Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Characterization and performance of the Apollon main short-pulse laser beam following its commissioning at 2 PW level

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Apollon's 2 PW beam delivered ~50 MeV protons, ~4e8 neutrons per shot, and X-ray radiography-quality emission under commissioning conditions.

desk verdict Solid Apollon 2 PW commissioning data; the simulation-derived electron and X-ray spectra rest on an unmeasured contrast and adjusted PIC intensity, so treat those as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09267 v1 pith:TQVMP46M submitted 2024-12-12 physics.plasm-ph

Weipeng Yao , Ronan Lelièvre , Itamar Cohen , Tessa Waltenspiel , Amokrane Allaoua , Patrizio Antici , Yohan Ayoul , Arie Beck
show 38 more authors
Audrey Beluze Christophe Blancard Daniel Cavanna Mélanie Chabanis Sophia N. Chen Erez Cohen Quentin Ducasse Mathieu Dumergue Fouad El Hai Christophe Evrard Evgeny Filippov Antoine Freneaux Donald Cort Gautier Fabrice Gobert Franck Goupille Michael Grech Laurent Gremillet Yoav Heller Emmanuel d'Humières Hanna Lahmar Livia Lancia Nathalie Lebas Ludovic Lecherbourg Stéphane Marchand Damien Mataja Gabriel Meyniel David Michaeli Dimitris Papadopoulos Frédéric Perez Sergy Pikuz Ishay Pomerantz Patrick Renaudin Lorenzo Romagnani François Trompier Edouard Veuillot Thibaut Vinchon François Mathieu Julien Fuchs
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.38.-r52.38.Kd
keywords petawattlasercommissioningtargetnormalsheathaccelerationlaser-drivenprotonneutrongenerationX-rayradiographydual-beamoperationtemporalcontrast
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

At its second commissioning stage, the Apollon main beam (F1) was run at about 2 PW and found to deliver on-target pulses of up to 45 J in 22 fs, focused to a roughly 2.5 µm spot at an intensity near $1.8\times10^{22}$ W/cm$^2$. The paper reports that these pulses produced stable proton beams with cutoff energies around 50 MeV from 6–8 µm aluminum foils, about $(4.10\pm0.26)\times10^8$ neutrons per shot from a lithium-fluoride converter, and X-ray doses about ten times higher than the facility's 1 PW beam for four times the laser energy, enough for point-projection radiography. It also demonstrates simultaneous operation of the main beam with the auxiliary 0.5 PW beam, with adjustable delay and no intrinsic jitter. The authors offer these measurements as a characterization of the beam for user experiments and as a baseline for the planned 8 PW operation in 2025.

What carries the argument

The chain that carries the argument is the laser-to-secondary-source pipeline: a 22 fs, 45 J pulse is focused by a 1 m focal-length off-axis parabola (f/2.5) to a 2.3–2.5 µm focal spot, reaching $1.8\times10^{22}$ W/cm$^2$ and $a_0\approx90$, and irradiates a thin foil at 45° incidence; the sheath field at the target rear then accelerates protons. The interpretive engine is the simulation sequence: the MULTI code generates a preplasma profile from an assumed 2 ps, $10^{15}$ W/cm$^2$ prepulse 100 ps ahead of the main pulse, SMILEI PIC (with intensity adjusted downward to compensate for 2D overestimation) reproduces the measured proton spectrum and supplies the electron spectra and electromagnetic radiation, and Geant4 transports neutrons from the LiF converter to the activation, bubble, and time-of-flight detectors. The preplasma assumption is the load-bearing component: it explains the 6–8 µm optimum target thickness, the roughly 15° shift of the high-energy proton beam away from the target normal, and the lower conversion efficiency compared with high-contrast shots.

