Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

A Collimation System Baseline Design for the Electron Storage Ring at the Electron-Ion Collider

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim: one horizontal and one vertical collimator, placed about 600 m upstream, cut detector-region beam-gas and Touschek losses by one to two orders of magnitude while leaving the multi-hour beam lifetime essentially un

desk verdict Solid engineering baseline for EIC electron collimation, but the conclusion overstates protection by leaving Bethe-Heitler and other IP-local losses out of scope. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.19502 v2 pith:SGLS6CQ3 submitted 2025-12-22 physics.acc-ph

Andrii Natochii (1) , Elke-Caroline Aschenauer (1) , Karim Hamdi (1) , Charles Hetzel (1) , Eric Link (1) , Daniel Marx (1) , Christoph Montag (1) , Steven Tepikian (1)
show 9 more authors
Yunhai Cai (2) Yuri Nosochkov (2) ((1) Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton New York USA (2) SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Menlo Park California USA)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords beamcollimationelectronstorageringlossesTouschekscatteringbeam-gasmachineacceptancesuperconductingmagnetsinteractionregion
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 presents the first complete baseline design for the electron-ring collimation system of the Electron-Ion Collider. It argues that a minimal system of just two primary collimators, one horizontal and one vertical, placed in interaction region 4 about 600 m upstream of the detector, can intercept halo particles produced by beam-gas and Touschek scattering before they reach the superconducting final-focus magnets and the ePIC detector. Multi-turn tracking simulations show that this reduces losses in the detector region by one to two orders of magnitude at all three operating energies, while keeping the machine acceptance and multi-hour beam lifetime essentially unchanged. If correct, the design becomes the adopted baseline, protecting the machine and detector with minimal hardware and with room to re-optimize as the lattice evolves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a betatron-collimation insertion at IR4: a set of movable jaws that scrape off particles whose transverse oscillation (betatron) amplitudes exceed a chosen threshold. For each beam energy, one horizontal and one vertical primary collimator are sited at locations where the betatron function is large (50–100 m), dispersion is zero, and the betatron phase advance to the tightest IR6 final-focus apertures is close to half-integer. This phase relationship is what makes particles intercepted at IR4 correspond to those that would otherwise strike the IR6 apertures. Performance is quantified by multi-turn tracking that models Touschek and beam-gas scattering and records th

What would settle it

Run the same multi-turn simulation with Bethe-Heitler, beam-beam, and injection losses enabled: if significant losses remain in the IR6 cryostat or detector with the IR4 collimators at their optimal apertures, the central claim fails. The most direct empirical check would be to compare IR6 beam-loss-monitor rates with the collimators closed versus open during early EIC operation; a suppression factor of less than ten would contradict the predicted one-to-two-order-of-magnitude reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We have established a baseline collimation system for the EIC electron storage ring: an insertion in interaction region 4 (IR4) containing one horizontal and one vertical primary collimator, with optics tuned to provide large betatron functions, zero dispersion, and a half-integer betatron phase advance to the narrowest apertures in interaction region 6 (IR6). At each of the three operating energies (5, 10, and 18 GeV), this minimal system suppresses beam-gas and Touschek losses in the IR6 cryostat and detector region by one to two orders of magnitude in multi-turn particle-tracking simulations, keeps the resulting heat-load density below the preliminary cryogenic limit, and leaves the machi

