Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

The iSTORM Instrument for Airborne Measurements of Gamma-Ray Emissions from Thunderstorms

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents iSTORM, a 32-crystal CeBr3 gamma-ray spectrometer for ER-2 flights, and reports its 250 keV-to-5 MeV range, 157 cm2 area, and detection of glows, TGFs, and new flickering gamma-ray flashes during ALOFT.

desk verdict A credible instrument paper whose main soft spot is the unquantified packet-loss recovery used in the FGF timing analysis; the instrument claims themselves hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09990 v1 pith:O3J32GR4 submitted 2026-08-06 physics.ao-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMnucl-ex

Daniel Shy , J. Eric Grove , Bernard Phlips , Alena Schell , Mary Johnson-Rambert , Mason Quick , David Corredor , Scott Podgorny
show 2 more authors
Roy Salinas Mitch Davis
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ao-phastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMnucl-ex
keywords terrestrialgamma-rayflashglowsflickeringflashesCeBr3scintillatorssiliconphotomultipliersairborneinstrumentationALOFTcampaign
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

iSTORM is a gamma-ray spectrometer built to fly on a high-altitude ER-2 aircraft and look down into thunderstorms. This paper claims that its 32 one-inch CeBr3 scintillator crystals, read out by silicon photomultipliers, cover roughly 250 keV to 5 MeV under flight conditions with 157 cm2 of collecting area. During the ALOFT campaign the instrument recorded gamma-ray glows, terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs), and the newly named flickering gamma-ray flashes (FGFs). On the July 24, 2023 flight over the Bay of Campeche it saw almost 100 TGFs and multiple glows and FGFs in a single active storm system. If these measurements hold, airborne arrays at 20 km can resolve a much richer and more common population of thunderstorm gamma-ray transients than space telescopes see.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing design is an array of 32 one-inch-diameter CeBr3 scintillator crystals, each read out by a custom silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) array biased at 26 V, with signals digitized by a CAEN A5202 front end using a CITIROC 1A ASIC in dual-gain, 12-bit spectroscopy mode. Segmentation reduces pulse pileup, the dual gains and zero suppression enable the 250 keV to 5 MeV range, and an event counter in the data stream recovers the number of lost events during high-count-rate intervals, with those lost events redistributed uniformly between recorded events. A hermetically sealed one-atmosphere box and a GPS-disciplined clock allow the instrument to operate at 65-68 kft cruise altitude.