What would settle it

A full-energy temporal-contrast measurement of the F1 beam (for example with a third-order cross-correlator covering the 100 ps window) would directly test the assumed 2 ps, $10^{15}$ W/cm$^2$ prepulse; if no such pedestal is present, the MULTI/SMILEI preplasma initialization is wrong and the simulation-based consistency between proton, electron, X-ray, and neutron spectra collapses. Alternatively, one high-contrast shot on a target about 2 µm thick that shows a proton cutoff well above 50 MeV and a conversion efficiency above 0.9% would confirm that the reported performance is contrast-limited.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that Apollon's F1 beam at 2 PW is a functioning, user-relevant laser driver: on-target pulses of maximum energy 45 J and 22 fs duration, focused to a slightly elliptical spot of 2.3 $\times$ 2.5 µm FWHM with about 44% of the energy in the first lobe, generate target-normal sheath accelerated proton beams with a stable ~50 MeV cutoff from 6–8 µm Al foils, and through a LiF pitcher-catcher produce $(4.10\pm0.26)\times10^8$ neutrons per shot. The X-ray emission, dominated by bremsstrahlung in the simulations, reached average doses around 15.5 mGy/shot at 87 cm and supported point-projection radiography with a source size much smaller than 125 µm. The authors match the measured proton spectrum with 2D PIC simulations in which the target starts with a preplasma from a 2 ps prepulse at $10^{15}$ W/cm$^2$ located 100 ps before the main pulse; the fitted electron spectrum is two-temperature (5.3 MeV and 20 MeV), and Geant4 simulations using the inferred proton spectrum reproduce the measured neutron yields and the activation of the indium and magnesium foils. The paper also demonstrates that F1 and F2 can operate simultaneously, with F2 providing proton radiography of F1-generated plasmas.

Load-bearing premise

The full-performance chain depends on the unmeasured temporal contrast of the full-energy pulse: the simulations assume a 2 ps prepulse at $10^{15}$ W/cm$^2$ arriving 100 ps before the main pulse, and if the real prepulse differs, the fitted laser intensity and the inferred preplasma conditions lose support, invalidating the consistency between measured and simulated proton, X-ray, and neutron spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can plan around stable $\sim$50 MeV proton beams from 6–8 µm aluminum foils, with a laser-to-proton conversion efficiency of 0.7–0.9% under the tested conditions.
  • The LiF converter delivers about $4.1\times10^8$ neutrons per shot, with a measured 2–10 MeV fluence near $2\times10^7$ neutrons/sr/shot, making neutron experiments feasible at the 2 PW level.
  • X-ray doses near 15 mGy/shot at 87 cm and a sub-125 µm source size make point-projection radiography a practical diagnostic on F1 shots.
  • F1 and F2 can be fired simultaneously with adjustable delay and no intrinsic jitter, enabling dual-beam experiments such as proton radiography of F1-driven plasmas.
  • Extrapolating the same simulation chain to 8 PW predicts roughly a doubling of the proton cutoff energy (to about 90 MeV), an order-of-magnitude increase in bremsstrahlung with tungsten targets, and neutron energies about three times higher.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed 2 ps, $10^{15}$ W/cm$^2$ prepulse is the real limiter, then improving the full-energy temporal contrast should shift the optimum target thickness below 6 µm and raise conversion efficiency above 0.9%; this testable prediction follows from the paper's simulation setup rather than being stated by the authors.
  • The 8 PW predictions inherit the calibration of the 2 PW simulation chain, which rests on an unmeasured prepulse; if contrast is improved before 2025, the predicted 90 MeV proton cutoff may be conservative, since high-contrast shots typically couple more efficiently.
  • The roughly ten-fold increase in X-ray dose for a four-fold increase in laser energy suggests X-ray yield scales superlinearly with pulse energy at fixed contrast, which would make radiation backgrounds and shielding an increasingly important constraint at 8 PW.
  • Because the dual-beam demonstration used a single shared deformable mirror, F2's focal spot and pulse duration were not optimized; until a second mirror is installed, simultaneous-operation users should expect a degraded auxiliary beam.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the second commissioning phase of the Apollon F1 beamline in the short-focus area at the 2 PW level. It presents direct measurements of the delivered beam (up to 45 J on target, ~22 fs pulse duration, focal spot of about 2.3 x 2.5 um, Strehl ratio ~51%), plus experimental characterization of plasma conditions, proton acceleration from Al foils, neutron production from a LiF pitcher-catcher, X-ray generation and radiography, and simultaneous operation with the F2 beamline. Simulation results with MULTI, SMILEI, and Geant4 are used to interpret the data and to project performance at 8 PW. The paper claims that the experimental campaign demonstrates stable ~50 MeV proton cutoffs, ~3-4 x 10^8 neutrons per shot, and good laser-to-target coupling.

