (range 10-20 degrees). The supporting evidence (cutoff-angle tests and the collision-number decomposition in the inset) is plausible but indirect. The x-error bars show only the resulting uncertainty in the distance of closest approach; no uncertainty is propagated to the derived Se or thickness values. Consequently, the stated <3% uncertainty is an estimate based on the spread between TFM and ZBL, not a measurement uncertainty. The paper should either propagate the angle-range and fitting uncertainties through the quantification or explicitly label the <3% figure as a model-spread estimate rather than a measured uncertainty.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract claims 'resulting in an uncertainty of <3% in quantitative analysis', but the quantitative basis in the paper is the ~3.4% difference in electronic stopping between TFM and ZBL at the lowest energy, together with a 1-2% ambiguity in defining the spectrum width. These contributions are not combined through any error propagation, and the relationship between 'difference between two potentials' and 'uncertainty' is not defined. Please provide the missing propagation, or alternatively rephrase the claim as 'on the order of a few percent' with the caveat that this is an estimate based on the spread between two screened potentials.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2/3.4] The section numbering jumps from 3.2 (Transmission simulations) to 3.4 (Ion implantation); there is no Section 3.3.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption contains the placeholder text 'Fig. Error! Unknown switch argument.' and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4] The phrase 'These measurements were performed in double transmission geometry' is unclear for the B+ marker experiment; the beam traverses the TiN film twice, so the wording should be clarified (e.g., 'with the beam traversing the TiN film on the way in and out').
  4. [Section 4] The clause 'as B electronic stopping is still larger' should read 'For B, electronic stopping is still larger'.
  5. [Abstract vs. Section 4] The abstract states 'uncertainty of <3%' while the conclusion states '~3% for the lowest investigated energy'; these numbers should be made consistent or the difference explained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the screening corrections are fitted inputs and the <3% figure is a sensitivity estimate, not a prediction forced by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a data-analysis/sensitivity study. Sample thickness and stoichiometry are taken from independent RBS/ERDA measurements, electronic stopping enters from SRIM with linear corrections, and the screening-length corrections ca are fitted to the multiple-scattering background of MEIS spectra (Sec. 3.1.1, Figs. 1 and 3). The central quantitative claim—a <3% uncertainty in quantified quantities—is obtained by comparing TFM and ZBL simulations and by varying ca and Se around best fits, i.e. by a model-spread sensitivity estimate. No fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction: the ca values are the inferential targets, and the 1-2% width change and ~3.4% stopping difference are consequences of comparing the two potentials, not the quantity being fitted. The paper does rely on self-citations (e.g. Ref. [22] for LEIS screening corrections, and Refs. [29], [31], [33] for methods), but these are corroborative or methodological and are not used to forbid alternatives or to supply an unverified premise. The critic's concern that ca and Se may be degenerate, and that no confidence region is given, is a legitimate correctness/robustness caveat, but it does not make the argument circular under the stated criteria: the paper does not claim to predict a quantity that is its own input. Thus no circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on TRBS simulation accuracy, the single-scattering normalization assumption, a representative-angle mapping for the MS background, and SRIM stopping as baseline; these are standard tools or explicit modeling choices, not invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Screening length correction factor ca for TFM potential = 0.87 at 30 keV He on HfN; energy-dependent values in Fig. 4
    Chosen to match the experimental multiple-scattering background; directly affects the stated uncertainty estimate.
  • Electronic stopping Se for B+ in TiN = 38.19 eV/Å
    Adjusted to reproduce the W marker peak position in Fig. 5.
  • Electronic stopping correction for He in HfN = ~3.4% higher for TFM than ZBL fit
    Inferred from matching the Hf peak trailing edge; affects the comparison between potentials.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TRBS Monte Carlo code accurately models multiple and plural scattering with the given potentials and cutoff-angle treatment.
    The paper uses TRBS for all simulations and relies on its small-angle scattering description below the cutoff angle (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The high-energy edge of the backscattering spectrum is dominated by single scattering.
    Used to normalize simulations and to argue that screening corrections do not affect the edge (Section 3.1.1, Fig. 2 evidence).
  • ad hoc to paper The multiple-scattering background is dominated by collisions with deflection angles around 15 degrees (range 10-20).
    Used to convert fitted screening corrections into a function of closest-approach distance in Fig. 4; justified by cutoff-angle tests but remains a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption SRIM electronic stopping values with linear corrections are adequate for the investigated systems.
    All simulations use SRIM Se as baseline, with linear corrections fit to data.
  • domain assumption RBS and ERDA provide accurate reference thickness and composition for the samples.
    Used as ground truth for the HfN and TiN/W/Si samples (Section 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the influence of uncertainties in scattering potentials on quantitative analysis using keV ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ING5YHXA

