Rapid all-optical loading of trapped ions using a miniaturised atom source

Arjun D. Rao; Catherine E. J. Challoner; Jacob A. Blackmore; Joseph F. Goodwin; Laurent J. Stephenson; Lorenzo Versini; Peter Drmota; Thomas H. Doherty; Thomas Hinde; Tim F. Wohlers-Reichel

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Rapid all-optical loading of trapped ions using a miniaturised atom source

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A laser-heated micro-oven can load trapped ions in under 30 seconds, using only 41 mW of optical power, and reach 24 ions per second below 85 mW.

desk verdict Genuine engineering advance with credible direct loading-rate data, but the thermal model's absolute scale hangs on an unreported collimator transmittance p_t (likely the Clausing factor, ~0.01-0.05), so the temperature, radiative-loss, and ionization-probability numbers need revision before they can be trusted quantitatively. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.10514 v2 pith:YMIE5CKQ submitted 2025-12-11 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Lorenzo Versini , Tim F. Wohlers-Reichel , Catherine E. J. Challoner , Thomas Hinde , Arjun D. Rao , William J. Hughes , Peter Drmota , Thomas H. Doherty

show 3 more authors

Laurent J. Stephenson Jacob A. Blackmore Joseph F. Goodwin

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phquant-ph PACS 37.10.Ty32.80.Fb

keywords iontraploadingopticallyheatedovencalciumatomicbeammicro-fabricatedcollimatorphoto-ionisationthermalmodelradiativelossesPaul

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

The paper tries to establish that a miniature atom source heated only by laser light, with a built-in collimator, can load calcium ions into a room-temperature Paul trap quickly and with very little heat dissipation. It reports loading rates up to 24 ions per second at under 85 mW of heating power, and a single ion in under 30 seconds at 41 mW. The authors calibrate an internal thermal model by imaging the fluorescence of the neutral beam, and conclude that the oven's performance is limited mainly by radiative losses. If correct, this offers a lower-heat, all-optical alternative to resistively heated ovens for reloading ion traps.

What carries the argument

The key object is a fused-silica oven shaped by selective laser etching, coated with a titanium/gold stack to reduce thermal emissivity, and built from a rear aperture for 785 nm heating light, a crucible holding calcium, and a high-aspect-ratio collimator that narrows the atomic beam. The collimator is what turns an effusive source into a localised, low-divergence beam that can be directed through the trap region. The supporting mechanism is a two-parameter thermal model (conductive and radiative loss coefficients) fitted to fluorescence-inferred temperatures; this model is then used to predict densities at lower heating powers and to extrapolate to other metals.

What would settle it

Measure the crucible temperature independently, for example with a pyrometer viewing the oven interior or a thermocouple attached to the crucible, and compare it to the temperatures inferred from Eq. (7); a disagreement beyond uncertainty would mean the collimator transmittance or the effusive velocity model is wrong. Alternatively, measure the angular distribution of the neutral beam and test it against the Gaussian density profile assumed in Eq. (4).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a microfabricated, optically heated oven with an integrated high-aspect-ratio collimator produces a collimated neutral calcium beam dense enough to load a Paul trap rapidly, while dissipating less than 85 mW of heat. By imaging resonant fluorescence at 423 nm and fitting a thermal model, they infer crucible temperatures around 500-600 K and identify radiative loss as the dominant heat-loss channel. The measured loading rates, from 2.7e-3 per second at 37 mW to 24 per second at 85 mW, combined with the linear dependence on second-stage photo-ionisation power, lead to an ionisation probability of 1.50(5)e-5 per atom in the interaction region. The authors argue the sam

Load-bearing premise

The collimator transmittance p_t, which enters the temperature calibration inversely in Eq. (7), is never given a numerical value, so the absolute temperatures and the conclusion that radiative losses dominate shift if p_t is not close to unity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Loading rates up to 24 per second are high enough for continuous error-correction cycles in ion-based quantum processors, as the authors note, with minimal heat load.
Increasing the second-stage photo-ionisation laser intensity toward 10^4 W/cm^2 could raise the ionisation probability toward unity and multiply loading rates by more than 50,000.
Continuous low-power oven operation paired with a high-intensity pulsed ionisation laser could load ions in under 1 ms, enabling on-demand replacement without turn-on latency.
The low heat dissipation and localised beam suit cryogenic and high-stability experiments, where resistive ovens cause thermal drift.
Metals with higher vapour pressure at 500 K (magnesium, strontium, ytterbium) and with modestly increased power (barium, beryllium, aluminium, lutetium) should be loadable with the same design.