What would settle it

Take a bright, packet-loss-affected FGF seen by both iSTORM and the BGO instrument and compare the recovered iSTORM pulse spacings with the independently timed BGO pulses in the same window; systematic disagreement concentrated in loss intervals would show that assigning lost events uniformly between recorded events distorts the FGF timing results. Alternatively, replay known high-rate pulse trains with controlled bursty losses through the A5202 data stream and check whether the recovery algorithm reproduces the injected spacings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a compact, segmented CeBr3/SiPM spectrometer can do science-quality gamma-ray transient measurements from an ER-2 aircraft. The instrument achieves an energy range of approximately 250 keV to 5 MeV with 157 cm2 total geometrical area, and during ALOFT it detected glows, TGFs, and FGFs. In the 10-minute case study from July 24, 2023, iSTORM saw 7 TGFs embedded in glow episodes plus 3 FGFs, and the paper reports a linear relation between FGF total duration and average pulse spacing, $\mathrm{Duration\,[ms]} \approx 5.4 \times \mathrm{average\,spacing\,[ms]} + 14.2$. The companion BGO instrument saw the same events, which the paper takes as cross-validation that FGFs are a distinct, real phenomenon rather than an instrumental artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, when data packets are lost in the brightest flashes, the missing events were spread evenly in time between the two recorded events around each loss; if losses arrived in bursts instead, the reported pulse timings and count rates would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 157 cm2 airborne detector can measure thunderstorm gamma rays from about 250 keV to 5 MeV while cruising at 20 km, so near-storm aircraft surveys are a viable complement to space-based TGF observations.
  • The July 24, 2023 flight's nearly 100 TGFs indicate that very active storms produce far more flashes than satellite-based rarity estimates implied.
  • The measured FGF relation, $\mathrm{Duration\,[ms]} \approx 5.4 \times \mathrm{average\,pulse\,spacing\,[ms]} + 14.2$, gives models a quantitative target for the electric-field conditions that generate flickering flashes.
  • The absence of optical or radio counterparts to FGFs implies that gamma-ray observations may be the only remote way to detect those events.
  • With a faster readout and near-real-time count-rate telemetry, the upgraded iSTORM can extend the same measurements to pyrocumulonimbus storms during the INSPYRE campaign.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A next test beyond the paper is to replay recorded ALOFT high-rate intervals through a bench setup with known injected event times and check whether the uniform-loss recovery reproduces the injected pulse spacings; this would directly test the FGF timing results.
  • If the FGF duration-spacing relation holds in more events, it would suggest a common regulator such as a persistent avalanche region modulating pulse rate, rather than a sequence of independent TGF-like bursts.
  • Because FGFs lack optical and radio counterparts, archival airborne and balloon gamma-ray datasets may contain unrecognized multi-pulse structures in the 20-250 ms range; a blind search could test that possibility.
  • An imaging instrument such as the planned coded-aperture telescope could map FGF pulse origins in the cloud, connecting the measured timing correlation to the spatial structure of the electric field.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the design, environmental testing, and first in-flight results of iSTORM, a 32-element CeBr3 scintillator array with SiPM readout flown on the NASA ER-2 during the ALOFT campaign. The authors report that the instrument achieves a useful energy range of about 250 keV to 5 MeV under flight conditions with a total geometrical area of 157 cm^2, and they show examples of gamma-ray glows, TGFs, and the newly reported flickering gamma-ray flashes (FGFs). The paper also presents a linear relation between FGF duration and average pulse spacing in its Fig. 16.

