Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Cryogenic systems for the TUCAN EDM experiment

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new superfluid-helium ultracold neutron source has passed cryogenic commissioning and is projected to reach a neutron electric dipole moment sensitivity of 1e-27 e cm.

desk verdict A careful cryogenic commissioning report that is honest about the gap between projected and demonstrated UCN production. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09064 v3 pith:WE5GQBHR submitted 2025-06-06 physics.ins-det nucl-ex

Jeffery W. Martin , B. Algohi , D. Anthony , L. Barrón-Palos , M. Bradley , A. Brossard , T. Bui , J. Chak
show 55 more authors
C. Davis R. de Vries K. Drury D. Fujimoto R. Fujitani M. Gericke P. Giampa R. Golub T. Hepworth T. Higuchi G. Ichikawa S. Imajo A. Jaison B. Jamieson M. Katotoka S. Kawasaki M. Kitaguchi W. Klassen E. Korkmaz E. Korobkina M. Lavvaf T. Lindner N. Lo S. Longo K. Madison Y. Makida J. Malcolm J. Mammei R. Mammei C. Marshall M. McCrea E. Miller M. Miller K. Mishima T. Mohammadi T. Momose T. Okamura H.J. Ong R. Patni R. Picker W.D. Ramsay W. Rathnakela J. Sato W. Schreyer T. Shima H. Shimizu S. Sidhu S. Stargardter P. Switzer I. Tanihata S. Vanbergen W.T.H. vanOers Y. Watanabe A. Zahra M. Zhao
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-detnucl-ex
keywords ultracoldneutronssuperfluidheliumspallationneutronsourceelectricdipolemomentcryogenicshelium-3cryostatEDMexperiment
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 reports that the cryogenic systems of a new ultracold-neutron source, built around a 27-liter superfluid helium (He-II) production volume driven by a proton spallation target, have passed their first full commissioning run. The source was cooled to 0.8 K, filled with superfluid helium, and kept near 1 K while removing beam heat loads consistent with simulations to within 10 percent; a separate heater test showed the system can absorb a 10 W heat load. The authors project that, once a liquid-deuterium moderator is installed, the source will produce $1.4\times 10^7$ ultracold neutrons per second, allowing a neutron electric dipole moment measurement with statistical uncertainty $1\times 10^{-27}$ e cm in about 280 days of running. The first attempt to detect produced neutrons saw no conclusive signal, which the authors attribute to frozen air or water contaminating the helium volume; purifying the helium and detecting neutrons is the next planned milestone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is a 27-liter superfluid helium (He-II) production volume held near 1 K and cooled through a 3He-4He heat exchanger by a pumped 3He cryostat. Spallation neutrons from a tungsten target are moderated in surrounding materials and enter the He-II, where a fraction downscatter into the ultracold range; these are then transported out through the heat exchanger to the measurement apparatus. The cryostat and heat exchanger carry the argument because their measured performance---0.8 K base temperature, stable operation under beam, and a 10 W heat-load test held at 0.9 K---is the evidence that the projected production rate can actually be sustained.

What would settle it

Cool and fill the source through the designed condensation route after purifying the helium, irradiate for about 60 seconds, and count neutrons: the model predicts roughly $10^4$ UCN per $\mu$A once the UCN density saturates. A clean run that still shows no signal above background would falsify the production estimate, as would a measured rate far below $1.4\times 10^7$ UCN/s after the liquid-deuterium cryostat is installed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spallation-driven superfluid-helium approach to ultracold neutron production has reached working scale: the cryostat described here can hold the He-II production volume near 1 K while removing the heat deposited by a 40 µA proton beam, and the measured heat removal matches the Monte Carlo simulation within 10 percent. On that basis the authors argue that the completed source, once a liquid-deuterium moderator cryostat is installed, will produce $1.4\times 10^7$ UCN/s, load $1.38\times 10^7$ UCNs into the measurement cells, and reach a statistical EDM sensitivity of $10^{-27}$ e cm after 280 days of running. They do not yet claim to have detected ultracold neutrons; the first beam run gave no conclusive signal, attributed to frozen air or water on the inner surfaces of the helium volume, and removing that contamination is presented as the immediate next step.