Load-bearing premise

The whole design rests on the assumption that the damaging losses are dominated by scattering off residual gas and scattering within a bunch (beam-gas and Touschek); if collision-point processes such as Bethe-Heitler scattering contribute significantly, the collimators placed 600 m upstream cannot intercept them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IR6 beam losses from beam-gas and Touschek scattering fall by a factor of 10–100 at 5, 10, and 18 GeV, keeping the superconducting final-focus magnets below the preliminary cryogenic heat-load limit.
  • The beam lifetime remains multi-hour (shortest Touschek lifetime about 2.6 h at 5 GeV), so the continuous swap-out injection scheme keeps the stored current near 94%, acceptable for operations.
  • The collimator positions and apertures are re-optimizable for future lattice versions, making the design a stable baseline as the ESR lattice matures and gains crab cavities, solenoid fields, and error models.
  • The quoted local cleaning inefficiencies provide the key inputs for forthcoming quench-margin evaluations of the superconducting magnets and for detailed detector background studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If losses from Bethe-Heitler scattering at the collision point, beam-beam interactions, or injection turn out to be significant, the IR4 collimators—about 600 m upstream—may not intercept them; those processes are explicitly excluded from this study, so the protection claim is conditional on the dominance of the two included mechanisms.
  • The optimal collimator apertures were chosen for an idealized lattice without crab cavities, detector solenoid fields, or machine errors; once those are included, apertures may need re-optimization, and the quoted loss reductions should be treated as valid for the idealized lattice.
  • The minimal-collimator approach could generalize to other high-current lepton rings with tight interaction-region space, but the half-integer phase-advance matching is lattice-specific and would need re-derivation elsewhere.
  • The heat-load margin depends on a preliminary 5 W per 16 m cryostat limit; if final quench thresholds are lower, the same collimation efficiency might not suffice, so the safety margin should be re-checked against the final cryogenic design.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a baseline collimation design for the EIC electron storage ring, placing one horizontal and one vertical primary collimator in the IR4 insertion. The design is studied with multi-turn Xsuite/Geant4 tracking that includes custom Touschek, Coulomb beam-gas, and Bremsstrahlung beam-gas scattering models. The authors perform collimator aperture scans, machine acceptance studies, and loss/lifetime simulations at 5, 10, and 18 GeV, reporting IR6 loss reductions of one to two orders of magnitude with limited impact on machine acceptance and multi-hour lifetimes. They conclude that this minimal system is sufficient to protect the IR6 superconducting final-focusing magnets and to keep ePIC detector backgrounds consistent with baseline requirements. The simulation work for the included loss processes is credible and well documented, but the conclusions overreach the simulation scope, which excludes Bethe-Heitler scattering, beam-beam losses, injection losses, and thermal-photon scattering.

