Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Electronic interaction of slow hydrogen and helium ions in the nickel-silicon system

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 helium ions, the stopping cross section of nickel silicide exceeds the Bragg-rule sum of its elements by up to 17 percent.

desk verdict First Ni-silicide stopping benchmarks with a plausible but not yet secure He-specific Bragg violation, owing to contaminated elemental references. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07767 v1 pith:KIGTIMWV submitted 2019-08-21 physics.atom-ph

Tuan Thien Tran , Lukas Jablonka , Barbara Bruckner , Stefanie Rund , Dietmar Roth , Mauricio A. Sortica , Peter Bauer , Zhen Zhang
show 1 more author
Daniel Primetzhofer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords electronicstoppingcrosssectionionBragg'srulenickelsilicideheliumionsprotonschargeexchangetime-of-flightscattering
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 the electronic stopping cross section of a compound, nickel silicide, can be predicted by adding the stopping of its elements at the low-to-medium ion energies used in materials analysis. It reports that for protons the additive Bragg's rule works nearly perfectly, within 3%, but for helium ions the measured stopping of the silicide is consistently higher than the additive prediction, by 8% at high energy and up to 17% at low energy. If correct, this means helium energy loss in this metallic compound includes an extra, non-additive channel, most plausibly charge exchange, that simple free-electron models and current stopping tables miss. The result matters because helium stopping data underpin depth profiling and implantation modeling in semiconductor technology, where nickel silicides are standard contact materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the measured electronic stopping cross section $\varepsilon = (1/n)\,dE/dx$ extracted from time-of-flight backscattering spectra, compared with the additive estimate known as Bragg's rule, $\varepsilon_{A_xB_{1-x}} = x\varepsilon_A + (1-x)\varepsilon_B$. The extraction uses Monte-Carlo simulations that include plural and multiple scattering to fit the electronic SCS, with film thicknesses fixed by Rutherford backscattering. The interpretive mechanism for the helium anomaly is velocity-dependent charge exchange: at low velocities neutral He can be re-ionized in close collisions through promotion of its 1s level, adding a kinetic-energy cost beyond ordinary electron-hole pair excitation. Static DFT friction coefficients for an effective free-electron gas describe the proton data, while recent time-dependent DFT calculations reproduce the measured velocity scaling for both projectiles.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to repeat the helium measurements on contamination-free Ni and Si films, for example in-situ grown or e-beam evaporated in ultrahigh vacuum with thickness fixed by Rutherford backscattering, and recompute the Bragg-rule baseline for Ni2Si at the same energies; if the measured silicide SCS then falls within the quoted ±3% uncertainty of the additive sum across the whole 4 to 200 keV range, the reported non-additivity is not an intrinsic property of nickel silicide.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the first measurements of electronic stopping cross sections of a nickel-silicide film, close to the Ni2Si phase, for H and He ions from 0.5 keV to 200 keV, obtained by fitting time-of-flight backscattering spectra with Monte-Carlo simulations. The central result is that for helium the measured SCS of the silicide is consistently higher than the weighted sum of the measured elemental SCS of Ni and Si, Bragg's rule, by 8% at 200 keV and up to 17% at the lowest energies, while for protons the two agree within 3% and below 20 keV within 1%. For protons the low-velocity SCS is proportional to ion velocity in all investigated materials, whereas for He a non-linear velocity scaling is observed everywhere, including a kink near 0.2 atomic units of velocity. The authors attribute the helium excess to non-adiabatic energy-loss channels, mainly charge-exchange processes associated with promotion of the He 1s level in close collisions, and argue that these processes are essential for modeling stopping of medium-energy ions heavier than protons.