Load-bearing premise

The projected ultracold-neutron output assumes the 27-liter helium volume can be kept free of frozen air and water; the first beam run produced no detectable ultracold neutrons, which the authors attribute to contamination, and the factor-of-thirty boost from the liquid-deuterium cryostat has not yet been installed or tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the liquid-deuterium moderator installed, the source is projected to produce $1.4\times 10^7$ UCN/s, more than two orders of magnitude above the previous vertical prototype, so UCN statistics would no longer be the limiting factor for the EDM measurement.
  • The projected statistical sensitivity of $\sigma(d_n) = 10^{-27}$ e cm in 280 days of running is a factor of ten better than the current world limit.
  • The 10 W heat-load margin covers the 8.1 W beam heating expected at 40 µA, so the source can run at full design current without exceeding the cooling capacity.
  • The measured beam-heat-load curve, matching simulation within 10 percent, validates the Monte Carlo model used to project the UCN production rate.
  • If the contamination is cleared by the planned helium purification, the next beam run should produce the first direct UCN detection from the new source, testing the production model at the base configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's projections imply that even without the liquid-deuterium cryostat, the clean source should already produce roughly one-thirtieth of the final rate, so a UCN detection in the current configuration would be a meaningful test of the simulation rather than just a go/no-go milestone.
  • If the frozen-contaminant diagnosis is correct, the same contamination route---filling through the recovery line after a clog---can be avoided in any future superfluid-helium UCN source, making a purified-condensation filling procedure an operational requirement for the whole class of sources.
  • The demonstrated margin above the 8.1 W projected load suggests the source might tolerate higher beam current or longer fill cycles than the 40 µA design point, although the paper does not quantify this headroom.
  • The '280 days' figure is running time under stated conservative assumptions about available hours, not necessarily wall-clock time to the first physics result; commissioning, downtime, and the laboratory shutdown schedule would extend the calendar duration.
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. This paper describes the design and cryogenic commissioning of the superfluid-helium ultracold neutron (UCN) source for the TUCAN neutron electric dipole moment (nEDM) experiment. The authors report successful cooling to 0.8 K, filling with superfluid 4He, measured beam heat loads consistent with MCNP simulations within 10%, and successful 10 W heat-load tests. The paper also presents a simulation-based projection of 1.4×10^7 UCN/s at 40 µA proton beam, which underpins the projected σ(d_n)=10^-27 ecm sensitivity. The first beam run saw no conclusive UCN signal, attributed by the authors to frozen contaminants, and the liquid-deuterium cryostat that would boost production by a factor of 30 is not yet installed. The paper is transparent about these limitations but presents the projected rate as the expected source performance without quantitative support for the null result.