Significance. If the performance claims hold, iSTORM provides a useful airborne capability for thunderstorm gamma-ray observations, and the reported detections of glows, TGFs, and FGFs are scientifically important. The paper is honest about key limitations: spectra are stated not to be deconvolved, and the calibration is based on standard Cs-137 ground measurements. The direct comparison with the co-flying BGO instrument is promised but not shown. The central concern is that the temporal structure of FGFs, which underpins the only quantitative relation in the paper, depends on a packet-loss correction that is not validated. This is a load-bearing issue, not a cosmetic one.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, paragraph on the A5202 event counter; Section 3.3] The description of the event-counter correction is not sufficient to support the FGF timing results. The paper states that when the BeagleBone Black drops packets during high-count-rate events, the lost events are 'distribute[d] uniformly between two recorded events.' The FGF pulse durations, spacings, and the correlation in Fig. 16 are derived from these corrected event times. If packet loss is concentrated at the high-rate phases of a burst, uniform insertion will systematically stretch pulse durations and fill inter-pulse gaps, directly biasing the reported 15 ms spacing and the duration-versus-spacing relation. The paper gives no estimate of the lost fraction for the FGF events, no test of the uniformity assumption, and no comparison with the independent BGO readout that observed the same phenomena. Please quantify the loss rate for the events shown and validate the reconstruction against the BGO data, or explicitly state how the main timing results are robust to non-uniform loss.
  2. [Section 3.3, Fig. 16] The linear fit in Fig. 16 is the only quantitative relation in the paper, but it is reported without uncertainties: the fit parameters Duration[ms] = 5.4 × Average FGF Pulse Time Difference [ms] + 14.2383 have no error bars, no coefficient of determination, and no statement of how many points were used or whether the correlation is statistically significant. The error bars shown are the standard deviation of pulse times within each FGF, which does not include the uncertainty introduced by the packet-loss correction discussed above. Please provide fit uncertainties, a goodness-of-fit measure, and a clear description of the sample size and selection criteria for the 24 FGFs.
  3. [Section 3.3] The manuscript states that 'The BGO’s observation is consistent with that of iSTORM' but shows no comparison. Because the BGO instrument uses a different readout and would be affected differently by dead time or packet loss, a direct overlay or time-tagged comparison of the FGF pulse structure is a natural and powerful validation of the iSTORM timing. Adding this comparison would also address the concern that the observed FGF morphology is an artifact of the uniform event-redistribution procedure.
  4. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.1.1] The energy-range claim needs more support in the flight environment. Figure 7 shows that the Cs-137 photopeak is cropped into the overflow bin at -5 °C, and the paper states that -5 °C is the lower limit for science operations. The pod is described as having blowers to maintain non-freezing temperatures, but no in-flight gain calibration or temperature record is reported to show that the 250 keV to 5 MeV range is actually maintained during typical cruise altitudes. In addition, the in-flight count-rate time series (Figs. 11 and 14) and the glow/background spectra in Fig. 13 are presented without statistical uncertainties, which is problematic for a paper that asserts the detection of specific transients. Please add error bars to the count-rate and spectral quantities and describe how the in-flight energy scale was monitored.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Reference [3] is a duplicate of Reference [1]; the same paper is listed twice with identical bibliographic information.
  2. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'measurmed' should be 'measured'.
  3. [Fig. 16 caption] The caption writes 'Time Different' where 'Time Difference' is meant.
  4. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgment contains a typo: 'Earh Science Division' should be 'Earth Science Division'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Instrument paper with direct calibrated measurements; no circular derivation, minor self-citations only.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are instrument performance (energy range, geometrical area, calibrations) and direct detection of glows, TGFs, and FGFs from flight data. The energy range is established by Cs-137 spectra and temperature tests (Sec. 2.1, Fig. 7), and the geometrical area follows from the 32-detector layout; neither is fitted to the phenomena being reported. Glow, TGF, and FGF identifications are count-rate and energy-time observations, and the paper states the independent BGO instrument's observation is consistent with iSTORM (Sec. 3), providing an external cross-check rather than a self-citation chain. The only correction step is the uniform redistribution of packets lost by the BBB (Sec. 2); this is an acknowledged data-reconstruction assumption and a potential bias for FGF timing, but it is not derived from, nor does it define, the FGF claims, so it is a robustness limitation rather than a circular reduction. References [11], [39], [45], and [46] are ALOFT companion papers with overlapping authors, but the present manuscript's load-bearing content is its own calibrated measurements; the self-citations are contextual and not used to forbid alternatives or import a uniqueness theorem. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Although the duration-versus-average-spacing relationship in Fig. 16 is partly definitional, the paper presents it as a descriptive fit and does not use it to establish the instrument's performance or the existence of FGFs. Overall circularity is minimal and confined to non-load-bearing contextual self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on three domain assumptions about the instrument's calibration, timing, and event-loss recovery, all of which are reasonable but not fully validated in this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • FGF duration-spacing linear fit slope = 5.4 ms per ms
    Fitted to the 24 FGF events observed in the campaign (Fig. 16). It is descriptive, not used to derive the instrument's central claims, but it is a number fitted to data.
  • FGF duration-spacing linear fit intercept = 14.2383 ms
    Same descriptive fit, with no reported uncertainty.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The observed count-rate enhancements are genuine atmospheric gamma-ray phenomena, not detector or aircraft artifacts.
    The paper relies on prior literature for the identification of glows and TGFs and on consistency with the BGO instrument for FGFs (Section 3, Figs. 9-15).
  • domain assumption The GPS-disciplined clock and the event counter provide timing accurate enough to resolve pulse structures down to milliseconds.
    FGF pulse spacings of 15 ms and durations of 20-250 ms (Section 3.3) are reported without a timing uncertainty budget.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform redistribution of lost events preserves the temporal structure of the transients.
    Section 2 states the instrument distributes lost events uniformly between two recorded events when the BeagleBone drops packets; this assumption is load-bearing for count-rate and timing analyses but is not validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The iSTORM Instrument for Airborne Measurements of Gamma-Ray Emissions from Thunderstorms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3J32GR4