Significance. If the central claim is ultimately supported after the gaps are closed, this would be a valuable baseline for the EIC ESR collimation system. The paper's strengths are its concrete implementation of realistic scattering models (previously benchmarked at SuperKEKB), multi-turn tracking with statistical errors and convergence checks, explicit aperture-scan logic, and the reporting of cleaning inefficiencies in the LHC convention. The design's 'minimal system' claim is convincingly demonstrated for Touschek and beam-gas losses. However, the broader protective claims about SC magnets and detector backgrounds are not yet supported because the simulation omits IP-local processes, especially Bethe-Heitler scattering, which the paper itself identifies as an important detector background.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections I.C.c, III.A, VI] Bethe-Heitler scattering is identified in Section I.C.c as an important background component, but it is not included in the tracking simulation, which covers only Coulomb, Bremsstrahlung, and Touschek processes (Section III.A). Because the IR4 collimators sit about 600 m upstream of IP6 and the paper notes that dominant losses are single-turn, particles produced by Bethe-Heitler events at IP6 will be lost in the IR6 final-focus region before they could reach IR4 on a later turn. The Section VI conclusion that the collimation system 'protects the superconducting final-focusing magnets and reduces potential detector backgrounds to levels consistent with the baseline ePIC detector performance requirements' is therefore not supported for this process. The SuperKEKB-based justification in Section I.C is not directly transferable, since SuperKEKB is an e+e− collider with no Bethe-Heitler scatt
  2. [Sections IV.A, VI; Table III] The aperture-scan criterion in Section IV.A defines the optimal collimator aperture as the setting at which 'the beam lifetime remains essentially unchanged.' Table III, however, shows that with collimators installed the Touschek lifetime drops from 12.7 h to 9.1 h at 10 GeV and from 799 h to 572 h at 18 GeV, i.e., roughly 28% reductions with small statistical errors. The 5 GeV case changes by only a few percent. This contradicts the 'essentially unchanged' wording and the Section VI statement that the system does not 'significantly affect' the multi-hour beam lifetime. The text should either be corrected or should explicitly discuss why a 28% lifetime reduction at 10 and 18 GeV is acceptable for the stated design criterion.
  3. [Section IV.C] The claim that the attenuated heat load in the IR6 cryostat remains below the 3 mW/cm limit is inferred from loss rates, not computed with a radiation-transport or energy-deposition simulation. Figure 8b and the text report loss rates in MHz and state that these correspond to heat-load densities of order 1 mW/cm, but the actual passage of showers through the beam pipe and cold mass is not simulated; the detailed studies are deferred to 'forthcoming publications.' Consequently, the Section VI assertion that the collimation insertion 'protects the superconducting final-focusing magnets' is not demonstrated in this paper. Please either include the energy-deposition calculation or downgrade the claim to an expectation pending the radiation studies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A] The 5 cm tungsten jaw is described as approximating a semi-infinite absorber. For 18 GeV electrons this is about 14 radiation lengths, which is likely sufficient for the primary, but the paper should state the expected shower leakage or justify the approximation quantitatively, especially because low-energy secondaries are deliberately excluded from the tracking.
  2. [Section II] The lattice v6.3.1 omits the detector solenoid field, crab cavities, and machine errors. The paper acknowledges this, but the statement that their impact is 'negligible' is given without supporting evidence. If this is based on unpublished estimates, please provide a citation or one-sentence basis.
  3. [Section IV.C] The results assume a 10 kAh beam dose for the vacuum profile. At 100 Ah, the IR6 pressure is about 12 times higher (Fig. 5), so early-operation loss rates will be correspondingly higher before conditioning. The manuscript should note whether the collimation performance and lifetime conclusions are expected to hold during the initial operating period.
  4. [Section IV.B] The acceptance study uses 200 turns and no machine errors. The paper states this is sufficient, but since the collimator settings are chosen relative to the IR6 aperture in units of sigma, a brief statement about how the quoted acceptance margins might degrade under realistic errors would be useful.
  5. [Table III] The table in the original arXiv text is hard to parse because the 'IR6 Cleaning Inefficiency' values are interleaved with the process rows. Please reformat Table III so that each process row clearly contains the five quantities: without-collimator loss, without-collimator lifetime, with-collimator loss, with-collimator lifetime, and the cleaning inefficiency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation is forward-modeled, the collimator apertures are chosen by a design scan rather than fitted to the reported result, and the cited SuperKEKB background work is externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The scattering models are taken from prior SuperKEKB work by the same authors, but that work is grounded in measured Belle II backgrounds, so it counts as independent empirical support rather than a self-citation loop. The collimator apertures are not fitted parameters inferred from the target outcome; they are design variables selected by scanning aperture and applying an explicit design criterion: 'the setting at which the beam lifetime remains essentially unchanged while the IR6 losses are significantly suppressed' (Sec. IV A). Reporting that the chosen design suppresses IR6 losses by one to two orders of magnitude and preserves lifetime is standard design verification, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The acceptance and loss-rate results are produced by multi-turn Xsuite tracking with physics cross-sections, vacuum profiles, and lattice inputs stated independently. The paper's exclusion of Bethe-Heitler, beam-beam, and injection losses is a stated scope limitation: the conclusion that the system 'protects the superconducting final-focusing magnets' is therefore only demonstrated for the simulated Touschek and beam-gas processes. That is a correctness/scope concern, not a circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its input by construction, and no load-bearing claim rests on an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard scattering physics, a well-known simulation framework, and several EIC-specific engineering assumptions that the paper itself flags as provisional (lattice version, vacuum model, excluded loss mechanisms, heat-load limits). No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential assumptions are the dominance of Touschek/beam-gas losses and the representativeness of the simplified lattice; both are acknowledged, but neither is independently validated within the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Primary collimator half-openings (per energy/plane) = 5 GeV: H 20.2 mm, V 8.1 mm; 10 GeV: H 11.6 mm, V 7.1 mm; 18 GeV: H 16.4 mm, V 6.1 mm
    Chosen via aperture scan (Section IV A) to suppress IR6 losses while keeping beam lifetime essentially unchanged; design parameters, not derived from first principles.
  • Collimator jaw thickness (tungsten) = 5 cm along the beam axis
    Modeled as a 5 cm block to approximate a semi-infinite absorber; the paper states detailed engineering thickness will be optimized in future work (Section III A).
assumptions (10)
  • standard math Coulomb (elastic) scattering follows Rutherford's formula with a cutoff Coulomb potential and screening regularization
    Used for beam-gas elastic scattering in Section III A; a standard physics model.
  • standard math Bremsstrahlung cross-sections follow Bethe-Heitler theory with Koch-Motz formalism for complete screening in the Born approximation
    Used for beam-gas inelastic scattering in Section III A; standard textbook physics.
  • standard math Touschek scattering rates are computed from Møller's nonrelativistic differential cross-section combined with Bruck's formula
    Used to generate Touschek loss weights in Section III A; standard accelerator-physics formula.
  • domain assumption Xsuite/BDSIM/Geant4 symplectic tracking and particle-matter interaction are correct for this application
    The simulation framework is off-the-shelf and widely used, but its correctness for this specific EIC configuration is not independently verified within the paper (Section III A).
  • domain assumption Residual gas pressure profile from Synrad+/Molflow+ at 10 kAh delivered dose, with H2 dominant and other species negligible
    Vacuum model used for beam-gas weights; the paper acknowledges it needs refinement (Sections III B and V).
  • domain assumption Uniform ring pressure of 5 nTorr outside the IR6 section
    Simplifies the vacuum model; not derived from a detailed ring-wide simulation (Section III B).
  • ad hoc to paper ESR lattice v6.3.1 without detector solenoid field, crab cavities, or machine errors is representative enough for the collimation design
    Explicitly stated in Section II; the authors acknowledge that adding these elements may require adjustments to collimator positions/apertures (Sections II and V).
  • ad hoc to paper Touschek and beam-gas scattering dominate ESR beam losses; Bethe-Heitler, beam-beam, injection, and thermal-photon losses are negligible for this study
    Justified by SuperKEKB measurements (Section I C), but this is the load-bearing assumption that the entire protection claim rests on; the excluded processes are named in Section I C and deferred to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper Cryostat heat-load limit of 3 mW/cm (derived from ~5 W per 16 m cold mass section) is the relevant tolerance
    The limit is 'derived from an assumed allowable heat load' per Section IV C; it is a preliminary engineering input, not a measured or published limit.
  • domain assumption 200-turn tracking is sufficient for converged loss and lifetime estimates
    Supported by the observation that loss rates drop by 3-4 orders of magnitude within 200 turns (Section IV C), but it remains a finite-horizon approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Collimation System Baseline Design for the Electron Storage Ring at the Electron-Ion Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGLS6CQ3