Significance. The cryogenic commissioning results are valuable engineering milestones for a unique spallation-driven superfluid helium UCN source. The measured agreement of beam heat load with MCNP within 10% and the successful 10 W heat-load test provide concrete evidence that the cooling system can meet the design requirements. However, the paper's central quantitative claims—the 1.4×10^7 UCN/s production rate and the resulting 10^-27 ecm sensitivity—are simulation-based projections that remain unvalidated: the only beam run to date found no UCNs, and the LD2 cryostat needed for the full rate is not yet installed. The paper reports these facts openly, which is commendable, but it does not quantify the null result or its impact on the projected sensitivity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Abstract] The headline numbers—1.4×10^7 UCN/s and the resulting σ(d_n)=10^-27 ecm—are simulation-based projections that depend on two unverified conditions: clean superfluid helium and the liquid-deuterium cryostat. Section 4 reports no conclusive UCN detection in the first beam run, and Section 5 states the LD2 cryostat is not yet installed, so both conditions remain unconfirmed. The paper should explicitly label these numbers as design projections in the abstract and Section 3, and should state the expected production rate and achievable sensitivity for the current He-II-only configuration (without LD2) so the reader can distinguish measured from projected performance.
  2. [Section 4] The explanation for the null UCN detection—air or water frozen on the inner surfaces of the 4He volume—is plausible but not quantitatively supported. The paper provides no upper limit on the UCN count, no measurement of contaminant levels, and no loss model to substantiate the attribution. Without such an analysis, the reader cannot distinguish a contamination problem (which purification would fix) from a production or transport shortfall (which would invalidate the projected rate). The authors should include an upper limit on the UCN detection rate from the beam run or a quantitative contamination-loss estimate.
  3. [Section 5] The factor-of-30 boost from the LD2 cryostat is a critical assumption for the projected 1.4×10^7 UCN/s rate, but the paper does not state whether the quoted rate includes this boost. If it does, the current source (without LD2) would be expected to produce roughly 5×10^5 UCN/s, and the projected EDM sensitivity would degrade correspondingly. This should be stated explicitly in Section 5 (and ideally in Section 3) so that the present status of the source is not overstated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence "The production rate in the source is expected to be in excess of 10^7 UCN/s" should be reworded to "projected by simulation" or "simulation indicates," to distinguish estimated performance from measured performance.
  2. [Section 4] The phrase "above the larger background in this region" is vague; the authors should specify the measured background count rate and the expected UCN signal size to allow quantitative assessment of the null result.
  3. [Figure 4] The figure would benefit from error bars on the data points and a statement of the statistical and systematic uncertainties contributing to the claimed 10% agreement with MCNP.
  4. [Section 5] The statement "This is scheduled for spring 2025" appears outdated given the paper's June 2025 submission date; the authors should update the LD2 installation status to the actual current date.
  5. [References] Reference [15] is listed as "these proceedings" and is incomplete; it should be updated with full author, title, and publication information if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the projected UCN rate and nEDM sensitivity are simulation-based estimates, not fits to the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are presented as simulation-based projections, not as quantities derived from the same data they are meant to predict. The 1.4e7 UCN/s rate and 8.1 W beam heating are attributed to MCNP, a UCN production model, and PENTrack transport simulations (Refs. 23, 27-30), with the sensitivity projection inherited from Ref. 27. No parameter in this paper is fitted to make the projected nEDM uncertainty come out to 1e-27 ecm. The measured beam heat load is independently compared with MCNP expectations and agrees within 10%, providing an external benchmark that is not constructed from the claimed UCN rate. The absence of conclusive UCN detection in Section 4 is a validation gap, explicitly acknowledged and attributed to suspected contamination, but it does not make any derivation circular. Self-citations to prior collaboration modeling are present, but they are normal references to detailed simulation work with stated assumptions, not a self-citation chain that forces the conclusion. No equation or definition in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction. The paper is transparent about unverified milestones such as the LD2 cryostat and first UCN detection, and those concerns belong to validation risk rather than circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or postulated entities. Its claims rest on established simulation tools (MCNP, PENTrack) and on the as-yet-uninstalled LD2 cryostat. The first experimental run did not detect UCNs, so the key production assumptions remain unvalidated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Superfluid 4He at about 1 K downscatters cold neutrons into ultracold neutrons via phonon emission.
    This is the physical basis of the source, introduced in the abstract and Section 1, and used in Section 3 with the production model of Ref. [29].
  • domain assumption The MCNP model of the spallation target, moderators, and reflectors correctly predicts neutron flux and beam heating.
    Used in Section 3 to compute the 1.4e7 UCN/s rate and 8.1 W heating; Section 4 claims agreement with beam heat-load measurements within 10 percent.
  • domain assumption The liquid deuterium cryostat, not yet installed, will increase UCN production by a factor of 30 as modeled.
    Section 5 states the LD2 cryostat is needed to boost UCN production by a factor of 30 and is scheduled for spring 2025; the headline projected rate depends on this component.
  • domain assumption UCN transport and loss calculations using PENTrack (Ref. [30]) correctly describe delivery to the EDM cells.
    Used in Section 3 to convert source production rate into the UCN number loaded into EDM cells (1.38e7 UCN) for the sensitivity projection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cryogenic systems for the TUCAN EDM experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WE5GQBHR

@misc{pith2026250609064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cryogenic systems for the TUCAN EDM experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WE5GQBHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09064}
}
abstract