@misc{pith2026260809990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The iSTORM Instrument for Airborne Measurements of Gamma-Ray Emissions from Thunderstorms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3J32GR4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09990}
}
abstract

The in-Situ Thunderstorm Observer for Radiation Mechanisms (iSTORM) is a gamma-ray spectrometer to study gamma-ray transients originating from thunderstorms, such as glows and terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs). It is designed and built by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory for deployment aboard a NASA ER-2 aircraft. Using an array of 32 one-inch-diameter $\mathrm{CeBr}_3$ scintillators read out with silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs), the instrument achieves an energy range of $\sim 250 \ \mathrm{keV}$ to $5 \ \mathrm{MeV}$ under flight conditions, with a total geometrical area of $157 \ \mathrm{cm^2}$. One of two gamma-ray instruments in the ALOFT campaign, iSTORM recorded glows, terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs), and the newly discovered flickering gamma-ray flashes (FGFs).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09990 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GPS tracks of the 10 science flights during the ALOFT campaign, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Picture of a custom SiPM array developed for iSTORM. The SiPM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Block diagram of the iSTORM systems BBB Aircraft Interface CAEN A5202 CeBr3 Array Power Board (DC) AC-DC Converter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Current draw as a function of ambient temperature required to bias [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exploded view of the iSTORM instrument 2.2. iSTORM and ALOFT Flight Campaign iSTORM was mounted in the midbody of the ER-2’s right￾wing pod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) Ad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_10.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The iSTORM instrument mounted in the ER-2 right wing pod. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time series of a pass over an active thunderstorm region. Time is in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Recorded temporal-energy response of the 10-minute case study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the measurmed spectrum during active glows vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example of an FGF detected by iSTORM. Time is in UTC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Example of an FGF detected by iSTORM. The red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    G. K. Parks, B. H. Mauk, R. Spiger, J. Chin, X-ray en- hancements detected during thunderstorm and lightning activ- ities, Geophysical Research Letters 8 (11) (1981) 1176–1179. arXiv:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/GL008i011p01176, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/GL008i011p01176. URLhttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1...

    work page doi:10.1029/gl008i011p01176 1981

  2. [4]

    J. E. Grove, A. Chekhtman, Fermi LAT Collaboration, G. Fishman, M. Briggs, V . Connaughton, Fermi GBM Collaboration, Observation of Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes with Fermi LAT, in: American Astronom- ical Society Meeting Abstracts #219, V ol. 219 of American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 2012, p. 149.13

    work page 2012

  3. [5]

    Marisaldi, F

    M. Marisaldi, F. Fuschino, C. Labanti, M. Galli, F. Longo, E. Del Monte, G. Barbiellini, M. Tavani, A. Giuliani, E. Moretti, S. Vercellone, E. Costa, S. Cutini, I. Donnarumma, Y . Evangelista, M. Feroci, I. Lapshov, F. Lazzarotto, P. Lipari, S. Mereghetti, L. Pacciani, M. Rapis- arda, P. Soffitta, M. Trifoglio, A. Argan, F. Boffelli, A. Bulgarelli, P. Car...

    work page

  4. [6]

    D. M. Smith, L. I. Lopez, R. Lin, C. P. Barrington-Leigh, , Science 307 (5712) (2005) 1085 1088, cited by: 430. doi:10.1126/science.1107466. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2. 0-13844319483&doi=10.1126%2fscience.1107466&partnerID= 40&md5=eddd8f5c6953b415f17354c634b2cb7c

