Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Analytic descriptions of soft-edge quadrupoles for beamline design in multi-particle simulations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes exact closed-form electromagnetic fields for quadrupoles with a tanh-shaped fringe falloff, so intrinsic higher-order aberrations can enter beamline design from the first pass.

desk verdict A correct and elegant tanh generalization of Baartman's quadrupole model, but the 'realistic fields' guarantee is stronger than the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14454 v1 pith:ZAKHRLC3 submitted 2026-07-16 physics.acc-ph

Aveen Mahon , Laura Miller , Ethan Cline , Thomas Planche This is my paper
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords quadrupolefringefieldssoft-edgetanhstrengthfunctionintrinsicaberrationsanalyticfielddescriptionexactMaxwellbeamlinedesignmulti-particlesimulation
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

Every real quadrupole has fringe fields at its ends, and those fringe fields create irreducible higher-order aberrations that hard-edge models ignore. The paper's central aim is to give beamline designers simple analytic formulas for the fields of a soft-edge quadrupole whose on-axis gradient follows a tanh-shaped rise-and-fall, with the magnet's effective length and fringe extent as independent parameters. These formulas are exact solutions of Maxwell's equations, so a simulation using them is guaranteed to describe fields a physical magnet could produce, including all intrinsic cubic and higher-order terms. This matters for short, tightly spaced, strongly focusing beamlines that transport large-emittance beams, where these aberrations are the difference between a working design and a failed one. The paper demonstrates the formulas in both linear envelope and multi-particle tracking codes and shows beam-size and emittance growth as the beam fills the aperture.

What carries the argument

The enabling object is the double-integral representation of the scalar potential of any quadrupole in terms of its on-axis gradient: V(x,y,z) = −Re∫∫ k(ζ)dζdt along complex paths. Plugging the tanh strength profile into this representation produces a dilogarithm potential that would be cumbersome, but its gradient collapses into elementary functions—the R and S helper functions of Eq. (10) made of arctan and log—so the practical field map is computed from a handful of trigonometric and hyperbolic calls. This is the mechanism that carries the argument: exactness comes from the potential construction, while usability comes from the elementary gradient. A second piece of machinery is the L→0 l

What would settle it

Take a real short quadrupole, measure its 3D field map, and compare it with Eqs. (9)–(11) using K, L, λ fitted from the on-axis gradient. If the on-axis gradient cannot be fit by a difference of two tanh functions to measurement precision, or if the off-axis field components deviate systematically inside the stated aperture boundary as the transverse coordinate grows, the central claim that these are realistic physical fields fails. A direct multipole measurement of the sextupole and dodecapole content as a function of longitudinal position would test the model's predictions order by order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a quadrupole whose on-axis gradient is a difference of two identical tanh steps, k(z) = (K/2L)[tanh((z+L/2)/λ) − tanh((z−L/2)/λ)], has an explicit scalar potential, Eq. (8), which is a sum of four dilogarithms; its gradient, Eqs. (9)–(11), is composed only of four-quadrant arctangents and logarithms. Because the potential is obtained from a general exact formula for the scalar potential of a quadrupole with arbitrary gradient profile, it satisfies Laplace's equation and hence describes a realizable electromagnetic field. The model has a finite good-field region: an electrostatic quadrupole's field description is valid inside a square with half-side λπ/2, and a magne

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on assuming a real quadrupole's field is faithfully represented by the symmetric tanh on-axis gradient with equal, smooth entrance and exit edges and a single fringe parameter λ; if that profile does not match the actual magnet—or if fitting λ from off-axis data silently absorbs transverse errors—the predicted fields will not be the fields of the physical magnet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Intrinsic third-order aberrations enter beamline design at the first iteration, before magnet engineering data exist.
  • Short quadrupoles without flat-top field regions are modeled accurately; effective length and fringe extent are independently adjustable.
  • The same field map can feed envelope codes through a linear truncation and particle tracking codes through the full nonlinear fields, allowing direct quantification of aberration effects.
  • The explicit validity boundary gives a simple aperture rule: keep the beam pipe inside the square or diamond good-field region.
  • Designers can shim or shape magnet edges to match the tanh profile, making real hardware match simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: the practical reach of the model likely depends on the known insensitivity of cubic aberrations to fringe shape; for strongly asymmetric fringes, fifth-order effects should be checked against measured field maps before trusting the tanh form.
  • Going beyond the paper: because the fields are elementary functions, one could Taylor-expand them analytically to derive aberration coefficients or transfer maps, potentially turning the model into a standard field card for beamline libraries.
  • Going beyond the paper: fitting L and λ from on-axis gradient measurements of existing quadrupoles would provide a quick, cheap way to build a library of realistic soft-edge field models for routine simulation.
  • Going beyond the paper: if a real magnet's pole or yoke edge is deliberately shaped to the tanh profile, the model becomes predictive rather than approximate—an idea the paper raises but does not develop.
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. The paper presents analytic field descriptions for quadrupoles with soft fringes, based on Derevjankin's scalar-potential formula. It reviews Baartman's sech^2-strength model and introduces a tanh-strength model with effective length L and fringe parameter lambda as independent degrees of freedom. Explicit field expressions are given (Eqs. 8-11), and Appendix A provides pseudo-code for electrostatic and magnetic versions. The model is implemented in TRANSOPTR, GEANT4, and FLUKA and is applied to the DarkLight beamline at TRIUMF. The claimed contribution is that beamline designers can start from realistic Maxwellian fields with intrinsic higher-order aberrations, rather than from hard-edge approximations.