@misc{pith2026190802045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the influence of uncertainties in scattering potentials on quantitative analysis using keV ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ING5YHXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02045}
}
read the original abstract

Experimental spectra from medium energy ion scattering were compared to Monte-Carlo simulations (employing the TRBS code) to obtain information on the scattering potential. The impact of uncertainties in the interatomic potential on quantification of sample properties such as thickness, composition or electronic stopping was investigated for different scattering geometries: backscattering and transmission. For backscattered He ions with tens of keV primary energy the scattering potential was found to overestimate the multiple scattering background in the energy spectra resulting in an uncertainty of < 3 % in quantitative analysis. Light ions transmitted through a sample for equivalent path length in the medium are only affected minorly by changes in the scattering potential. This effect becomes more distinct for heavier primary ions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hämäläinen, M

    J. Hämäläinen, M. Mattinen, K. Mizohata, K. Meinander, M. Vehkamäki, J. Räisänen, M. Ritala, M. Leskelä, Atomic Layer Deposition of Rhenium Disulfide, Adv. Mater. 30 (2018) 1703622. doi:10.1002/adma.201703622

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201703622 2018

  2. [2]

    Stevens, Y

    E. Stevens, Y. Tomczak, B.T. Chan, E. Altamirano Sanchez, G.N. Parsons, A. Delabie, Area - Selective Atomic Layer Deposition of TiN, TiO 2 , and HfO 2 on Silicon Nitride with inhibition on Amorphous Carbon, Chem. Mater. 30 (2018) 3223 –3232. doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b00017

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b00017 2018

  3. [3]

    Y. Zhao, L. V. Goncharova, A. Lushington, Q. Sun, H. Yadegari, B. Wang, W. Xiao, R. Li, X. Sun, Superior Stable and Long Life Sodium Metal Anodes Achieved by Atomic Layer Deposition, Adv. Mater. 29 (2017) 1606663. doi:10.1002/adma.201606663

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201606663 2017

  4. [4]

    Tesmer, M.A

    J.R. Tesmer, M.A. Nastasi, eds., Handbook of modern ion beam materials analysis, Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1995

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    H. Li, L. Daukiya, S. Haldar, A. Lindblad, B. Sanyal, O. Eriksson, D. Aubel, S. Hajjar-Garreau, L. Simon, K. Leifer, Site-selective local fluorination of graphene induced by focused ion beam irradiation, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 19719. doi:10.1038/srep19719

    work page doi:10.1038/srep19719 2016

  6. [6]

    Willke, J.A

    P. Willke, J.A. Amani, A. Sinterhauf, S. Thakur, T. Kotzott, T. Druga, S. Weikert, K. Maiti, H. Hofsäss, M. Wenderoth, Doping of Graphene by Low -Energy Ion Beam Implantation: Structural, Electronic, and Transport Properties, Nano Lett. 15 (2015) 5110–5115. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01280

    doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01280 2015

  7. [7]

    Rutherford, LXXIX

    E. Rutherford, LXXIX. The scattering of α and β particles by matter and the structure of the atom, Philos. Mag. 21 (1911) 669

    work page 1911

  8. [8]

    Ziegler, J.P

    J.F. Ziegler, J.P. Biersack, The Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter, Sprin ger US, 1985. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-8103-1_3

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-8103-1_3 1985

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Kido, T. Nishimura, Y. Hoshino, H. Namba, Surface structures of SrTiO3(0 0 1) and Ni/SrTiO3(0 0 1) studied by medium-energy ion scattering and SR-photoelectron spectroscopy, Nucl. Instruments Methods Ph ys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms. 161 –163 (2000) 371–...