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the assumption that the elemental stopping cross sections measured on films containing oxygen and argon, 95.3% Ni with 4.7% O and 89% Si with 5% O and 6% Ar, are representative of pure Ni and Si, since no correction for contaminant stopping is applied; if those few percent of contaminant atoms stop helium differently from the host atoms, part of the reported 8 to 17% excess could be a sample-composition artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Helium stopping powers for nickel silicide at keV energies cannot be obtained by adding elemental stopping cross sections; the underestimate reaches roughly 17% near the lowest measured energies.
  • For protons, additivity survives in the same compound within experimental uncertainty, so the non-additivity is a projectile-specific, dynamic effect rather than a generic chemical-binding correction.
  • Stopping-power databases and simulation codes that rely on Bragg's rule will systematically underpredict helium energy loss in silicides, which directly affects ion-beam depth profiling and ion-implantation modeling.
  • The velocity dependence of helium SCS in Ni, Si and the alloy is not linear even below the Bohr velocity; models must include charge-exchange or other non-adiabatic channels alongside electron-hole pair excitation.
  • Recent time-dependent DFT captures the measured velocity scaling for both H and He in Ni, indicating that dynamical many-body calculations, rather than static friction coefficients, are the appropriate theoretical tool in this regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the helium excess is caused by He 1s level promotion in close collisions, then transition-metal silicides with d-states near the Fermi level should show deviations of similar or larger size, while wide-gap compounds where neutral He cannot be re-ionized as easily should show smaller Bragg-rule deviations; that pattern is a testable prediction.
  • A quantitative check of the contamination caveat would be to estimate the stopping contribution of the 4.7% oxygen and 5% oxygen plus 6% argon contaminants using existing O and Ar stopping data; this would bracket how much of the 8 to 17% excess is chemical rather than compositional.
  • The authors' trajectory argument implies that at the lowest energies the apparent SCS may depend on the scattering geometry and impact-parameter selection; measuring He stopping on the same silicide at two different scattering angles would probe this directly.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports electronic stopping cross sections (SCS) of Ni, Si, and a Ni-silicide film for H and He ions over roughly 0.5 keV to 200 keV, combining ToF-LEIS measurements at low energies with MEIS measurements at higher energies and deriving SCS values through TRBS Monte-Carlo simulations. The central experimental findings are that proton stopping is velocity-proportional at low velocities in all three materials, while He stopping shows non-linear velocity scaling; that static DFT friction coefficients with independently measured plasmon-derived r_s values describe the proton data well; and that Bragg's rule reproduces the measured silicide SCS for protons within about 3%, whereas for He the measured silicide SCS is consistently higher than the Bragg prediction by 8% at the highest energy and up to 17% at the lowest energy. The authors interpret the He-specific excess as evidence for non-adiabatic energy-loss channels, notably charge exchange, and compare with recent TD-DFT calculations for Ni.