Significance. If the direct measurements are taken at face value, this is a valuable commissioning dataset for a multi-PW user facility: the on-target beam parameters, RCF proton spectra, activation-based neutron yields, X-ray dose maps, and the F1-F2 dual-beam demonstration are concrete and useful to future users. The paper is weaker where it promotes simulation-inferred quantities (electron temperatures, X-ray spectra, total neutron yield, 8 PW projections) to the same level of confidence as the direct measurements. The underlying issue is that the full-energy temporal contrast was not measured, and the simulation chain is constrained only by the proton spectrum. The direct experimental results are sound; the model-dependent secondary claims need to be relabeled and, where possible, bracketed by sensitivity studies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. II and IV] Section II states that the temporal contrast was not fully characterized at full energy and was only measured on the low-energy 10 Hz beam. Section IV then initializes the MULTI/SMILEI chain with an assumed 2 ps, 10^15 W/cm2 prepulse located 100 ps before the main pulse, and the SMILEI laser intensity is adjusted to match the measured proton spectrum (Fig. 9). Because neither the prepulse parameters nor the in-target intensity are independently constrained, the simulated electron spectrum (Fig. 10), the X-ray spectrum (Fig. 17), and the 8 PW projections (Fig. 20) are not unique; agreement with the proton spectrum cannot validate these derived quantities. The reflected-beam pattern (Fig. 5) and the 6-8 um optimum thickness are qualitative evidence for a preplasma, but they do not determine the prepulse level, duration, or timing. These simulation-based results should be presented as model-dependent estimates, ideally with a sensitivity scan over the assumed contrast, or the full-energy contrast should be measured.
  2. [Sec. V.A] The quoted total neutron yield, (4.10 +/- 0.26) x 10^8 neutrons/shot, is obtained by dividing the directly measured 7Be activity by a 76.7% contribution of the 7Li(p,n)7Be reaction, and that fraction comes from a Geant4 simulation driven by a 'proton spectrum guess' with a mean energy of 4.25 MeV (green dashed curve in Fig. 9), not by the RCF-measured spectrum. The directly measured Li-based yield, (3.14 +/- 0.20) x 10^8 neutrons/shot, is robust, but the extrapolated total is model-dependent and its stated uncertainty does not include the uncertainty in the proton spectrum. This propagation should be quantified, and the model dependence should be stated wherever the total yield is quoted, including the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [Sec. IV] The electron temperatures quoted in Fig. 10 (5.3 MeV below 25 MeV, 20 MeV above) are extracted from the same adjusted PIC simulation, not from a direct measurement; the raw electron spectrometer images in Fig. 11(d)-(e) are not quantitatively compared with the simulated spectrum. Consequently, the claimed agreement with the (I0 lambda^2)^(1/3) and ponderomotive scalings rests on the assumed laser intensity and preplasma profile. The two-temperature description should be explicitly labeled as simulation-based, and calibrated electron spectra or a sensitivity analysis should be provided if the authors wish to retain this as a characterization result.
  4. [Sec. VI, Eq. (2)] The X-ray energy spectrum in Fig. 17 is presented as part of the experimental characterization, but the RPL dosimetry in Fig. 16 constrains only the angular distribution of the dose integrated over photon energy, not the spectrum. The Bremsstrahlung spectrum computed from Eq. (2) depends on the electron distribution from the adjusted PIC run and on the refluxing efficiency eta_r, neither of which is independently measured. The total spectrum should therefore be clearly stated as a model prediction, and the qualitative source-size comparison from Fig. 18 should be described as a consistency check rather than a validation of the simulated spectrum.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II] The inline definition of a0 appears garbled as printed; the square root is missing or mis-rendered. Please write a0 = sqrt(I0 lambda^2 mu0 q_e^2 / (2 pi^2 m_e^2 c^3)) or an equivalent explicit expression.
  2. [Sec. V.A, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is unnumbered and nshot is not defined in the text; please number the equation and define all symbols at first use, including the number of shots used in the activation series.
  3. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption says the simulated neutron spectra are 'obtained respectively from the experimental proton spectrum shown in Fig. 9 and the proton spectrum guess', but Fig. 9 contains three curves (PIC simulation, RCF-inferred spectrum, and the 4.25 MeV guess). Please specify which curves are being referenced to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. IV] The statement that 'the intensities used in the SMILEI simulations are lower than the experimental ones' is not quantified; giving the simulation intensity value would allow readers to judge the size of the adjustment.
  5. [Fig. 2(b)] The caption reports '<5% PtV energy fluctuation' but the abbreviation PtV is not defined; please spell out 'peak-to-valley' and state the number of shots used for the 5-hour stability window.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The total neutron yield quoted in the abstract is partly circular: the neutron-fitted proton spectrum determines both the 76.7% branch fraction and the simulated 'prediction,' while the direct beam and RCF measurements are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V A (activation measurements) and Sec. IV (Fig. 9 text)]
    "Overlaid in Fig. 9 ... is another spectrum, which was found to fit better the neutron emission measurement ... Geant4 simulations were performed considering the estimated proton spectrum with a mean energy of 4.25 MeV, shown in Fig. 9 (dashed green line)... These simulations indicate that the 7Li(p, n)7Be reaction contributes to around 76.7% to neutron production... approximately (4.10±0.26)×10^8 neutrons/shot were emitted ... which aligns closely with the predicted value of 4.09×10^8 neutrons/shot from the simulations."