Reading between the lines

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

The inferred crucible temperature scales inversely with the collimator transmittance p_t, whose numerical value is never quoted; if p_t is significantly below unity, the absolute temperatures and the radiative-loss-limited conclusion would shift.
The assumption that the thermal velocity distribution survives passage through the rough-walled microchannels of the collimator (Appendix A) is unverified; a different velocity distribution would change the density-to-flux conversion and the ionisation probability.
A direct measurement of the neutral beam's angular profile or an independent pyrometric temperature reading would test the thermal model without relying on the fluorescence-to-density conversion.
The ionisation probability of 1.5e-5 is low, so the practical ceiling on loading rate may be set by available UV laser power rather than by the oven's output.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the device is real and the headline loading rates are direct measurements you can trust. The quantitative thermal story has a specific hole — the collimator transmittance p_t in Eq. 7 is introduced but never assigned a value, and for this geometry it is almost certainly the Clausing factor, an order of magnitude or more below 1. That under-specifies the absolute temperature scale, and everything derived from it inherits the problem.

What's new and good: this is a genuine step beyond the group's earlier laser-heated oven (Ref 22: >300 mW, uncollimated). The microfabricated fused-silica design, thermal isolation, and integrated high-aspect-ratio collimator work — 24(3) s^-1 loading below 85 mW, a single ion in under 30 s at 41.4 mW, with a plausible ionization probability. The loading-rate measurements are well executed: clean pulse scheme, linear fits, rates spanning four orders of magnitude. The fluorescence imaging yields a spatial profile (sigma_a ~ 109 um) that confirms the collimation and underpins the loadable-fraction claim. The thermal model is presented honestly; the authors openly state that alpha_c/epsilon and alpha_r/epsilon are correlated and that the coupling efficiency epsilon is folded into both.

The soft spots, in proportion. The p_t issue dominates. Appendix B defines p_t as the transmission probability; no value appears anywhere. The measured beam width implies a collimator length of roughly 2-3 mm at 25-um radius, so the Clausing factor is ~0.01-0.05. At p_t ~ 0.02, the required internal flux is ~50x larger and the inferred crucible temperatures move up by tens of kelvin. The radiative-loss-limited conclusion probably survives that shift — hotter temperatures make the T^4 term more dominant — but the fitted coefficients, the ~500 K figure at 42 mW, and the extrapolation to other metals all change. So does q = 1.50(5)x10^-5, whose 3% error bar reflects only the regression statistics, not the model systematics. Two minor items: the Appendix A detuning calibration fixes T ~ 550 K when setting delta_max and is then used to infer T near that value — mildly circular, but the effect is small — and the effusive velocity distribution (Eq. A12) is assumed through a rough-walled microchannel, an assumption the authors flag but don't justify.

This paper is for experimental ion-trap groups, especially those building cryogenic or compact systems where heat load is a constraint. The engineering contribution is citable now. The quantitative model claims need a revision that states p_t — computed or measured — and propagates it into the temperature and q uncertainties. Send it to referees; a competent referee will ask exactly these questions, and the authors can answer them.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a micro-fabricated, optically heated calcium oven with an integrated high-aspect-ratio collimator and demonstrates its use for loading 40Ca+ ions into a room-temperature Paul trap. The neutral beam is characterised by 423-nm fluorescence imaging; from the measured peak density the authors infer the crucible temperature using Eq. (7) and fit a thermal balance model (Eq. (8)) to obtain conductive and radiative loss coefficients. Ion loading rates are measured versus heating power, up to 24(3) s^-1 below 85 mW, and single-ion loading in under 30 s at 41.4(4) mW. The authors extract a second-stage photo-ionisation probability q = 1.50(5)x10^-5, show a linear dependence on 375-nm laser power, and extrapolate the source to other metals. The central engineering result is the combination of low optical heating power, collimated flux, and rapid loading.