Significance. If the field expressions are correct, the paper provides a simple closed-form way to include intrinsic fringe-field aberrations in multi-particle and envelope codes. Strengths: Eq. (8) is an exact Maxwellian potential; the gradient in Eq. (9) is elementary; the L->0 limit recovers the sech^2 model; the boundary-of-validity analysis (Eqs. 13-14) is practically useful; the pseudo-code lowers implementation cost; and the authors are explicit about the assumptions (equal edges, odd symmetry). The central math appears sound. The main weakness is evidential: the 'realistic field' guarantee rests on an unvalidated symmetry assumption and a self-referential off-axis fit, so the practical scope is narrower than claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV / Sec. II.D] The conclusion states that 'users are guaranteed to be working with realistic fields that can actually be produced by a physical magnet.' This guarantee is not supported by the evidence in the paper. Sec. II.D acknowledges that real quadrupoles rise gradually and fall abruptly, whereas the tanh profile is exactly odd with identical entrance and exit edges. The cited fringe-shape insensitivity (Ref. [1]) applies to the leading third-order aberration only, not to the higher-order intrinsic aberrations that are the paper's motivation. Please either explicitly restrict the claim to third order, or add validation against measured 3D field maps (including an asymmetric/abrupt-falloff magnet and multiple radii).
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 2 and accompanying note] The only quantitative test of the model against a real magnet is a fit to a single off-axis (7.5 mm) measurement. As the paper notes, the tanh strength function is valid only on axis, so the fit uses the model's own complete 3D field to map the off-axis measurement onto lambda. This is self-referential and can absorb transverse model error into lambda, L, and K. No direct on-axis gradient measurement, no multi-radius residuals, and no fit uncertainties are reported. The fitted K=0.356 T also lies ~19% above the manufacturer's integrated strength of 0.3 T +/- 5% (Table I), an unexplained discrepancy that reinforces this concern.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The transition from the dilogarithmic potential (8) to the compact trigonometric field components (9) is the mathematical core of the tanh model, but the simplification is only asserted. Please supply the derivation (or a complete reference) and state the branch conventions for arctan and log in Eq. (9), since the boundary-of-validity discussion depends on the four-quadrant arctangent. Without this, the central formula cannot be fully checked from the manuscript.
  4. [Sec. III.B-D] The simulation comparisons embed the same analytic field in TRANSOPTR (linear truncation) and in GEANT4/FLUKA (full nonlinear). They therefore quantify the size of the model's nonlinear terms, but they cannot validate the model's fidelity to a real quadrupole. The no-target case matching exactly and the increasing discrepancies with target thickness are expected consequences of the field model, not independent evidence for realism. The sentence in Sec. IV stating that DarkLight was 'successfully installed and commissioned' in Fall 2025 is likewise unsupported by any data or reference; please remove it or add a commissioning reference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (10)] In the definition of S(x,y,z,l), the right-hand side uses cosh(L +/- 2z) and L rather than the argument l; similarly Eq. (11) calls S(x,y,z,L). Make the notation consistent, and remember that L and z are in units of lambda.
  2. [Appendix A] The pseudo-code functions R and S use sin/cos of x rather than 2x. This is consistent with the rescaling x <- 2x'/lambda, but the relation to Eq. (10) should be stated. Also, the comment 'L' is the total effective length leaves ambiguous whether L in Eq. (6) is the pole length or the effective length.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (6)] The connection between the Enge coefficients (all zero except c1 = 2/lambda) and the resulting strength function is not shown; please define the Enge parametrization used and justify the choice c1 = 2/lambda.
  4. [Tables III and IV] There are formatting issues in the tables ('T arget', 'x rms', 'x ' (mrad), etc.) that should be corrected in the final version.