    The quoted total yield is constructed as N_total = A_7Be / f, where the 7Be activity is measured but f = 76.7% is taken from a Geant4 simulation whose input proton spectrum (the green dashed line, mean 4.25 MeV) was itself chosen to reproduce the neutron emission measurements. The independently measured content is the 7Be activity, corresponding to (3.14±0.20)×10^8 neutrons/shot from Li; the extrapolation to the total yield inherits a conversion factor derived from a fitted spectrum. The 'predicted' 4.09×10^8 value is generated by the same Geant4 run with the same fitted input, so the close agreement with 4.10×10^8 is a self-consistency check between a fit and its own output, not an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The direct beam characterization (on-target energy, Wizzler duration, focal-spot size and stability, amplifier stability) and the direct source measurements (RCF proton cutoffs around 50 MeV, X-ray dose distribution, 7Be activation, bubble-detector and nToF neutron fields) are independent quantitative data and support the core commissioning claims without circularity. The circularity is confined to the simulation chain that converts the measured 7Be activity into a total neutron yield: the proton spectrum used in the Geant4 simulations was explicitly fitted to neutron emission, and the same spectrum sets the 7Li(p,n)7Be branch fraction and produces the matching simulated total, so the quoted 4.10×10^8 neutrons/shot is partly forced by the fitted input rather than independently predicted. The inferred electron spectrum, the simulated X-ray spectrum, and the 8 PW projections also depend on an unmeasured full-energy temporal contrast and on an assumed MULTI preplasma profile, which makes those extrapolations non-unique; however, that is a modeling-validity limitation rather than a circular reduction of the kind defined here, because those quantities are presented as simulations rather than as predictions tested against independent measurements of the same quantity. Overall, the paper earns a score of 6: the headline 2 PW proton acceleration result is directly measured and not circular, but one headline secondary-source number, the total neutron yield per shot, reduces in part to a fitted proton-spectrum input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters listed are the simulation inputs that were adjusted to match measurements, and the axioms are the standard modeling assumptions of the PIC, radiation-hydrodynamic, and particle transport codes used for interpretation.

free parameters (5)
  • PIC laser intensity in SMILEI = Adjusted, not specified explicitly; lower than experimental due to 2D overestimation
    In Sec. IV, the 2D PIC simulation used an intensity adjusted so that the simulated proton spectrum matches the RCF-measured spectrum; this makes the simulation a fit, not a prediction.
  • Proton spectrum for neutron simulations = Mean energy 4.25 MeV, shape shown as green dashed line in Fig. 9
    In Sec. V, this spectrum was chosen to fit the neutron emission measurements and then used in Geant4/MCNP6 to compute neutron yields; the good agreement is therefore partly by construction.
  • Preplasma profile (prepulse level and timing) = 2 ps prepulse at 10^15 W/cm2, located 100 ps before the main pulse
    Assumed in MULTI to generate the preplasma for SMILEI; the temporal contrast was not measured, so this is an unverified modeling input.
  • Hot electron temperatures from Maxwellian fits = 5.3 MeV for E<25 MeV, 20 MeV for E>25 MeV
    Maxwellian fits to the simulated electron spectrum, not independent measurements.
  • Proton beam divergence for neutron simulations = Fixed 21 degrees for all energies
    Assumed conical proton beam divergence in Geant4; no measured angular distribution used.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SMILEI PIC code correctly models TNSA in 2D with reduced intensity
    The paper relies on SMILEI to reproduce proton spectra and infer electron spectra, but the intensity is adjusted to match, so the model is not independently validated here.
  • ad hoc to paper MULTI preplasma profile is representative of the actual target
    The preplasma from an assumed 2 ps prepulse at 10^15 W/cm2 is used without experimental contrast measurement.
  • standard math Neutron cross-sections (IRDFF-II) and particle transport codes (Geant4, MCNP6) are accurate
    Used to convert measured activities to neutron yields; these are standard nuclear data and tools, but the input spectrum is fitted.
  • domain assumption TNSA proton source with a 20 nm hydrogen contaminant layer
    Standard model for proton acceleration from solid targets with surface contaminants; adopted in the SMILEI setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization and performance of the Apollon main short-pulse laser beam following its commissioning at 2 PW level." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQVMP46M