Significance. The direct loading-rate measurements are the strongest part: they are straightforward, reproducible quantities and demonstrate a genuine practical improvement over resistively heated ovens in heat load and collimation. The manuscript also benefits from a detailed description of the imaging and photon-counting calibrations. However, the quantitative thermal analysis—crucible temperatures, loss coefficients, the 'radiative-loss-limited' claim, the ionisation probability q, and the extrapolation to other species—is built on Eq. (7), which contains the collimator transmittance p_t, a quantity that is never measured, computed, or fitted. This is not a cosmetic omission: p_t is a Clausing factor for a high-aspect-ratio collimator and is expected to be considerably less than unity. Without p_t the absolute temperature scale is underdetermined and every derived number inherits a systematic uncertainty that is absent from the quoted error bars. The paper's conclusions are therefore conditionally significant: the engineering demonstration is solid, but the quantitative claims need revision.

major comments (3)

[§II C, Eq. (7), Appendix B] The collimator transmittance p_t is introduced in Eq. (7) and used to convert measured peak density n_peak into crucible temperature T. No numerical value, measurement, or calculation of p_t is given anywhere in the manuscript, and p_t is not included in the bootstrap uncertainty of the thermal fit. Since p_t enters Eq. (7) as a divisor, the inferred P(T)/k_B T scale is directly proportional to 1/p_t. For the high-aspect-ratio collimator used here, p_t is a Clausing factor; with the stated aperture radius of 25 µm and the measured beam width σ_a ≈ 109 µm at d ≈ 10 mm, a collimator length of even 2–3 mm gives p_t of order 0.01–0.05. Use of p_t = 1 would bias all temperatures low by tens of kelvin. This shifts the fitted α_c/ε and α_r/ε in Eq. (8), changes the 'radiative-loss-limited' conclusion, alters the density model used in §III D, and therefore changes q = 1.50(5)x10^-5 as well as th
[Appendix A, Eqs. (A13)–(A14)] The Doppler-broadened excitation probability P_T(s;δ) is evaluated at δ_max = -(2π)23.6 MHz, which was set experimentally to maximize fluorescence 'while the oven operated around an approximate temperature of T = 550 K'. But T is itself inferred later from Eq. (7) using this same P_T. If the true temperature at calibration differs from 550 K — for example because p_t is not unity, or because the heating power used during calibration corresponds to a different T — the fluorescence-to-density conversion is systematically biased. This is a partially self-referential calibration. Please provide an independent calibration of δ_max (e.g., a direct spectroscopy measurement with a known beam temperature) or a sensitivity analysis showing that the inferred T and q are stable under a ±50 K variation in the assumed calibration temperature.
[§III B–D, Eq. (9)] The statement that the loading-rate data 'validate' the thermal model at low heating powers is stronger than the analysis supports. The ionisation probability q is obtained by regressing loading rates on number densities predicted by the same thermal model that was fitted to the fluorescence-derived temperatures. The agreement in Fig. 4(a) is therefore a consistency check of the functional form, not an independent validation of the absolute density scale. Moreover, the uncertainty quoted for q = 1.50(5)x10^-5 is statistical and does not include uncertainties in p_t, the detuning calibration, the thermal-model coefficients, or the beam-width σ_a. Please report q with a full systematic error budget, or reframe the claim as a consistency check.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix B] The transmittance is denoted p_T in one sentence and p_t in Eq. (B10); the manuscript should use a single symbol. Also 'surface are' should be 'surface area'.
[Figure 3(c)] The inset axis labels appear garbled ('c/ (10^5 W/K)' and 'r/ (10^5 m2)'); they presumably refer to α_c/ε and α_r/ε. Please correct the typesetting.
[Eq. (9)] The variables l, w, and t are defined only loosely in the text; please define each explicitly and check dimensions (e.g., l w^2/t has units of volume rate).
[§II C, Eq. (4)] The symbol σ_a is used for the Gaussian width of the atomic beam; later the measured value is quoted as σ_a = 109(8) µm. Clarify whether this is the 1/e half-width or the standard deviation, and keep terminology consistent with the 2D Gaussian fit in Fig. 2.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Two calibration steps are partially self-referential: the thermal-model n_peak curve is an in-sample refit of the same data used to obtain the temperatures, and the fluorescence conversion uses a detuning fixed by the assumed 550 K oven temperature; however, the ion-loading results are directly measured and cross-validated at low power.