@misc{pith2026251219502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Collimation System Baseline Design for the Electron Storage Ring at the Electron-Ion Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGLS6CQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19502}
}
read the original abstract

We present the baseline design of the electron ring collimation system for the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). The system addresses beam losses in a high-current electron storage ring with superconducting (SC) final-focus magnets and sensitive detectors, where uncontrolled losses can generate heat loads, radiation, and detector backgrounds and damage. The proposed collimation insertion localizes halo particle losses through reducing interaction region beam losses from beam-gas and Touschek scattering by several orders of magnitude while keeping detector backgrounds and cryostat heat loads within acceptable limits. Multi-turn particle tracking simulations show that the collimators do not significantly impact machine acceptance or beam lifetime, and their positions and apertures can be re-optimized for future lattice configurations. Ongoing work includes incorporating crab cavities and solenoid fields into simulations, refining vacuum conditions, and optimizing collimator geometry and materials. This design establishes a robust baseline for the EIC electron ring collimation system and supports continued lattice optimization for machine operations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19502 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic drawing of the EIC. The numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Schematic drawing of the ePIC detector (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Schematic layout of IR4 with emphasis on the drift regions reserved for collimator placement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Optics functions of the ESR IR4 section in the collimation insertion. The beam direction is from right to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Estimated residual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: ESR beam lifetime and IR6 losses as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Machine acceptance in the presence and absence of collimators, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Simulation results of ESR beam losses in IR6 at 10 GeV. The ESR beam direction is indicated by the arrow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Distribution of the turn at which the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Willeke and J