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1107466 2005

  5. [7]

    stgaard, T

    N. stgaard, T. Neubert, V . Reglero, K. Ullaland, S. Yang, G. Genov, M. Marisaldi, A. Mezentsev, P. Kochkin, N. Lehtinen, D. Sarria, B. H. Qureshi, A. Solberg, C. Maiorana, K. Albrechtsen, C. Budtz- Jrgensen, I. Kuvvetli, F. Christiansen, O. Chanrion, M. Heumesser, J. Navarro-Gonzalez, P. Connell, C. Eyles, H. Christian, S. Al- nussirat, First 10 months o...

    work page 2019

  6. [8]

    L. E. McTague, S. A. Cummer, M. S. Briggs, V . Connaughton, M. Stanbro, G. Fitzpatrick, A lightning-based search for nearby observationally dim terrestrial gamma ray flashes, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Atmospheres 120 (23) (2015) 12,003–12,017. arXiv:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015JD023475, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/...

    work page doi:10.1002/2015jd023475 2015

  7. [10]

    J. R. Dwyer, D. M. Smith, A comparison between monte carlo simulations of runaway breakdown and terrestrial gamma- ray flash observations, Geophysical Research Letters 32 (22). arXiv:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2005GL023848, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023848. URLhttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1029/20...

    work page doi:10.1029/2005gl023848

  8. [11]

    Bjrge-Engeland, N

    I. Bjrge-Engeland, N. stgaard, D. Sarria, M. Marisaldi, A. Mezentsev, A. Fuglestad, N. Lehtinen, J. E. Grove, D. Shy, T. Lang, M. Quick, H. Christian, C. Schultz, R. Blakeslee, I. Adams, R. Kroodsma, G. Heymsfield, K. Ullaland, S. Yang, B. H. Qureshi, J. Snder- gaard, B. Husa, D. Walker, M. Bateman, D. Mach, P. Bitzer, M. Fullekrug, M. Cohen, M. Stanley, ...

    work page 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [12]

    J. M. Chaffin, D. M. Smith, J. Lapierre, S. Cummer, J. Or- tberg, A. Sunjerga, A. Mostajabi, M. Rubinstein, F. Rachidi, Mountaintop gamma ray observations of three terrestrial gamma- ray flashes at the sntis tower, switzerland with coincident ra- dio waveforms, Journal of Geop...

    2024 doi

  2. [13]

    J. W. Belz, P. R. Krehbiel, J. Remington, M. A. Stanley, R. U. Ab- basi, R. LeV on, W. Rison, D. Rodeheffer, T. Abu-Zayyad, M. Allen, E. Barcikowski, D. R. Bergman, S. A. Blake, M. Byrne, R. Cady, B. G. Cheon, M. Chikawa, A. di Matteo, T. Fujii, K. Fujita, R. Fuji- wara, M. Fu...

    2020

  3. [14]

    D. M. Smith, J. R. Dwyer, B. J. Hazelton, B. W. Grefenstette, G. F. M. Martinez-McKinney, Z. Y . Zhang, A. W. Lowell, N. A. Kelley, M. E. Splitt, S. M. Lazarus, W. Ulrich, M. Schaal, Z. H. Saleh, E. Cramer, H. Rassoul, S. A. Cummer, G. Lu, X.-M. Shao, C. Ho, T. Hamlin, R. J. B...

    doi

  4. [15]

    G. S. Bowers, D. M. Smith, N. A. Kelley, G. F. Martinez-McKinney, S. A. Cummer, J. R. Dwyer, S. Heckman, R. H. Holzworth, F. Marks, P. Reasor, J. Gamache, J. Dunion, T. Richards, H. K. Rassoul, A terres- trial gamma-ray flash inside the eyewall of hurricane patricia, Journal o...

    2018 doi

  5. [16]

    Kochkin, A

    P. Kochkin, A. P. J. van Deursen, M. Marisaldi, A. Ursi, A. I. de Boer, M. Bardet, C. Allasia, J.-F. Boissin, F. Flourens, N. stgaard, In-flight observation of gamma ray glows by ildas, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Atmospheres 122 (23) (2017) 12,801–12,811. arXiv:https:/...