fitted input called prediction [Section II.C, Eq. (7) and Figure 3 caption]
"The thermal model obtained from data shown in (c) is used to predict n peak in (b)."

Temperatures in Fig. 3(c) are obtained from n_peak in Fig. 3(b) via Eq. (7), which relates P(T)/(k_B T) to n_peak. Equation (8) is then fitted to those same temperatures, and the caption states that the resulting model is used to 'predict' n_peak in (b). Because the same n_peak measurements enter both the fit and the 'prediction', the agreement is an in-sample reproduction, not an independent prediction. The model curve is statistically forced by the very data it is displayed against. The only genuinely independent validation appears later in Sec. III, where low-power loading-rate data are compared with the model and show agreement.
self definitional [Appendix A, after Eq. (A13)]
"The laser detuning δ was experimentally set to maximise the fluoresce signal while probing the atoms with s≈1, while the oven operated around an approximate temperature of T=550 K. Following from (A13), this corresponds to a detuning of δ_max =−(2π)23.6 MHz from resonance."

Equation (A13) defines P_T(s;δ) as an ensemble average over p(v;T), so the fluorescence conversion depends on the assumed temperature. The paper fixes δ_max by assuming T≈550 K and then uses P_T(s)=P_T(s;δ_max) in Eqs. (3) and (7) to infer n_peak and hence the crucible temperature. The inferred temperature is therefore not independent of the assumed 550 K; the chosen detuning biases the measured temperature toward that assumption. This is a self-definitional element in the temperature calibration, though it is partly mitigated by the later independent loading-rate comparison at low heating powers.

full rationale

The headline ion-loading claims are not forced by a self-citation chain or by definition: loading rates up to 24(3) s^-1 are directly measured, and the ionisation probability q=1.50(5)×10^-5 is a fitted conversion between measured loading rates and thermal-model densities, with the low-power loading-rate data providing a genuine cross-check of the thermal model outside the fluorescence-measurement range. The extrapolations to other metals use external vapour-pressure data and the fitted thermal parameters, so they are not circular. Two calibration steps are, however, partially self-referential: (i) the thermal model's 'prediction' of n_peak in Fig. 3(b) is an in-sample reconstruction of the same data used to fit the model, not an out-of-sample prediction; and (ii) the fluorescence-to-density conversion is calibrated using a detuning chosen from an assumed 550 K oven temperature, biasing the inferred temperatures toward that assumption. The unquantified collimator transmittance p_t in Eq. (7) is a serious underdetermination and correctness risk, but it is not itself a circularity: it shifts the absolute temperature scale and derived quantities without creating a closed logical loop. Overall the central claim retains independent experimental content, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate rather than a higher score.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; the oven is an engineered structure. The central quantitative claims rest on fitted loss coefficients, an unstated collimator transmittance, and literature vapour-pressure data.