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    M. Riva, M. Kubicek, X. Hao, G. Franceschi, S. Gerhold, M. Schmid, H. Hutter, J. Fleig, C. Franchini, B. Yildiz, U. Diebold, Influence of surface atomic structure demonstrated on oxygen incorporation mechanism at a model perovskite oxide, Nat. Commun. 9 (2018) 3710. doi:10.103...

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Brongersma, M

    H.H. Brongersma, M. Draxler, M. de Ridder, P. Bauer, Surface composition analysis by low - 16 energy ion scattering, Surf. Sci. Rep. 62 (2007) 63–109. doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.12.002

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Zameshin, A.E

    A.A. Zameshin, A.E. Yakshin, J.M. Sturm, H.H. Brongerma, F. Bijkerk, Double matrix effect in Low Energy Ion Scattering from La surfaces, Appl. Surf. Sci. 440 (2018 ) 570 –579. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.01.174

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Kürnsteiner, R

    P. Kürnsteiner, R. Steinberger, D. Primetzhofer, D. Goebl, T. Wagner, Z. Druckmüllerova, P. Zeppenfeld, P. Bauer, Matrix effects in the neutralization of He ions at a metal surface containing oxygen, Surf. Sci. 609 (2013) 167–171. doi:10.1016/j.susc.2012.12.003

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Sortica, V

    M.A. Sortica, V. Paneta, B. Bruckner, S. Lohmann, T. Nyberg, P. Bauer, D. Primetzhofer, On the Z1-dependence of electronic stopping in TiN, Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 176. doi:10.1038/s41598 - 018-36765-7

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Quashie, A.A

    E.E. Quashie, A.A. Correa, Electronic stopping power of protons and alpha particles in nickel, Phys. Rev. B. 98 (2018) 235122. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.98.235122

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Andersen, F

    H.H. Andersen, F. Besenbacher, P. Loftager, W. Möller, Large -angle scattering of light ions in the weakly screened Rutherford region, Phys. Rev. A. 21 (1980) 1891 –1901. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.21.1891

    1980 doi

  9. [17]

    Molière, Theorie der {Streuung} schneller geladener {Teilchen} {I}

    G. Molière, Theorie der {Streuung} schneller geladener {Teilchen} {I}. {Einzelstreuung} am abgeschirmten {Coulomb-Feld}, Zeitschrift Naturforsch. Tl. A. 2 (1947) 133

    1947

  10. [18]

    Ziegler, J.P

    J.F. Ziegler, J.P. Biersack, U. Littmark, The Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids, Pergamon Press. (1985)

    1985

  11. [19]

    Firsov, Calculation of the interaction potential of atoms, Sov

    O.B. Firsov, Calculation of the interaction potential of atoms, Sov. Phys. JETP. 6 (1958)

    1958

  12. [20]

    O’connor, J.P

    D.J. O’connor, J.P. Biersack, Comparison of theoretical and empirical interatomic potentials, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms. 15 (1986) 14–

    1986

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1016/0168-583X(86)90243-0

    doi

  14. [22]

    Takeuchi, Evaluation of scree ning length corrections for interaction potentials in impact - collision ion scattering spectroscopy, Nucl

    W. Takeuchi, Evaluation of scree ning length corrections for interaction potentials in impact - collision ion scattering spectroscopy, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms. 313 (2013) 33–39. doi:10.1016/J.NIMB.2013.08.003

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Primetzhofer, S.N

    D. Primetzhofer, S.N. Markin, M. Draxler, R. Beikler, E. Taglauer, P. Bauer, Strength of the interatomic potential derived from angular scans in {LEIS}, Surf. Sci. 602 (2008) 2921 –2926. doi:10.1016/j.susc.2008.07.030

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    Draxler, M

    M. Draxler, M. Walker, C.F. McConville, Determination of a correction factor for the interaction potential of He+ ions backscattered from a Cu(1 0 0) surface, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms. 249 (2006) 812 –815. 17 doi:10.1016/J.N...