    2017 doi

  6. [17]

    Kochkin, D

    P. Kochkin, D. Sarria, N. Lehtinen, A. Mezentsev, S. Yang, G. Genov, K. Ullaland, M. Marisaldi, N. stgaard, H. J. Chris- tian, J. E. Grove, M. Quick, S. Al-Nussirat, E. Wulf, A rapid gamma-ray glow flux reduction observed from 20 km alti- tude, Journal of Geophysical Research:...

    2021 doi

  7. [18]

    Helmerich, T

    C. Helmerich, T. McKinney, E. Cavanaugh, S. Dangelo, Tgfs, gamma-ray glows, and direct lightning strike radiation observed during a single flight of a balloon-borne gamma-ray spectrometer, Earth and Space Sci- ence 11 (2) (2024) e2023EA003317, e2023EA003317 2023EA003317. arXiv...

    2024 doi

  8. [19]

    Pallu, S

    M. Pallu, S. Celestin, Y . Hazem, F. Trompier, G. Patton, Xstorm: A new gamma ray spectrometer for detection of close proximity gamma ray glows and tgfs, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 128 (24) (2023) e2023JD039180, e2023JD039180 2023JD039180. arXiv:https://agupu...

    2023 doi

  9. [20]

    J. T. Sanchez, D. M. Smith, T. Wu, Q. Yang, D. Wang, M. Kamogawa, T. Suzuki, Downward terrestrial gamma-ray flash associated with a positive cloud-to-ground lightning flash, Geophysical Research Let- ters 52 (20) (2025) e2025GL117634, e2025GL117634 2025GL117634. arXiv:https://...

    2025 doi

  10. [21]

    J. M. Chaffin, J. J. Manfredi, G. S. Bowers, W. J. Erwin, J. C. Petrosky, High elevation radiation array (hera) detectors for airborne thunderstorm investigations, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrom- eters, Detectors and Assoc...

    2024

  11. [22]

    T. J. Lang, N. Østgaard, M. Marisaldi, M. G. Quick, C. J. Schultz, I. Adams, C. G. Amiot, P. Bitzer, R. J. Blakeslee, R. G. Brown, et alli, Hunting for gamma rays above thunderstorms: The aloft campaign, Bul- letin of the American Meteorological Society 106 (8) (2025) E1649– E1669

    2025

  12. [23]

    Quick, R

    M. Quick, R. J. Blakeslee, J. Christian, H. J., M. F. Stewart, S. Podgorny, D. Corredor, Airborne GLM Simulator (FEGS), in: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 2015, 2015, pp. GC33D–1316

    2015

  13. [24]

    Galliano, R

    J. Galliano, R. Platt, Advanced microwave precipitation radiome- ter, in: [Conference Digest] International Conference on Millimeter Wave and Far-Infrared Technology: ICMWFT ’90, 1989, pp. 22–25. doi:10.1109/ICMWFT.1989.763744

    1989

  14. [25]

    M. L. Walker McLinden, L. Li, G. M. Heymsfield, M. Coon, A. Emory, The NASA GSFC 94-GHz Airborne Solid-State Cloud Radar System (CRS), Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 38 (5) (2021) 1001–1017

    2021

  15. [26]

    G. M. Heymsfield, J. B. Halverson, J. Simpson, L. Tian, T. P. Bui, ER-2 Doppler radar investigations of the eyewall of Hurricane Bonnie during the Convection and Moisture Experiment-3, Journal of Applied Meteo- rology and Climatology 40 (8) (2001) 1310–1330

    2001

  16. [27]

    I. S. Adams, R. Kroodsma, S. J. Munchak, M. Fritts, L. Milani, The Con- figurable Scanning Submillimeter-wave Instrument/Radiometer (CoS- SIR): Modernizing Submillimeter Radiometry for Future Cloud Investi- gations, in: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 2020, 2020, pp. A197–10

    2020

  17. [28]

    Ostgaard, H

    N. Ostgaard, H. J. Christian, J. E. Grove, D. Sarria, A. Mezent- sev, P. Kochkin, N. Lehtinen, M. Quick, S. Al-Nussirat, E. Wulf, G. Genov, K. Ullaland, M. Marisaldi, S. Yang, R. J. Blakeslee, Gamma ray glow observations at 20-km altitude, Journal of Geo- physical Research: At...