@misc{pith2026241209267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization and performance of the Apollon main short-pulse laser beam following its commissioning at 2 PW level},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQVMP46M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09267}
}
read the original abstract

We present the results of the second commissioning phase of the short-focal-length area of the Apollon laser facility (located in Saclay, France), which was performed with the main laser beam (F1), scaled to a peak power of 2 PetaWatt. Under the conditions that were tested, this beam delivered on-target pulses of maximum energy up to 45 J and 22 fs duration. Several diagnostics were fielded to assess the performance of the facility. The on-target focal spot and its spatial stability, as well as the secondary sources produced when irradiating solid targets, have all been characterized, with the goal of helping users design future experiments. The laser-target interaction was characterized, as well as emissions of energetic ions, X-ray and neutrons recorded, all showing good laser-to-target coupling efficiency. Moreover, we demonstrated the simultaneous fielding of F1 with the auxiliary 0.5 PW F2 beam of Apollon, enabling dual beam operation. The present commissioning will be followed in 2025 by a further commissioning stage of F1 at the 8 PW level, en route to the final 10 PW goal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Photographs of the (a) Apollon SFA with the F1 beamline; (b) the 500 mm diameter off-axis parabolic (OAP) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Near-field energy distribution of the F1 beam. (b) Typical energy stability of the last amplifier over 300 shots (5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Far-field measurement of the laser intensity dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic of the experimental setup. The diagnos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. X-ray spectra of Al ion emission measured with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Image of the specularly reflected laser beam landing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Typical Ti x-ray spectrum detected on a CCD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Proton energy spectrum, averaged from the RCFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Proton cutoff energy as a function of the target thick [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Simulated electron energy spectrum, along with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) Ion-electron spectrometer. (b) Experimental arrangement for the diagnostics tests. (c) Ion spectra from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) Raw RCF data of shot 33. The first six layers are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison between the simulated neutron spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Neutron signals as a function of neutron energy, (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Simulated angular distribution of neutron emissions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. (a) X-ray spatial dose distribution measured inside [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. X-ray point-projection imaging. (a) Photo and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Simulated energy spectra of photons, both in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Energy spectra of (a) electrons, (b) protons, (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    apsrev4-2.bst 2019-01-14 (MD) hand-edited version of apsrev4-1.bst

    FUNCTION id.bst "apsrev4-2.bst 2019-01-14 (MD) hand-edited version of apsrev4-1.bst" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title transl...

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Daido , author M

    author author H. Daido , author M. Nishiuchi ,\ and\ author A. S. \ Pirozhkov ,\ title title Review of laser-driven ion sources and their applications ,\ @noop journal journal Reports on progress in physics \ volume 75 ,\ pages 056401 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    author author C. N. \ Danson , author C. Haefner , author J. Bromage , author T. Butcher , author J.-C. F. \ Chanteloup , author E. A. \ Chowdhury , author A. Galvanauskas , author L. A. \ Gizzi , author J. Hein , author D. I. \ Hillier , et al. ,\ title title Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide ,\ @noop journal journal High Power Laser Science an...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Albert , author M

    author author F. Albert , author M. Couprie , author A. Debus , author M. C. \ Downer , author J. Faure , author A. Flacco , author L. A. \ Gizzi , author T. Grismayer , author A. Huebl , author C. Joshi , et al. ,\ title title 2020 roadmap on plasma accelerators ,\ @noop journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 23 ,\ pages 031101 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Papadopoulos , author J

    author author D. Papadopoulos , author J. Zou , author C. Le Blanc , author G. Ch \'e riaux , author P. Georges , author F. Druon , author G. Mennerat , author P. Ramirez , author L. Martin , author A. Fr \'e neaux , et al. ,\ title title The Apollon 10 PW laser: experimental and theoretical investigation of the temporal characteristics ,\ @noop journal j...

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    \ Zou , author C

    author author J.-P. \ Zou , author C. Le Blanc , author D. N. \ Papadopoulos , author G. Ch \'e riaux , author P. Georges , author G. Mennerat , author F. Druon , author L. Lecherbourg , author A. Pellegrina , author P. Ramirez , et al. ,\ title title Design and current progress of the Apollon 10 PW project ,\ @noop journal journal High Power Laser Scienc...

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Burdonov , author A

    author author K. Burdonov , author A. Fazzini , author V. Lelasseux , author J. Albrecht , author P. Antici , author Y. Ayoul , author A. Beluze , author D. Cavanna , author T. Ceccotti , author M. Chabanis , et al. ,\ title title Characterization and performance of the Apollon short-focal-area facility following its commissioning at 1 PW level ,\ @noop j...