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Souda, M

    R. Souda, M. Aono, C. Oshima, S. Otani, Y. Ishizawa, Multiple scattering of low -energy rare- gas ions at solid surfaces, Surf. Sci. 176 (1986) 657–668. doi:10.1016/0039-6028(86)90064-6

    1986 doi

  18. [26]

    Zinoviev, Electron screening of the {Coulomb} potential at small internuclear distances, Nucl

    A.N. Zinoviev, Electron screening of the {Coulomb} potential at small internuclear distances, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms. 354 (2015) 308–312. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2014.11.085

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Zinoviev, Potentials of the Interaction of Atomic Particles at Large, Medium, and Small Collision Energies, J

    A.N. Zinoviev, Potentials of the Interaction of Atomic Particles at Large, Medium, and Small Collision Energies, J. Surf. Investig. X -Ray, Synchrotron Neutron Tech. 12 (2018) 554 –557. doi:10.1134/S1027451018030382

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Matias, R.C

    F. Matias, R.C. Fadanelli, P.L. Grande, N.E. Koval, R.D. Muiño, A.G. Borisov, N.R. Arista, G. Schiwietz, Ground - and excited -state scattering po tentials for the stopping of protons in an electron gas, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 50 (2017) 185201. doi:10.1088/1361-6455/aa843d

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Sigmund, A

    P. Sigmund, A. Schinner, Is electronic stopping of ions velocity -proportional in the velocity - proportional regime?, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms. 440 (2019) 41–47. doi:10.1016/J.NIMB.2018.10.031

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Naqvi, G

    S.R. Naqvi, G. Possnert, D. Primetzhofer, Energy loss of slow Ne ions in Pt and Ag from TOF- MEIS and Monte -Carlo simulati ons , Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms . 371 (2016) 76 –80. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2015.09.048

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Linnarsson, A

    M.K. Linnarsson, A. Hallén, J. Åström, D. Primetzhofer, S. Legendre, G. Possnert, New beam line for time-of-flight medium energy ion scattering with large area position sensitive detector, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83 (2012) 095107. doi:10.1063/1.4750195

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    Primetzhofer, E

    D. Primetzhofer, E. Dentoni Litta, A. Hallén, M.K. Linnarsson, G. Possnert, Ultra-thin film and interface analysis of high-k dielectric materials employing Time-Of-Flight Medium Energy Ion Scattering (TOF -MEIS), Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with...

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Biersack, E

    J.P. Biersack, E. Steinbauer, P. Bauer, A particularly fast TRIM version for ion backscattering and high energy ion implantation, Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B. 61 (1991) 77. doi:10.1016/0168-583X(91)95564-T

    1991 doi

  26. [34]

    D. Roth, D. Goebl, D. Primetzhofer, P. Bauer, A procedure to determine electronic energy loss from relative measurements with TOF -LEIS, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms. 317 (2013) 61–65. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2012.12.094

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    Markin, D

    S.N. Markin, D. Primetzhofer, S. Prusa, M. Brunmayr, G. Kowarik, F. Aumayr, P. Bauer, 18 Electronic interaction of very slow light ions in Au: Electronic stopping and electron emission, Phys. Rev. B. 78 (2008) 195122. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.78.195122

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    Mayer, SIMNRA, a simulation progr am for the analysis of NRA, RBS and ERDA, in: AIP Conf

    M. Mayer, SIMNRA, a simulation progr am for the analysis of NRA, RBS and ERDA, in: AIP Conf. Proc., AIP, 1999: pp. 541–544. doi:10.1063/1.59188

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    Kantre, V

    K. Kantre, V. Paneta, D. Primetzhofer, Investigation of the energy loss of I in Au at energies below the Bragg peak, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms. (2019). doi:10.1016/J.NIMB.2018.10.034

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Markin, D

    S.N. Markin, D. Primetzhofer, P. Bauer, Vanishing electronic energy loss of very slow light ions in insulators with large band gaps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (200 9). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.113201

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.