The TUCAN (TRIUMF UltraCold Advanced Neutron) Collaboration is completing a new ultracold neutron (UCN) source. The UCN source will deliver UCNs to a neutron electric dipole moment (EDM) experiment. The EDM experiment is projected to be capable of an uncertainty of $1\times 10^{-27}~e$cm, competitive with other planned projects, and a factor of ten more precise than the present world's best. The TUCAN source is based on a UCN production volume of superfluid helium (He-II), held at 1~K, and coupled to a proton-driven spallation target. The production rate in the source is expected to be in excess of $10^7$~UCN/s; since UCN losses can be small in superfluid helium, this should allow us to build up a large number of UCNs. The spallation-driven superfluid helium technology is the principal aspect making the TUCAN project unique. The superfluid production volume was recently cooled, for the first time, and successfully filled with superfluid helium. The design principles of the UCN source are described, along with some of the challenging cryogenic milestones that were recently passed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09064 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UCN source and EDM spectrometer for the TUCAN project. UCN exiting the source are polarized by a superconducting magnet and pass through UCN guides to reach the EDM experiment located within the MSR. UCN spins precess in dual EDM measurement cells with a holding field pro￾vided by a B0 coil and electric field provided by a central HV electrode. UCN spin analyzers sense the neutron spins at the end of each cycle. The… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overhead view of the UCN source facility (April 2024). Lines display the underlying proton beam path (red) and sketch the existing and planned UCN guide paths (blue). We completed detailed estimates for UCN production and extraction [23, 27, 28] based on a Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) model of the source, a model of UCN production based on Ref. [29], and UCN transport simulations based on Ref. [30] including losses… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The recently completed UCN source. Neutrons are liberated by proton-induced spallation at 480 MeV and 40 µA in a target located beneath the He-II, LD2, and D2O volumes. Neutrons are re￾flected and moderated in surrounding materials then enter superfluid 4He (He-II) where they are down￾scattered to become UCNs. UCNs created in the He-II are transported out through the heat exchanger passing through the superconductin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Measurement of heat removed by 3He pumping as a function of beam current delivered to the spallation target, at a 3He temperature of 0.9 K; r is the fraction of liquid 3He remaining after Joule￾Thomson expansion. 5 Future Plans and Conclusion The TUCAN project has made…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature of the 3He in the 3He-4He copper heat exchanger, as a function of time during the application of 10 W of heat. Blue points and left axis: 3He temperature. Orange points and right axis: Joule-Thomson needle valve setting. The 3He temperature rapidly reduces …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, “Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,” Ann. Phys.318119-169 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2005.04.002

    doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.04.002 2005

  2. [2]

    Electric dipole moments of nuclei, nu- cleons, and atoms,

    J. Engel, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, U. van Kolck, “Electric dipole moments of nuclei, nu- cleons, and atoms,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71, 21 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp. 2013.03.003

    doi:10.1016/j.ppnp 2013

  3. [3]

    Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles,

    T. E. Chupp,et al., “Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles,” Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015001 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.015001 2019

  4. [4]

    Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron,

    C. Abel,et al., “Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 081803 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.081803

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.081803 2020

  5. [5]

    CP Violation in Higgs-Gauge Interactions: From Tabletop Ex- periments to the LHC,

    V . Cirigliano,et al., “CP Violation in Higgs-Gauge Interactions: From Tabletop Ex- periments to the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 051801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.123.051801

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Correlating tauonic B decays with the neutron electric dipole moment via a scalar leptoquark,

    A. Crivellin and F. Saturnino, “Correlating tauonic B decays with the neutron electric dipole moment via a scalar leptoquark,” Phys. Rev. D100, 115014 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.115014 2019

  7. [7]

    Electric dipole moments from postsphaleron baryogenesis,

    N. F. Bell,et al., “Electric dipole moments from postsphaleron baryogenesis,” Phys. Rev. D99, 015034 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.015034

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.015034 2019

  8. [8]

    Discovery prospects for electron and neu- tron electric dipole moments in the general two Higgs doublet model

    W.-S. Hou, G. Kumar, and S. Teunissen, “Discovery prospects for electron and neu- tron electric dipole moments in the general two Higgs doublet model” Phys. Rev. D109, L011703 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L011703

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.l011703 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    νsolution to the strong CP problem,

    M. Carena,et al., “νsolution to the strong CP problem,” Phys. Rev. D100, 094018 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.094018

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Grand unified parity solution to the strong CP problem,

    Y . Mimura, R. N. Mohapatra, and M. Severson, “Grand unified parity solution to the strong CP problem,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 115025 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 99.115025

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Axionless strong CP problem solution: the spontaneous CP violation case,

    R. Ferro-Hernandez, S. Morisi, and E. Peinado, “Axionless strong CP problem solution: the spontaneous CP violation case,” arXiv:2407.18161 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2407.18161

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Search for Axionlike Dark Matter through Nuclear Spin Precession in Electric and Magnetic Fields,

    C. Abelet al., “Search for Axionlike Dark Matter through Nuclear Spin Precession in Electric and Magnetic Fields,” Phys. Rev. X7, 041034 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevX.7.041034

    2017

  5. [13]

    The PanEDM Neutron Electric Dipole Moment Experiment,

    D. Wurmet al., “The PanEDM Neutron Electric Dipole Moment Experiment,” EPJ Web Conf.219, 02006 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201921902006