free parameters (5)

collimator transmittance p_t = not stated (implicitly used)
Eq (7)/Appendix B leaves p_t symbolic; temperature inference scales as 1/p_t, so the entire temperature axis depends on an unstated value.
radiative loss coefficient α_r/ε = 1.2(1)×10^-5 m²
Fitted to fluorescence-derived temperature vs heating power (Eq 8, Fig 3c).
conductive loss coefficient α_c/ε = 4(3)×10^-5 W/K
Fitted; the paper states it could not be well established due to correlation with α_r/ε (Fig 3c inset).
ionisation probability q = 1.50(5)×10^-5
Fitted via orthogonal distance regression between loading rate and model density (Section III D, Eq 9).
transverse beam width σ_a = 109(8) µm
Fitted by combining camera and PMT data (Eq 5, Section II C).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Effusive thermal velocity distribution p(v;T) ∝ v³ exp(-mv²/2kBT) is preserved through the collimator (elastic wall collisions).
Appendix A Eq A12 and Appendix B; if wall collisions are inelastic, the flux/density relations shift.
domain assumption Crucible temperature T determines vapour pressure via the Alcock et al. formula [29].
Eq B11; external vapour pressure data applied to infer T.
domain assumption Fluorescence detection is modelled by a Lindblad master equation with rotating wave approximation, with detuning set assuming T≈550K.
Appendix A, Eq A13-A14; used to convert C_max to density, and it biases inferred temperatures toward 550K.
domain assumption Trap depth ~1 eV is much larger than neutral kinetic energies, so loading rate is limited only by ionisation probability and not by cooling dynamics.
Section III D; used to derive Eq 9 and interpret q.
domain assumption The atomic density is uniform over the narrow laser waist and Gaussian in the transverse plane (Eq 4).
Section II C; used to convert integrated PMT counts to flux.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid all-optical loading of trapped ions using a miniaturised atom source." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMIE5CKQ

@misc{pith2026251210514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid all-optical loading of trapped ions using a miniaturised atom source},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMIE5CKQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.10514}
}

abstract

We characterise an efficient optically-heated neutral atom source for ion trapping. We observe loading rates of up to $24(3)\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ with heating powers below $85\,\mathrm{mW}$, and demonstrate loading of a single ion in under $30\,\mathrm{s}$ with $41.4(4)\,\mathrm{mW}$ of optical power in a room-temperature ion trap system with an ionisation probability of $1.50(5)\times10^{-5}$. We calibrate a thermal model for the source's internal temperature by imaging the fluorescence of a collimated flux of neutral calcium that effuses from the oven at various optical heating powers. We show that the thermal performance of this oven is mainly limited by radiative losses. We explore the effect of second-stage photo-ionisation laser power on the loading rate, and identify a path beyond the loading rates reported in this study. We predict that this source is also well-suited to a wide range of metals used in ion-trapping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.10514 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Simplified experimental setup (a) Construction of the oven. Shown schematically are: i, the aperture for input heating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. A false-colour image of resonant fluorescence from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Determination of the oven’s thermal performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Loading rate comparison to number density and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagrammatic representation of the atomic flux com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 220501 (2014)

2014
[2]

C. R. Clark, H. N. Tinkey, B. C. Sawyer, A. M. Meier, K. A. Burkhardt, C. M. Seck, C. M. Shappert, N. D. Guise, C. E. Volin, S. D. Fallek, H. T. Hayden, W. G. Rel- lergert, and K. R. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 130505 (2021)

2021
[3]

A. C. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. M. L¨ oschnauer, H. M. Knaack, R. Matt, C. J. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. P. Harty, and R. T. Sutherland, Pre-print (2025), arXiv:2510.17286 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025
[4]

Srinivas, S

R. Srinivas, S. C. Burd, H. M. Knaack, R. T. Sutherland, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Glancy, E. Knill, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, A. C. Wilson, D. T. C. Allcock, and D. H. Slichter, Nature597, 209 (2021)

2021
[5]

A. D. Leu, M. F. Gely, M. A. Weber, M. C. Smith, D. P. Nadlinger, and D. M. Lucas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 120601 (2023)

2023
[6]

Hempel, C

C. Hempel, C. Maier, J. Romero, J. McClean, T. Monz, 8 H. Shen, P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Love, R. Babbush, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Phys. Rev. X8, 031022 (2018)