  5. [References] Reference [30] contains a typo: 'Scienetific Laboratory' should be 'Scientific Laboratory'. Also, reference [12] (Muratori et al.) is closely related and could be cited more prominently in the derivation of Eqs. (1)-(9).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic derivation is self-contained, and fitted parameters are disclosed as fits rather than predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The tanh quadrupole model starts from an explicit ansatz for the on-axis gradient profile, Eq. (6), which is a difference of two Enge-type Fermi functions with c1 = 2/λ; Eq. (7) rewrites it as a tanh difference. Derevjankin's formula, Eq. (1), is an external analytic identity, and substituting Eq. (7) into it yields the polylogarithmic potential Eq. (8). Differentiating Eq. (8) gives the explicit field components Eqs. (9)-(11), and the construction satisfies ∇²V = 0 by holomorphy. This is a direct mathematical derivation from a stated ansatz, not a result that presumes its conclusion. The L → 0 limit in Eq. (12) recovers the sech² model but does not define it. The fit parameters K, λ, and L are obtained from measured field data (Fig. 2) and from TRIUMF reports, and the paper explicitly notes that the permanent-magnet λ had to be fit using the complete 3D field description because only off-axis data were available. That is a transparent calibration step, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The TRANSOPTR-versus-GEANT4/FLUKA comparisons embed the same analytic fields in both codes; they isolate the effect of nonlinear terms, and the paper does not overstate them as a measurement of absolute field realism. The reliance on Baartman's theorem [1] for cubic-insensitivity of fringe shape is external published support, and even if one questions whether it covers higher-order aberrations, that is an evidentiary limitation, not circularity. The paper itself, in Sec. II.D, concedes the tanh odd-symmetry limitation and notes that real magnets may rise gradually and fall abruptly, so the model is not presented as universally valid. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on two external pillars (Derevjankin's potential construction and Ref. [1]'s third-order fringe-insensitivity theorem) plus the paper's chosen single-parameter Enge/tanh profile. All free parameters (K, λ, L) are honestly fitted to measured field data, with the caveat that the PMQ λ was fitted through the model's 3D field from off-axis data (Fig. 2 note). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • λ (fringe-field extent), sech² model = 33.1 mm
    Fitted to TRIUMF field survey of Buckley electromagnetic quadrupoles (Ref. [26], internal); sets the fringe length for the two EM quads in the DarkLight demo.
  • λ (fringe-field extent), tanh model = 14.25 mm
    Fitted to off-axis Hall-probe data of the SABR permanent-magnet quadrupole using the model's own 3D field (Fig. 2).
  • L (effective length), tanh model = 90.14 mm
    Fitted to the same SABR measurement (Fig. 2); the new degree of freedom distinguishing tanh from sech².
  • K (integrated strength) = 0.356 T (SABR fit); 0.3 T ± 5% (nominal, Table I); ≤0.7 T (Buckley, Table II)
    Magnetic integrated strength; a physical magnet setting, set by both the field fit and the beam-optics requirement, not predicted by the model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Derevjankin's formula (Eq. 1): the full 3D quadrupole potential follows from the on-axis gradient profile k(z).
    Invoked in Sec. II.A/B to build V(x,y,z) from k(z); presumes idealized quadrupole geometry with no skew/higher harmonics and a well-defined on-axis gradient.
  • domain assumption Leading (cubic) intrinsic aberration is independent of fringe-field shape (Ref. [1]).
    Licenses the symmetric tanh profile for real magnets with asymmetric edges; invoked in the introduction and Sec. II.D. The paper's applicability to real magnets leans on this theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Enge-profile choice: all Enge coefficients zero except c₁ = 2/λ (Eq. 6).
    The single-parameter tanh profile is chosen for minimality and tractability, not derived from a magnet design; Sec. II.B.
  • standard math Four-quadrant arctangent branch with range (-π, π] for Eq. 9.
    Required for continuity of the transverse fields within the good-field region; Sec. II.C.
  • standard math Liouville emittance conservation for the linear envelope model.
    Used in Sec. III.B/C to interpret the phase-space 'S'-shape as emittance growth from nonlinearities; Ref. [30].
  • standard math Fields satisfy Maxwell's equations (∇²V=0) with no sources inside the beam region.
    Holds because V is the real part of holomorphic functions of (z+ix) and (z+iy); Sec. II.A states 'One can verify that... ∇²V=0' and similarly for Eq. 8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic descriptions of soft-edge quadrupoles for beamline design in multi-particle simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZAKHRLC3