    F. Willeke and J. Beebe-Wang, Electron Ion Collider Conceptual Design Report 2021, Tech. rep., BNL- 221006-2021-FORE; TRN: US2215154 (2021).doi:10. 2172/1765663

    2021

  2. [2]

    Ishibashi, S

    T. Ishibashi, S. Terui, Y. Suetsugu, K. Watan- abe, M. Shirai, Movable collimator system for Su- perKEKB, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23 (2020) 053501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.23.053501. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.23.053501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.23.053501 2020

  3. [3]

    URLhttps://www.bnl.gov/eic/epic.php

    The ePIC Collaboration, ePIC Home Page, [Online; ac- cessed on 18-August-2024] (2024). URLhttps://www.bnl.gov/eic/epic.php

    2024

  4. [4]

    Li, Advanced silicon tracking detector developments for the future Electron-Ion Collider, Nucl

    X. Li, Advanced silicon tracking detector developments for the future Electron-Ion Collider, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1057 (2023) 168687.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2023.168687

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Kalicy, Developing high-performance DIRC detector for the Future Electron Ion Collider Experiment (2022)

    G. Kalicy, Developing high-performance DIRC detector for the Future Electron Ion Collider Experiment (2022). arXiv:2202.06457

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Azmounet al., Conceptual Design Report: A Proximity-Focusing RICH for the ePIC Experiment, Draft 1.1 (2023)

    B. Azmounet al., Conceptual Design Report: A Proximity-Focusing RICH for the ePIC Experiment, Draft 1.1 (2023). URLhttps://indico.bnl.gov/event/22323/ contributions/87361/attachments/52860/90414/ EPIC-pfRICH-CDR.v1.1.pdf

    2023

  7. [7]

    Vallarinoet al., Prototype of a dual-radiator RICH detector for the Electron–Ion Collider, Nucl

    S. Vallarinoet al., Prototype of a dual-radiator RICH detector for the Electron–Ion Collider, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1058 (2024) 168834.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2023.168834

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Armstronget al., Generic EIC-related Detector R&D Program: Imaging Calorimetry for the Electron-Ion Collider, EIGENRand Proposal (2022)

    W. Armstronget al., Generic EIC-related Detector R&D Program: Imaging Calorimetry for the Electron-Ion Collider, EIGENRand Proposal (2022). URLhttps://www.jlab.org/sites/default/files/ eic_rd_prgm/files/2022_Proposals/EIC_R_D_ Imaging_Calo_EICGENRandD2022_25.pdf

    2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Auchmannet al., Testing beam-induced quench levels of LHC superconducting magnets, Phys

    B. Auchmannet al., Testing beam-induced quench levels of LHC superconducting magnets, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 18 (2015) 061002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.18.061002. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevSTAB.18.061002

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Ohuchiet al., SuperKEKB beam final focus superconducting magnet system, Nucl

    N. Ohuchiet al., SuperKEKB beam final focus superconducting magnet system, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1021 (2022) 165930. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2021.165930. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0168900221008949 12

    2022

  3. [11]

    Natochiiet al., Measured and projected beam backgrounds in the Belle II experiment at the SuperKEKB collider, Nucl

    A. Natochiiet al., Measured and projected beam backgrounds in the Belle II experiment at the SuperKEKB collider, Nucl. Instrum. Meth- ods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1055 (2023) 168550. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2023.168550. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/p...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Marxet al., Designing the EIC electron storage ring lattice for a wide energy range, J

    D. Marxet al., Designing the EIC electron storage ring lattice for a wide energy range, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2420 (1) (2023) 012010. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2420/1/012010. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2420/1/ 012010

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Natochii, S

    A. Natochii, S. E. Vahsen, H. Nakayama, T. Ishibashi, S. Terui, Improved simulation of beam backgrounds and collimation at SuperKEKB, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24 (2021) 081001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.24.081001. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.24.081001