Significance. If the main claim holds, the paper provides a valuable benchmark data set: it is the first SCS measurement for a nickel-silicide system, it spans two complementary experimental setups, and it offers a clear H/He contrast that bears directly on the validity of Bragg additivity at low-to-medium ion energies. The strengths of the work include the use of two independent instruments (MEIS and ACOLISSA LEIS), a stated systematic uncertainty of about 3 percent, Monte-Carlo spectral fits that reproduce multiple-scattering backgrounds, and a comparison with external DFT/TD-DFT results that is not circular because the r_s values are taken from independent plasmon-loss experiments. The main quantitative claim, however, depends on the purity of the elemental reference films used for the Bragg-rule mixture, and that dependence is not yet quantified; the He-specific deviation is therefore not yet securely established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental details, composition summary; Bragg-rule comparison in the Ni-Si alloy section (Fig. 4)] The elemental reference films used for the Bragg-rule comparison contain substantial impurities: sample (1) is 95.3% Ni/4.7% O, sample (2) is 89% Si/5% O/6% Ar, while the silicide is 62% Ni/35% Si/1% O/2% Ar. The text reports these compositions but describes no correction for the stopping contribution of O and Ar in the elemental references, and no sensitivity estimate is given. Because the reported He excess over Bragg's rule is 8% at the highest energy and 17% at the lowest, even a few-percent change in the elemental SCS due to contaminant stopping is of the same order as the claimed effect; the H/He contrast does not rule this out, since the paper argues that He stopping is more sensitive than proton stopping to electronic structure and non-adiabatic channels. A quantitative correction using independent SCS data for O and Ar, or an explicit worst-case bounding estimate, is needed before the non-additivity claim can be evaluated.
  2. [Fig. 2(b) and accompanying text; Bragg-rule comparison in Fig. 4] The manuscript notes an offset between the MEIS and LEIS data for He in Ni but does not give its magnitude or fold it into the uncertainty budget. The Bragg-rule comparison in Fig. 4 is made exclusively with MEIS data for the elemental references and the silicide, so a systematic offset in the MEIS He data would propagate directly into the reported 8-17% deviation. The authors should state the size of this offset, show that it is small compared with the He excess, or include it explicitly as a systematic uncertainty in the Bragg-rule comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Experimental details vs. Ni-Si alloy section] The silicide composition is given as 62% Ni/35% Si/1% O/2% Ar in the experimental section and as 64% Ni/36% Si later in the text; please clarify whether the latter is normalized to the pure Ni-Si content and state which composition was used in the Bragg-rule calculation.
  2. [Fig. 2(b)] The text describes an offset between the MEIS and LEIS He data without a numerical value; adding the offset and its uncertainty would help readers assess the absolute calibration of the MEIS data.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that Fig. 1(b) is a typical low-energy spectrum but does not specify the sample or primary energy used; this information should be included.
  4. [Abstract and Summary] The abstract states that the He deviations are 'by almost 20%', while the results section and summary quote 17% at the lowest energy; the numbers should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured SCS data are compared with independent DFT/TD-DFT benchmarks and with a Bragg-rule additivity check that is not fitted to the compound data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central experimental quantities are the electronic stopping cross sections deduced from backscattering spectra via Monte-Carlo simulation; these are measured quantities, not outputs of the theories they are compared with. The DFT comparison uses friction coefficients computed by Nagy et al. with r_s values taken from independent experimental plasmon energies (1.8 a.u. for Ni, 1.97 a.u. for Si, and 21.8 eV for Ni2Si), not from any fit to the stopping data. The TD-DFT comparison uses an external literature calculation. The Bragg-rule comparison is also not a fitted-input-called-prediction: the elemental SCS values for Ni and Si are measured in the same study, but the alloy SCS is measured independently, and the Bragg-rule curve is an additivity model evaluated with those independently measured elemental values. No equation reduces to its own input. The charge-exchange interpretation of the He nonlinearity does rely on several prior papers by the same authors, but those citations provide experimental context and mechanism rather than generating the present data, and they are supported by external references as well. The possible influence of O/Ar contamination in the elemental reference films is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circularity mechanism, because it does not make the Bragg comparison equal to the alloy measurement by construction. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and no load-bearing self-referential step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a set of extracted stopping cross sections and a Bragg-rule comparison. It rests on experimental calibration inputs such as r_s values and film thickness or composition, and on TRBS simulation assumptions, but introduces no new theoretical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • r_s for Ni = 1.8 a.u.
    Used for the DFT friction-coefficient prediction; taken from experimental plasmon frequencies in the literature, not fitted to stopping data.
  • r_s for Si = 1.97 a.u.
    Used for the DFT comparison; input from plasmon measurements, independent of the stopping data.
  • r_s for Ni2Si = 1.68 a.u.
    Inferred from the literature plasmon energy of about 21.8 eV for the Ni2Si phase; determines the DFT comparison for the silicide.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TRBS Monte-Carlo simulations with the ZBL screened potential correctly separate electronic stopping from nuclear and multiple-scattering contributions.
    All SCS values are extracted by fitting TRBS spectra; if the potential or multiple-scattering model is wrong, the fitted electronic SCS values shift. Location: Experimental details.
  • domain assumption The backscattering spectra yield stopping values representative of random trajectories, not biased by trajectory-dependent charge exchange.
    The authors argue that charge-exchange effects have only small influence on the deduced SCS and cite Refs. [54-56]. This is load-bearing for the shape of the He velocity scaling. Location: Discussion after Ref. [54].
  • domain assumption Areal film thicknesses and compositions from RBS are accurate to the stated precision, including the <3% geometry agreement and the contamination quantification.
    Thickness uncertainty dominates the SCS uncertainty, and contamination levels matter for the Bragg-rule comparison. Location: Experimental details.
  • domain assumption Electronic stopping in each film can be represented by a single SCS value along the ion trajectory, applied as a multiplicative factor to SRIM in the simulations.
    This is the extraction model used in TRBS; if the trajectory dependence of the energy loss is strong, the single-factor representation may bias the deduced SCS. Location: Experimental details.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electronic interaction of slow hydrogen and helium ions in the nickel-silicon system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KIGTIMWV