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Papadopoulos , author J.-P

    author author D. Papadopoulos , author J.-P. \ Zou , author C. Le Blanc , author L. Ranc , author F. Druon , author L. Martin , author A. Fr \'e neaux , author A. Beluze , author N. Lebas , author M. Chabanis , et al. ,\ in\ @noop booktitle CLEO: Science and Innovations \ ( organization Optica Publishing Group ,\ year 2019 )\ pp.\ pages STu3E--4 NoStop

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Ranc , author C

    author author L. Ranc , author C. Le Blanc , author N. Lebas , author L. Martin , author J.-P. \ Zou , author F. Mathieu , author C. Radier , author S. Ricaud , author F. Druon ,\ and\ author D. Papadopoulos ,\ title title Improvement in the temporal contrast in the tens of ps...

    2020

  2. [10]

    \ Bleotu , author J

    author author P.-G. \ Bleotu , author J. Wheeler , author D. Papadopoulos , author M. Chabanis , author J. Prudent , author M. Frotin , author L. Martin , author N. Lebas , author A. Freneaux , author A. Beluze , et al. ,\ title title Spectral broadening for multi-Joule pulse ...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Moulanier , author L

    author author I. Moulanier , author L. Dickson , author C. Ballage , author O. Vasilovici , author A. Gremaud , author S. Dobosz Dufr \'e noy , author N. Delerue , author L. Bernardi , author A. Mahjoub , author A. Cauchois , et al. ,\ title title Modeling of the driver transv...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Leli \`e vre , author W

    author author R. Leli \`e vre , author W. Yao , author T. Waltenspiel , author I. Cohen , author V. Anthonippillai , author P. Antici , author A. Beck , author E. Cohen , author D. Michaeli , author I. Pomerantz , author D. C. \ Gautier , author F. Trompier , author Q. Ducasse...

  5. [13]

    Lahaye , author K

    author author R. Lahaye , author K. Oubrerie , author O. Kolonenko ,\ and\ author C. Thaury ,\ in\ @noop booktitle High Intensity Lasers and High Field Phenomena \ ( organization Optica Publishing Group ,\ year 2024 )\ pp.\ pages HW2B--5 NoStop

    2024

  6. [14]

    Yao , author R

    author author W. Yao , author R. Lelièvre , author T. Waltenspiel , author I. Cohen , author A. Allaoua , author P. Antici , author A. Beck , author E. Cohen , author X. Davoine , author E. d’Humières , author Q. Ducasse , author E. Filippov , author C. Gautier , author L. Gre...

  7. [15]

    author author A. Y. \ Faenov , author J. Colgan , author S. Hansen , author A. Zhidkov , author T. Pikuz , author M. Nishiuchi , author S. Pikuz , author I. Y. \ Skobelev , author J. Abdallah , author H. Sakaki , et al. ,\ title title Nonlinear increase of X-ray intensities fr...

    2015

  8. [16]

    author author A. Y. \ Faenov , author S. A. \ Pikuz , author A. I. \ Erko , author B. A. \ Bryunetkin , author V. M. \ Dyakin , author G. V. \ Ivanenkov , author A. R. \ Mingaleev , author T. A. \ Pikuz , author V. M. \ Romanova ,\ and\ author T. A. \ Shelkovenko ,\ title titl...

    doi

  9. [17]

    Soloviev , author K

    author author A. Soloviev , author K. Burdonov , author S. Chen , author A. Eremeev , author A. Korzhimanov , author G. Pokrovskiy , author T. Pikuz , author G. Revet , author A. Sladkov , author V. Ginzburg , et al. ,\ title title Experimental evidence for short-pulse laser h...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Dorchies , author N

    author author F. Dorchies , author N. Fedorov ,\ and\ author L. Lecherbourg ,\ title title Experimental station for laser-based picosecond time-resolved x-ray absorption near-edge spectroscopy ,\ @noop journal journal Review of Scientific Instruments \ volume 86 ,\ pages 07310...

    2015

  11. [19]

    Chen , author M

    author author S. Chen , author M. Gauthier , author M. Bazalova-Carter , author S. Bolanos , author S. Glenzer , author R. Riquier , author G. Revet , author P. Antici , author A. Morabito , author A. Propp , et al. ,\ title title Absolute dosimetric characterization of Gafchr...