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Hetzel, EIC ESR Collimator Design, FCC-EIC Joint & MDI Workshop (2022)

    C. Hetzel, EIC ESR Collimator Design, FCC-EIC Joint & MDI Workshop (2022). URLhttps://indico.cern.ch/event/1186798/ contributions/5062614/attachments/2531265/ 4355410/FCC-EIC%20Workshop%20-%20EIC% 20collimator%20design%20221017.pdf

    2022

  7. [15]

    DeBarger, S

    S. DeBarger, S. Metcalfe, C. Ng, T. G. Porter, J. Seeman, M. Sullivan, U. Wienands, The PEP-II Movable Collima- tors, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), 2006. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/877438

    2006

  8. [16]

    Iadarolaet al., Xsuite: An Integrated Beam Physics Simulation Framework, JACoW HB2023 (2024) TUA2I1.arXiv:2310.00317, doi:10.18429/JACoW-HB2023-TUA2I1

    G. Iadarolaet al., Xsuite: An Integrated Beam Physics Simulation Framework, JACoW HB2023 (2024) TUA2I1.arXiv:2310.00317, doi:10.18429/JACoW-HB2023-TUA2I1

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nevayet al., BDSIM: An accelerator track- ing code with particle–matter interactions, Comput

    L.J. Nevayet al., BDSIM: An accelerator track- ing code with particle–matter interactions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 252 (2020) 107200. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107200. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0010465520300400

    2020

  10. [18]

    Agostinelliet al., Geant4 — a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al., Geant4 — a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 506 (3) (2003) 250–303.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0168900203013688

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    Allisonet al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans

    J. Allisonet al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (1) (2006) 270–278.doi:10. 1109/TNS.2006.869826

    2006

  12. [20]

    Allisonet al., Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl

    J. Allisonet al., Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 835 (2016) 186–225.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016. 06.125. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0168900216306957

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962

    1962

  14. [22]

    A. W. Chao, M. Tigner, Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering, World Scientific, Singapore, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    Bethe, W

    H. Bethe, W. Heitler, On the Stopping of Fast Particles and on the Creation of Positive Electrons, Proc. R. Soc. A 146 (1934) 83–112.doi:10.1098/rspa.1934.0140. URLhttps://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10. 1098/rspa.1934.0140

    1934

  16. [24]

    Koch, J.W

    H.W. Koch, J.W. Motz, Bremsstrahlung Cross-Section Formulas and Related Data, Rev. Mod. Phys. 31 (1959) 920–955.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.31.920. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.31.920

    1959 doi

  17. [25]

    Møller, Zur Theorie des Durchgangs schneller Elek- tronen durch Materie, Annalen der Physik 406 (5) (1932) 531–585.doi:10.1002/andp.19324060506

    C. Møller, Zur Theorie des Durchgangs schneller Elek- tronen durch Materie, Annalen der Physik 406 (5) (1932) 531–585.doi:10.1002/andp.19324060506. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/andp.19324060506

    1932 doi

  18. [26]

    Bruck, Circular Particle Accelerators, La-tr-72-10-rev, la-tr-72-10, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1974)

    H. Bruck, Circular Particle Accelerators, La-tr-72-10-rev, la-tr-72-10, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1974). URLhttps://inspirehep.net/literature/19864

    1974

  19. [27]

    Kersevan, M

    R. Kersevan, M. Ady, Recent developments of Monte- Carlo codes Molflow+ and Synrad+, in: 10th In- ternational Particle Accelerator Conference, 2019, p. TUPMP037.doi:10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2019-TUPMP037

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Lee, Accelerator Physics (4th Edition), World Sci- entific, Singapore, 2019

    S.Y. Lee, Accelerator Physics (4th Edition), World Sci- entific, Singapore, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Redaelli, Beam cleaning and collimation systems (2025).arXiv:2511.03511

    S. Redaelli, Beam cleaning and collimation systems (2025).arXiv:2511.03511. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.03511

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.