@misc{pith2026190807767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electronic interaction of slow hydrogen and helium ions in the nickel-silicon system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KIGTIMWV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07767}
}
read the original abstract

Electronic stopping cross sections (SCS) of nickel, silicon and nickel-silicon alloys for protons and helium (He) ions are studied in the regime of medium and low energy ion scattering, i.e., for ion energies in the range from 500 eV to 200 keV. For protons, at velocities below the Bohr velocity the deduced SCS is proportional to the ion velocity for all investigated materials. In contrast, for He ions non-linear velocity scaling is observed in all investigated materials. Static calculations using density functional theory (DFT) available from literature accurately predict the SCS of Ni and Ni-Si alloy in the regime with observed velocity proportionality. At higher energies, the energy dependence of the deduced SCS of Ni for protons and He ions agrees with the prediction by recent time dependent DFT calculations. The measured SCS of the Ni-Si alloy was compared to the SCS obtained from Bragg's rule based on SCS for Ni and Si deduced in this study, yielding good agreement for protons, but systematic deviations for He projectiles, by almost 20%. Overall, the obtained data indicate the importance of non adiabatic processes such as charge exchange for proper modelling of electronic stopping of in particular medium energy ions heavier than protons in solids.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Strub, W

    E. Strub, W. Bohne, S. Lindner, and J. Röhrich, Surface and Interface Analysis 35, 753 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Guziewicz, A

    E. Guziewicz, A. Turos, A. Stonert, D. Snigurenko, B. S. Witkowski, R. Diduszko, and M. Behar, Thin Solid Films 612, 337 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Hirvonen and M

    J. Hirvonen and M. Natasi, in Material Research Society1995)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Inokuti, Reviews of Modern Physics 43, 297 (1971)

    M. Inokuti, Reviews of Modern Physics 43, 297 (1971)

    work page 1971

  5. [5]

    Fermi and E

    E. Fermi and E. Teller, Physical Review 72, 399 (1947)

    work page 1947

  6. [6]

    Lindhard and K

    J. Lindhard and K. D. V. Selsk., Mat. Fys. Medd. 28 (1954)

    work page 1954

  7. [7]

    R. H. Ritchie, Physical Review 114, 644 (1959)

    work page 1959

  8. [8]

    P. M. Echenique, F. Flores, and R. H. Ritchie, in Solid State Physics , edited by H. Ehrenreich, and D. Turnbull (Academic Press, 1990), pp. 229

    work page 1990

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Mann and W

    A. Mann and W. Brandt, Physical Review B 24, 4999 (1981)

    1981

  2. [10]

    Paul, Available from: http://www.exphys.jku.at/stopping/

    H. Paul, Available from: http://www.exphys.jku.at/stopping/

  3. [11]

    Blume, W

    R. Blume, W. Eckstein, H. Verbeek, and K. Reichelt, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 194, 67 (1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    J. E. Valdés, J. C. Eckardt, G. H. Lantschner, and N. R. Arista, Physical Review A 49, 1083 (1994)

    1994

  5. [13]

    S. N. Markin, D. Primetzhofer, and P. Bauer, Physical Review Letters 103, 113201 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Primetzhofer, S

    D. Primetzhofer, S. Rund, D. Roth, D. Goebl, and P. Bauer, Physical Review Letters 107, 163201 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Riccardi, A

    P. Riccardi, A. Sindona, and C. A. Dukes, Physics Letters A 381, 1174 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    A. Lim, W. M. C. Foulkes, A. P. Horsfield, D. R. Mason, A. Schleife, E. W. Draeger, and A. A. Correa, Physical Review Letters 116, 043201 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    C.-K. Li, F. Wang, B. Liao, X. -P. OuYang, and F. -S. Zhang, Physical Review B 96, 094301 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    W. H. Bragg and R. Kleeman, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 10, 318 (1905)

    1905

  11. [19]

    L. N. Trujillo -López and R . Cabrera-Trujillo, Radiation Physics and Chemistry 156, 150 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    D. I. Thwaites, Radiation Research 95, 495 (1983)

    1983

  13. [21]

    Bauer, R

    P. Bauer, R. Golser, D. Semrad, P. Maier -Komor, F. Aumayr, and A. Arnau, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 136-138, 103 (1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    J. F. Ziegler, M. D. Ziegler, and J. P. Biersack, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 268, 1818 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Wittmaack, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 380, 57 (2016)

    K. Wittmaack, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 380, 57 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    C. C. Montanari and P. Dimitriou, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 408, 50 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    D. Roth, D. Goebl, D. Primetzhofer, and P. Bauer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 317, 61 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    M. V. Moro, B. Bruckner, P. L. Grande, M. H. Tabacniks, P. Bauer, and D. Primetzhofer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 424, 43 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    C. J. Zoller, E. Dentoni Litta, and D. Primetzhofer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 347, 52 (2015). 16

    2015

  20. [28]

    M. K. Linnarsson, A. Hallén, J. Åström, D. Primetzhofer, S. Legendre, and G. Possnert, Review of Scientific Instruments 83, 095107 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Draxler, S

    M. Draxler, S. N. Markin, S. N. Ermolov, K. Schmid, C. Hesch, A. Poschacher, R. Gruber, M. Bergsmann, and P. Bauer, Vacuum 73, 39 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    Ro th, C