    2019 doi

  18. [29]

    Bateman, M

    M. Bateman, M. Stewart, S. Podgorny, H. Christian, D. Mach, R. Blakeslee, J. Bailey, D. Daskar, A low-noise, microprocessor- controlled, internally digitizing rotating-vane electric field mill for air- borne platforms, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 24 (7) (2007...

    2007

  19. [30]

    Navarro, The NASA Earth Research-2 (ER-2) aircraft: A flying labo- ratory for Earth science studies, in: International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, no

    R. Navarro, The NASA Earth Research-2 (ER-2) aircraft: A flying labo- ratory for Earth science studies, in: International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, no. H-2691, 2007. URLhttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20070014865

    2007

  20. [31]

    Venaruzzo, A

    M. Venaruzzo, A. Abba, C. Tintori, Y . Venturini, Fers-5200: a distributed front-end readout system for multidetector arrays (2020). arXiv:2010.15688

    2020 arXiv

  21. [32]

    Perri, P

    M. Perri, P. Garosi, C. Mattone, C. Tintori, M. Corbo, D. Ninci, M. Ve- naruzzo, Y . Venturini, A. Saltarelli, Amplitude measurements with sipm and asic (citiroc 1a) front-end electronics, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 70 (6) (2023) 1023–1029. doi:10.1109/TNS.2023.3262409

    2023

  22. [33]

    Drozdowski, P

    W. Drozdowski, P. Dorenbos, A. J. J. Bos, G. Bizarri, A. Owens, F. G. A. Quarati, Cebr 3 scintillator development for possible use in space mis- sions, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 55 (3) (2008) 1391–1396. doi:10.1109/TNS.2007.908579

    2008

  23. [34]

    T. J. Schmit, J. Li, W. P. Menzel, Advanced baseline imager (ABI) for future geostationary operational environmental satellites (GOES-R and beyond), in: W. P. Menzel, W.-J. Zhang, J. L. Marshall, M. Tokuno (Eds.), Applications with Weather Satellites, V ol. 4895, International...

    2003 doi

  24. [35]

    GOES-R-Algorithm-Working-Group-&-GOES-R-Program-Office, NOAA GOES-R Series Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) Level 2 Reflected Shortwave Radiation Top-of-Atmosphere, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information

  25. [36]

    Hilburn, Inferring airmass properties from goes-r abi observations

    K. Hilburn, Inferring airmass properties from goes-r abi observations

  26. [37]

    K. B. Eack, W. H. Beasley, W. D. Rust, T. C. Marshall, M. Stolzen- burg, X-ray pulses observed above a mesoscale convective sys- tem, Geophysical Research Letters 23 (21) (1996) 2915–2918. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/96GL02570. URLhttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ab...

    1996 doi

  27. [38]

    Tsuchiya, T

    H. Tsuchiya, T. Enoto, S. Yamada, T. Yuasa, K. Nakazawa, T. Kitaguchi, M. Kawaharada, M. Kokubun, H. Kato, M. Okano, K. Makishima, Long-duration gamma ray emissions from 2007 and 2008 winter thun- derstorms, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 116 (D9). arXiv:https://...

    2007 doi

  28. [39]

    Marisaldi, N

    M. Marisaldi, N. Østgaard, A. Mezentsev, T. Lang, J. E. Grove, D. Shy, G. M. Heymsfield, P. Krehbiel, R. J. Thomas, M. Stanley, D. Sar- ria, C. Schultz, R. Blakeslee, M. G. Quick, H. Christian, I. Adams, R. Kroodsma, N. Lehtinen, K. Ullaland, S. Yang, B. H. Qureshi, J. Sønderg...