    2016

  12. [20]

    Fuchs , author P

    author author J. Fuchs , author P. Antici , author E. d’Humi \`e res , author E. Lefebvre , author M. Borghesi , author E. Brambrink , author C. Cecchetti , author M. Kaluza , author V. Malka , author M. Manclossi , et al. ,\ title title Laser-driven proton scaling laws and ne...

    2006

  13. [21]

    Bolton , author M

    author author P. Bolton , author M. Borghesi , author C. Brenner , author D. Carroll , author C. De Martinis , author F. Fiorini , author A. Flacco , author V. Floquet , author J. Fuchs , author P. Gallegos , et al. ,\ title title Instrumentation for diagnostics and control of...

    2014

  14. [22]

    Derouillat , author A

    author author J. Derouillat , author A. Beck , author F. P \'e rez , author T. Vinci , author M. Chiaramello , author A. Grassi , author M. Fl \'e , author G. Bouchard , author I. Plotnikov , author N. Aunai , et al. ,\ title title Smilei: A collaborative, open-source, multi-p...

    2018

  15. [23]

    lighthouse

    author author V. Horn \`y , author K. Burdonov , author A. Fazzini , author V. Lelasseux , author P. Antici , author S. N. \ Chen , author A. Ciardi , author X. Davoine , author E. d'Humi \`e res , author L. Gremillet , et al. ,\ title title A" lighthouse" laser-driven staged ...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    \ Liu , author M

    author author J.-L. \ Liu , author M. Chen , author J. Zheng , author Z.-M. \ Sheng ,\ and\ author C.-S. \ Liu ,\ title title Three dimensional effects on proton acceleration by intense laser solid target interaction ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 20 ,\ p...

    2013

  17. [25]

    Beg , author A

    author author F. Beg , author A. Bell , author A. Dangor , author C. Danson , author A. Fews , author M. Glinsky , author B. Hammel , author P. Lee , author P. Norreys ,\ and\ author M. Tatarakis ,\ title title A study of picosecond laser--solid interactions up to 1019 W cm- 2...

    1997

  18. [26]

    Haines , author M

    author author M. Haines , author M. Wei , author F. Beg ,\ and\ author R. Stephens ,\ title title Hot-electron temperature and laser-light absorption in fast ignition ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 102 ,\ pages 045008 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  19. [27]

    Wilks , author W

    author author S. Wilks , author W. Kruer , author M. Tabak ,\ and\ author A. Langdon ,\ title title Absorption of ultra-intense laser pulses ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 69 ,\ pages 1383 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992

  20. [28]

    Thomson ,\ title title XLVII

    author author J. Thomson ,\ title title XLVII. On rays of positive electricity ,\ https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440709463633 journal journal The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science \ volume 13 ,\ pages 561–575 ( year 1907 ) NoStop

    doi

  21. [29]

    Burdonov , author R

    author author K. Burdonov , author R. Lelièvre , author P. Forestier-Colleoni , author T. Ceccotti , author M. Cuciuc , author L. Lancia , author W. Yao ,\ and\ author J. Fuchs ,\ title title Absolute calibration up to 20 MeV of an online readout CMOS system suitable to detect...

    doi

  22. [30]

    Lancaster , author S

    author author K. Lancaster , author S. Karsch , author H. Habara , author F. Beg , author E. Clark , author R. Freeman , author M. Key , author J. King , author R. Kodama , author K. Krushelnick , et al. ,\ title title Characterization of Li 7 (p, n) 7 Be neutron yields from l...

    2004

  23. [31]

    Higginson , author J

    author author D. Higginson , author J. McNaney , author D. Swift , author G. Petrov , author J. Davis , author J. Frenje , author L. Jarrott , author R. Kodama , author K. Lancaster , author A. Mackinnon , et al. ,\ title title Production of neutrons up to 18 MeV in high-inten...

    2011

  24. [32]

    http://www.bubbletech.ca title Bubble technology industries ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  25. [33]

    author author B. M. \ Lawriniang , author S. Badwar , author R. Ghosh , author B. Jyrwa , author V. Vansola , author H. Naik , author A. Goswami , author Y. Naik , author C. S. \ Datrik , author A. K. \ Gupta , author V. P. \ Singh , author S. S. \ Pol , author N. B. \ Subrama...

    doi

  26. [34]

    Agostinelli , author J

    author author S. Agostinelli , author J. Allison , author K. a. \ Amako , author J. Apostolakis , author H. Araujo , author P. Arce , author M. Asai , author D. Axen , author S. Banerjee , author G. Barrand , et al. ,\ title title GEANT4—a simulation toolkit ,\ @noop journal j...