    D. Ro th, C. E. Celedon, D. Goebl, E. A. Sanchez, B. Bruckner, R. Steinberger, J. Guimpel, N. R. Arista, and P. Bauer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 437, 1 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    J. P. Biersack, E. Steinbauer, and P. Bauer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 61, 77 (1991)

    1991

  24. [32]

    Sigmund, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 135, 1 (1998)

    P. Sigmund, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 135, 1 (1998)

    1998

  25. [33]

    S. N. Markin, D. Primetzhofer, S. Prusa, M. Brunmayr, G. Kowarik, F. Aumayr, and P. Bauer, Physical Review B 78, 195122 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Primetzhofer, Physical Review B 86, 094102 (2012)

    D. Primetzhofer, Physical Review B 86, 094102 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    S. N. Markin, D. Primetzhofer, M. Spitz, and P. Bauer, Physical Review B 80, 205105 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    S. P. Møller, A. Csete, T. Ichioka, H. Knudsen, U. I. Uggerhøj, and H. H. Andersen, Physical Review Letters 88, 193201 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Bruckner, D

    B. Bruckner, D. Roth, D. Goebl, P. Bauer, and D. Primet zhofer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 423, 82 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    White and R

    W. White and R. M. Mueller, Physical Review 187, 499 (1969)

    1969

  31. [39]

    Mertens and T

    P. Mertens and T. Krist, Journal of Applied Physics 53, 7343 (1982)

    1982

  32. [40]

    Semrad, P

    D. Semrad, P. Mertens, and P. Bauer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 15, 86 (1986)

    1986

  33. [41]

    I. Nagy, A. Arnau, and P. M. Echenique, Physical Review A 40, 987 (1989)

    1989

  34. [42]

    Electronic Stopping Power of Matter for Ions, https://www- nds.iaea.org/stopping/index.html

  35. [43]

    Goebl, D

    D. Goebl, D. Roth, and P. Bauer, Physical Review A 87, 062903 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Isaacson, New York University, Document (1975)

    D. Isaacson, New York University, Document (1975)

    1975

  37. [45]

    E. E. Quashie and A. A. Correa, Physical Review B 98, 235122 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Mertens and P

    P. Mertens and P. Bauer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 33, 133 (1988)

    1988

  39. [47]

    Hobler, K

    G. Hobler, K. K. Bourdelle, and T. Akatsu, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 242, 617 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Eppacher, University of Linz, 1995

    C. Eppacher, University of Linz, 1995

    1995

  41. [49]

    N. P. Barradas, E. Alves, Z. Siketić, and I. B. Radović, AIP Conference Proceedings 1099, 331 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Konac, S

    G. Konac, S. Kalbitzer, C. Klatt, D. Niemann, and R. Stoll, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 136- 138, 159 (1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    Schiwietz and P

    G. Schiwietz and P. L. Grande, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 175-177, 125 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    S. Rund, D. Primetzhofer, S. N. Markin, D. Goebl, and P. Bauer, Nuclear Instru ments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 269, 1171 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Souda, M

    R. Souda, M. Aono, C. Oshima, S. Otani, and Y. Ishizawa, Surface Science 179, 199 (1987)

    1987

  46. [54]

    Primetzhofer, D

    D. Primetzhofer, D. Goebl, and P. Bauer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 317, 8 (2013). 17

    2013

  47. [55]

    Bauer, D

    P. Bauer, D. Semrad, and P. Mertens, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 12, 56 (1985)

    1985

  48. [56]

    Goebl, K

    D. Goebl, K. Khalal-Kouache, D. Roth, E. Steinbauer, and P. Bauer, Physical Review A 88, 032901 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Riccardi, A

    P. Riccardi, A. Sindona, and C. A. Dukes, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 382, 7 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Pokrant, R

    S. Pokrant, R. Pantel, and M. Cheynet, Microelectronic Engineering 83, 2364 (2006)

    2006

  51. [59]

    Asayama, N

    K. Asayama, N. Hashikawa, M. Kawakami, and H. Mori, (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2008), pp. 329

    2008

  52. [60]

    Verleysen, H

    E. Verleysen, H. Bender, O. Richard, D. Schryvers, and W. Vandervorst, Journal of Microscopy 240, 75 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    S. L. Zhang and Z. Zhang, in Metallic Films for Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Applications (Woodhead Publishing, 2014), pp. 244

    2014

  54. [62]

    Bisi and C

    O. Bisi and C. Calandra, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 14, 5479 (1981)

    1981

Pith tools

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