    2024

  29. [40]

    Sarria, N

    D. Sarria, N. stgaard, I. Bjrge-Engeland, A. Mezentsev, M. Marisaldi, N. Lehtinen, M. Stanley, T. Lang, C. Schultz, A. Fuglestad, Spectral analysis of flickering gamma-ray flashes observed during the aloft 2023 campaign, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 130 (23) (2...

    2025 doi

  30. [41]

    G. J. Fishman, P. N. Bhat, R. Mallozzi, J. M. Horack, T. Koshut, C. Kouveliotou, G. N. Pendleton, C. A. Meegan, R. B. Wilson, W. S. Paciesas, S. J. Goodman, H. J. Christian, Discovery of intense gamma-ray flashes of atmospheric origin, Science 264 (5163) (1994) 1313–1316. arXi...

    1994

  31. [42]

    D. M. Smith, J. R. Dwyer, B. J. Hazelton, B. W. Grefenstette, G. F. M. Martinez-McKinney, Z. Y . Zhang, A. W. Lowell, N. A. Kelley, M. E. Splitt, S. M. Lazarus, W. Ulrich, M. Schaal, Z. H. Saleh, E. Cramer, H. K. Rassoul, S. A. Cummer, G. Lu, R. J. Blakeslee, The rarity of ter...

    doi

  32. [43]

    B. M. Hare, M. A. Uman, J. R. Dwyer, D. M. Jordan, M. I. Big- gerstaff, J. A. Caicedo, F. L. Carvalho, R. A. Wilkes, D. A. Ko- tovsky, W. R. Gamerota, J. T. Pilkey, T. K. Ngin, R. C. Moore, H. K. Rassoul, S. A. Cummer, J. E. Grove, A. Nag, D. P. Bet- ten, A. Bozarth, Ground-le...

    2016 doi

  33. [44]

    Y . Wada, T. Enoto, Y . Nakamura, Y . Furuta, T. Yuasa, K. Nakazawa, T. Morimoto, M. Sato, T. Matsumoto, D. Yonetoku, T. Sawano, H. Sakai, M. Kamogawa, T. Ushio, K. Makishima, H. Tsuchiya, Gamma-ray glow preceding downward terrestrial gamma-ray flash, Communications Physics 2 ...

    2019 doi

  34. [45]

    A. N. Fuglestad, M. Marisaldi, D. Sarria, A. Mezentsev, N. stgaard, I. B. Engeland, N. Lehtinen, . H. Faerder, T. Lang, M. G. Quick, R. Blakeslee, C. Schultz, H. Christian, J. E. Grove, D. Shy, M. Fullekrug, The source brightness distribution of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes f...

    2026 doi

  35. [46]

    Østgaard, A

    N. Østgaard, A. Mezentsev, M. Marisaldi, J. E. Grove, M. Quick, H. Christian, S. Cummer, M. Pazos, Y . Pu, M. Stanley, D. Sarria, T. Lang, C. Schultz, R. Blakeslee, I. Adams, R. Kroodsma, G. Heyms- field, N. Lehtinen, K. Ullaland, S. Yang, B. H. Qureshi, J. Søndergaard, B. Hus...

    2024

  36. [47]

    D. A. Peterson, N. Lareau, O. V . Kalashnikova, Introducing the INjected Smoke and PYRocumulonimbus Experiment (INSPYRE), in: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 2024 of AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2024, pp. A43X–09

    2024

  37. [48]

    Remington, D

    J. Remington, D. Shy, J. E. Grove, B. F. Phlips, Investigations of pyrocu- mulonimbus convection, lightning, and energetic radiation, AGU25

  38. [49]

    Marisaldi, D

    M. Marisaldi, D. Sarria, E. Grove, D. Shy, A. Mezentsev, N. Lehtinen, N. Østgaard, T. Lang, Imaging gamma-ray glows, Tech. rep., Copernicus Meetings (2026). 9

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.