2018
[7]

R. J. MacDonell, T. Navickas, T. F. Wohlers-Reichel, C. H. Valahu, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, M. A. Curring- ton, M. J. Biercuk, T. R. Tan, C. Hempel, and I. Kassal, Chem. Sci.14, 9439 (2023)

2023
[8]

Navickas, R

T. Navickas, R. J. MacDonell, C. H. Valahu, V. C. Olaya- Agudelo, F. Scuccimarra, M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, H. L. Nourse, A. D. Rao, M. J. Biercuk, C. Hempel, I. Kassal, and T. R. Tan, J. Am. Chem. Soc.147, 23566 (2025)

2025

Show all 35 references

[9]

Saner, O

S. Saner, O. B˘ az˘ avan, D. J. Webb, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, and A. Berm´ udez, Pre-print (2025), arXiv:2507.19588 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[10]

C. H. Valahu, M. P. Stafford, Z. Huang, V. G. Matsos, M. J. Millican, T. Chalermpusitarak, N. C. Menicucci, J. Combes, B. Q. Baragiola, and T. R. Tan, Science Advances11, eadw9757 (2025)

2025
[11]

B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, D. Main, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas, Nature609, 689 (2022)

2022
[12]

Kozlov, M

M. Kozlov, M. Safronova, J. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. Schmidt, Reviews of Modern Physics90(2018)

2018
[13]

T. S. Roussy, D. A. Palken, W. B. Cairncross, B. M. Brubaker, D. N. Gresh, M. Grau, K. C. Cossel, K. B. Ng, Y. Shagam, Y. Zhou, V. V. Flambaum, K. W. Lehnert, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Physical Review Letters126 (2021)

2021
[14]

D. M. Lucas, A. Ramos, J. P. Home, M. J. McDonnell, S. Nakayama, J.-P. Stacey, S. C. Webster, D. N. Stacey, and A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. A69, 012711 (2004)

2004
[15]

T. G. Ballance, J. F. Goodwin, B. Nichol, L. J. Stephen- son, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas, Review of Scientific Instruments89, 053102 (2018)

2018
[16]

B. M. White, P. J. Low, Y. de Sereville, M. L. Day, N. Greenberg, R. Rademacher, and C. Senko, Phys. Rev. A105, 033102 (2022)

2022
[17]

Zimmermann, M

K. Zimmermann, M. V. Okhapkin, O. A. Herrera- Sancho, and E. Peik, Applied Physics B107, 883 (2012)

2012
[18]

Hashimoto, L

Y. Hashimoto, L. Matsuoka, H. Osaki, Y. Fukushima, and S. Hasegawa, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 45, 7108 (2006)

2006
[19]

J. M. Sage, A. J. Kerman, and J. Chiaverini, Phys. Rev. A86, 013417 (2012)

2012
[20]

A comparison of calcium sources for ion-trap loading via laser ablation,

D. R. H. Smith, S. Muralidharan, R. Hablutzel, G. Croft, K. Theophilo, A. Owens, Y. N. D. Lekhai, S. J. Thomas, and C. Deans, “A comparison of calcium sources for ion-trap loading via laser ablation,” (2025), arXiv:2503.10329 [physics.atom-ph]

2025
[21]

Kumar, M

V. Kumar, M. Siegele-Brown, P. Rahimi, M. Aylett, S. Weidt, and W. K. Hensinger, Applied Physics Let- ters126, 264001 (2025)

2025
[22]

S. Gao, W. J. Hughes, D. M. Lucas, T. G. Ballance, and J. F. Goodwin, Review of Scientific Instruments92, 033205 (2021)

2021
[23]

Bellouard, A

Y. Bellouard, A. Champion, B. Lenssen, M. Matteucci, A. Schaap, M. Beresna, C. Corbari, M. Gecevicius, P. Kazansky, O. Chappuis, M. Kral, R. Clavel, F. Bar- rot, J. Breguet, Y. Mabillard, S. Bottinelli, M. Hopper, C. Hoenninger, E. Mottay, and J. Lopez, Journal of Laser Micro ...