    2003

  27. [35]

    author author R. A. \ Snavely , author M. H. \ Key , author S. P. \ Hatchett , author T. E. \ Cowan , author M. Roth , author T. W. \ Phillips , author M. A. \ Stoyer , author E. A. \ Henry , author T. C. \ Sangster , author M. S. \ Singh , author S. C. \ Wilks , author A. Mac...

  28. [36]

    author author M. E. \ Rising , author J. C. \ Armstrong , author S. R. \ Bolding , author F. B. \ Brown , author J. S. \ Bull , author T. P. \ Burke , author A. R. \ Clark , author D. A. \ Dixon , author R. A. \ Forster , III , author J. F. \ Giron , author T. S. \ Grieve , au...

  29. [37]

    Ing , author R

    author author H. Ing , author R. Noulty ,\ and\ author T. McLean ,\ title title Bubble detectors—A maturing technology ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4487(96)00156-4 journal journal Radiation Measurements \ volume 27 ,\ pages 1--11 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    doi

  30. [38]

    Boron loaded EJ-254

    https://eljentechnology.com/products/plastic-scintillators/ej-254 title Eljen Technology, "Boron loaded EJ-254" ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  31. [39]

    9122B Series

    https://et-enterprises.com/products/photomultipliers/product/p9112b-series title ET Enterprises, “9122B Series” ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  32. [40]

    o derstr \

    author author V. Lelasseux , author P.-A. \ S \"o derstr \"o m , author S. Aogaki , author K. Burdonov , author M. Cerchez , author S. Chen , author S. Dorard , author A. Fazzini , author M. Gugiu , author S. Pikuz , et al. ,\ title title Design and commissioning of a neutron ...

    doi

  33. [41]

    VX1730/VX1730S

    https://www.caen.it/products/vx1730/ title CAEN, “VX1730/VX1730S” ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  34. [42]

    Kishon , author A

    author author I. Kishon , author A. Kleinschmidt , author V. Schanz , author A. Tebartz , author O. Noam , author J. Fernandez , author D. Gautier , author R. Johnson , author T. Shimada , author G. Wurden , et al. ,\ title title Laser based neutron spectroscopy ,\ @noop journ...

    2019

  35. [43]

    Weihai , author L

    author author Z. Weihai , author L. Weiqi , author H. Gang , author Z. Guoying ,\ and\ author M. Guocai ,\ title title Comparisons of dosimetric properties between GD-300 series of radiophotoluminescent glass detectors and GR-200 series of thermoluminescent detectors ,\ https:...

    doi

  36. [44]

    Niel , author C

    author author F. Niel , author C. Riconda , author F. Amiranoff , author R. Duclous ,\ and\ author M. Grech ,\ title title From quantum to classical modeling of radiation reaction: A focus on stochasticity effects ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 97 ,\ pages...

    2018

  37. [45]

    Antici , author L

    author author P. Antici , author L. Gremillet , author T. Grismayer , author P. Mora , author P. Audebert , author M. Borghesi , author C. Cecchetti , author A. Man c ic ,\ and\ author J. Fuchs ,\ title title Modeling target bulk heating resulting from ultra-intense short puls...

    2013

  38. [46]

    Myatt , author J

    author author J. Myatt , author J. Delettrez , author A. Maximov , author D. Meyerhofer , author R. Short , author C. Stoeckl ,\ and\ author M. Storm ,\ title title Optimizing electron-positron pair production on kilojoule-class high-intensity lasers for the purpose of pair-pl...

    2009

  39. [47]

    author author D. B. \ Schaeffer , author A. F. \ Bott , author M. Borghesi , author K. A. \ Flippo , author W. Fox , author J. Fuchs , author C. Li , author F. H. \ S \'e guin , author H.-S. \ Park , author P. Tzeferacos , et al. ,\ title title Proton imaging of high-energy-de...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Doria , author M

    author author D. Doria , author M. Cernaianu , author P. Ghenuche , author D. Stutman , author K. Tanaka , author C. Ticos ,\ and\ author C. Ur ,\ title title Overview of ELI-NP status and laser commissioning experiments with 1 PW and 10 PW class-lasers ,\ @noop journal journa...

    2020

  41. [49]

    Hong , author S

    author author W. Hong , author S. He , author J. Teng , author Z. Deng , author Z. Zhang , author F. Lu , author B. Zhang , author B. Zhu , author Z. Dai , author B. Cui , et al. ,\ title title Commissioning experiment of the high-contrast SILEX-II multi-petawatt laser facilit...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.