    2019

  6. [14]

    The design of the n2EDM experiment,

    N.J. Ayreset al., “The design of the n2EDM experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C81, 512 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09298-z

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Alarcon, these proceedings

    R. Alarcon, these proceedings

  8. [16]

    Characterization of the new Ultracold Neutron beamline at the LANL UCN facility,

    D. K.-T. Wong,et al., “Characterization of the new Ultracold Neutron beamline at the LANL UCN facility,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1050, 168105 (2023). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.nima.2023.168105

    2023

  9. [17]

    The TRIUMF UltraCold Advanced Neutron Source,

    J. W. Martin,et al., “The TRIUMF UltraCold Advanced Neutron Source,” Nucl. Phys. News31, 19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/10619127.2021.1881367

    2021

  10. [18]

    Spallation Ultracold-Neutron Production in Superfluid Helium,

    Y . Masudaet al., “Spallation Ultracold-Neutron Production in Superfluid Helium,” Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 284801 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.284801

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    Spallation Ultracold Neutron Source of Superfluid Helium below 1 K,

    Y . Masudaet al., “Spallation Ultracold Neutron Source of Superfluid Helium below 1 K,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 134801 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.134801

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    A beamline for fundamental neutron physics at TRIUMF,

    S. Ahmedet al.(TUCAN Collaboration), “A beamline for fundamental neutron physics at TRIUMF,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A927, 101 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima. 2019.01.074

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Fast-switching magnet serving a spallation- driven ultracold neutron source,

    S. Ahmedet al.(TUCAN Collaboration), “Fast-switching magnet serving a spallation- driven ultracold neutron source,” Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams22, 102401 (2019). https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.22.102401

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    First ultracold neutrons produced at TRI- UMF,

    S. Ahmedet al.(TUCAN Collaboration), “First ultracold neutrons produced at TRI- UMF,” Phys. Rev. C 99, 025503 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.025503

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Optimizing neutron moderators for a spallation-driven ultracold- neutron source at TRIUMF,

    W. Schreyeret al., “Optimizing neutron moderators for a spallation-driven ultracold- neutron source at TRIUMF,” Nucl. Instrum Meth. A959163525 (2020). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nima.2020.163525

    2020

  16. [24]

    Modeling He-II cryostat performance and characterization of spin manipulation components for a neutron electric dipole moment experiment at TRIUMF,

    S. Hansen-Romu, “Modeling He-II cryostat performance and characterization of spin manipulation components for a neutron electric dipole moment experiment at TRIUMF,” PhD thesis, U. Manitoba (2023). https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/items/ f834c696-740c-4bcb-ac48-ea7222b596a4

    2023

  17. [25]

    Development of a Helium-3 Cryostat for a Ultra-Cold Neutron Source,

    S. Kawasaki et al., “Development of a Helium-3 Cryostat for a Ultra-Cold Neutron Source,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 755, 012140 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1757-899X/755/1/012140

    2020

  18. [26]

    Thermo-fluid analyses for UCN cryogenic system,

    T. Okamura et al., “Thermo-fluid analyses for UCN cryogenic system,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 755, 012141 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/755/1/012141

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Estimated performance of the TRIUMF ultracold neutron source and electric dipole moment apparatus,

    S. Sidhu,et al., “Estimated performance of the TRIUMF ultracold neutron source and electric dipole moment apparatus,” EPJ Web of Conf.282, 01015 (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1051/epjconf/202328201015

    2023

  20. [28]

    Improving the statistical sensitivity reach of the TUCAN neutron electric dipole moment experiment,

    S. Sidhu, “Improving the statistical sensitivity reach of the TUCAN neutron electric dipole moment experiment,” PhD thesis, Simon Fraser U. (2024). https://summit.sfu.ca/ item/36485

    2024

  21. [29]

    Production of UCN by downscattering in superfluid He-4,

    E. Korobkina, R. Golub, B.W. Wehring, and A.R. Young, “Production of UCN by downscattering in superfluid He-4,” Phys. Lett. A301462 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0375-9601(02)01052-6

    2002

  22. [30]

    PENTrack—a simulation tool for ultracold neutrons, protons, and electrons in complex electromagnetic fields and geometries,

    W. Schreyer,et al., “PENTrack—a simulation tool for ultracold neutrons, protons, and electrons in complex electromagnetic fields and geometries,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A858, 123 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2017.03.036

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.