2012
[24]

Lurio, R

A. Lurio, R. L. deZafra, and R. J. Goshen, Physical Review134, A1198 (1964)

1964
[25]

Berglund and M

M. Berglund and M. E. Wieser, Pure and Applied Chem- istry83, 397 (2011)

2011
[26]

D. J. Berkeland, J. D. Miller, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Journal of Applied Physics 83, 5025 (1998)

1998
[27]

C. D. Bruzewicz, R. McConnell, J. Chiaverini, and J. M. Sage, Nature Communications7, 13005 (2016)

2016
[28]

S. C. Webster, A. M. Steane, U. of Oxford. Mathematical, and P. S. Division.,Raman sideband cooling and coherent manipulation of trapped ions, Ph.D. thesis, Universit of Oxford (2005)

2005
[29]

C. B. Alcock, V. P. Itkin, and M. K. Horrigan, Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly23, 309 (1984)

1984
[30]

J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 060505 (2016)

2016
[31]

S. M. Brewer, J.-S. Chen, A. M. Hankin, E. R. Clements, C. W. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. B. Hume, and D. R. Leibrandt, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 033201 (2019)

2019
[32]

T. R. Tan, R. Kaewuam, K. J. Arnold, S. R. Chanu, Z. Zhang, M. S. Safronova, and M. D. Barrett, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 063201 (2019)

2019
[33]

Manzano, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020)

D. Manzano, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020)

2020
[34]

Mercurio, Y.-T

A. Mercurio, Y.-T. Huang, L.-X. Cai, Y.-N. Chen, V. Savona, and F. Nori, Quantum9, 1866 (2025)

2025
[35]

L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, L. P. Pitaevskii, J. B. Sykes, and M. J. Kearsley,Statistical physics. Volume 5 of Course of theoretical physics. Part 1, 3rd ed., The course of theoretical physics ; volume 5 (Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 1980). 9 Appendix A: Steady-state exc...

1980

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 220501 (2014)

2014

[2] [2]

C. R. Clark, H. N. Tinkey, B. C. Sawyer, A. M. Meier, K. A. Burkhardt, C. M. Seck, C. M. Shappert, N. D. Guise, C. E. Volin, S. D. Fallek, H. T. Hayden, W. G. Rel- lergert, and K. R. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 130505 (2021)

2021

[3] [3]

A. C. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. M. L¨ oschnauer, H. M. Knaack, R. Matt, C. J. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. P. Harty, and R. T. Sutherland, Pre-print (2025), arXiv:2510.17286 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Srinivas, S

R. Srinivas, S. C. Burd, H. M. Knaack, R. T. Sutherland, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Glancy, E. Knill, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, A. C. Wilson, D. T. C. Allcock, and D. H. Slichter, Nature597, 209 (2021)

2021

[5] [5]

A. D. Leu, M. F. Gely, M. A. Weber, M. C. Smith, D. P. Nadlinger, and D. M. Lucas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 120601 (2023)

2023

[6] [6]

Hempel, C

C. Hempel, C. Maier, J. Romero, J. McClean, T. Monz, 8 H. Shen, P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Love, R. Babbush, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Phys. Rev. X8, 031022 (2018)

2018

[7] [7]

R. J. MacDonell, T. Navickas, T. F. Wohlers-Reichel, C. H. Valahu, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, M. A. Curring- ton, M. J. Biercuk, T. R. Tan, C. Hempel, and I. Kassal, Chem. Sci.14, 9439 (2023)

2023

[8] [8]

Navickas, R

T. Navickas, R. J. MacDonell, C. H. Valahu, V. C. Olaya- Agudelo, F. Scuccimarra, M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, H. L. Nourse, A. D. Rao, M. J. Biercuk, C. Hempel, I. Kassal, and T. R. Tan, J. Am. Chem. Soc.147, 23566 (2025)

2025