@misc{pith2026260714454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic descriptions of soft-edge quadrupoles for beamline design in multi-particle simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZAKHRLC3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14454}
}
abstract

All physical quadrupoles have a fringe field falloff, giving rise to intrinsic higher order aberrations. It is especially important to consider these aberrations when designing beamlines with strong, longitudinally cramped optics used to capture and transport large emittance beams. This paper presents relatively simple analytical formulae which describe the fields of quadrupoles including their higher order aberrations for implementation in beamline design. We review the analytic model for quadrupoles described by a $\mathrm{sech}^2$ strength function and subsequently expand it to quadrupoles whose strength function instead follows a tanh function, adding the effective length of the quadrupole as a free parameter. The implementation of these analytic field descriptions in envelope code TRANSOPTR and multi-particle codes GEANT4 and FLUKA is presented using the optics design of the DarkLight experiment at TRIUMF as example.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Equipotentials of Eq. 8 in the z = 0 plane. The vertical contours correspond to V = 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Field measured at 7.5 mm off axis for a SABR permanent magnet quadrupole parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Phase space distributions of particles generated in GEANT4 compared to the phase space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cutaway view of the beamline as implemented in FLUKA and visualized in FLAIR. In this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Phase space distributions of particles generated in FLUKA compared to the phase space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Using an analytic description of the fields that assumes the symmetry of entrance and exit edges may not be perfectly exact, but it will never yield nonphysical results

    Determine to what level the precision of your elements is important for your applica- tion. Using an analytic description of the fields that assumes the symmetry of entrance and exit edges may not be perfectly exact, but it will never yield nonphysical results

  2. [2]

    In the case of magnets that are already built, one could shim the edges of the yoke to achieve the same result

    Where possible you can reverse this approach, and intentionally choose the shape of the poles or coils of the optical elements such that their fringe fields will be accurately 8 described by the aforementioned analytic descriptions. In the case of magnets that are already built, one could shim the edges of the yoke to achieve the same result. We will now ...

    2025

  3. [3]

    Baartman, Quadrupoles, to third order, arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.01576 (2015)

    R. Baartman, Quadrupoles, to third order, arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.01576 (2015)

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Baartman, Low-Energy Beam Transport Design, inProceedings of the CAS-CERN Accel- erator School: Beam Injection, Extraction and Transfer, Erice, Italy, 10-19 March 2017, Vol

    R. Baartman, Low-Energy Beam Transport Design, inProceedings of the CAS-CERN Accel- erator School: Beam Injection, Extraction and Transfer, Erice, Italy, 10-19 March 2017, Vol. 5/2018 (CERN Yellow Reports: School Proceedings, 2018) pp. 1–17

    2017

  5. [5]

    Battaglieriet al., Secondary beams at high-intensity electron accelerator facilities, Instru- ments8, 1 (2024), arXiv:2311.08440 [physics.acc-ph]

    M. Battaglieriet al., Secondary beams at high-intensity electron accelerator facilities, Instru- ments8, 1 (2024), arXiv:2311.08440 [physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Stratakis, B

    D. Stratakis, B. Drendel, J. P. Morgan, M. J. Syphers, and N. S. Froemming, Commissioning and first results of the fermilab muon campus, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams22, 011001 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Cline, W

    E. Cline, W. Lin, P. Roy,et al., Characterization of muon and electron beams in the Paul Scherrer Institute PiM1 channel for the MUSE experiment, Physical Review C105, 055201 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bassi,M9 Simulations: Summary of Work - Summer 2018, Tech

    D. Bassi,M9 Simulations: Summary of Work - Summer 2018, Tech. Rep. TRI-BN-18-11 (TRIUMF, 2018)

    2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Matsuda and H

    H. Matsuda and H. Wollnik, Third order transfer matrices for the fringing field of magnetic and electrostatic quadrupole lenses, Nuclear Instruments and Methods103, 117 (1972)

    1972

  2. [10]

    G. D. Morris,β-nmr, inISAC and ARIEL: The TRIUMF Radioactive Beam Facilities and the Scientific Program(Springer, 2013) pp. 173–182

    2013

  3. [11]

    Husson, B

    A. Husson, B. Kim, A. Welker,et al., A pulsed high-voltage decelerator system to deliver low-energy antiprotons, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1002, 165245 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Arjomandy, P

    B. Arjomandy, P. Taylor, C. Ainsley,et al., Aapm task group 224: comprehensive proton therapy machine quality assurance, Medical physics46, e678 (2019). 20

    2019

  5. [13]

    Baartman, Quadrupole shapes, Phys

    R. Baartman, Quadrupole shapes, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams15, 074002 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Muratori, J

    B. Muratori, J. Jones, and A. Wolski, Analytical expressions for fringe fields in multipole magnets, Physical Review Special Topics-Accelerators and Beams18, 064001 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Collaboration, E

    D. Collaboration, E. Cline, R. Corliss, J. Bernauer,et al., Searching for New Physics with DarkLight at the ARIEL Electron-Linac, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 2391 (IOP Publishing, 2022) p. 012010

    2022

  8. [16]

    Heighway and R

    E. Heighway and R. Hutcheon, Transoptr—a second order beam transport design code with optimization and constraints, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research187, 89 (1981)

    1981

  9. [17]

    Baartman, Transoptr: Changes since 1984, TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada, Rep

    R. Baartman, Transoptr: Changes since 1984, TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada, Rep. TRI-BN- 16-06 (2016)

    1984

  10. [18]

    B. P. Department,TRANSOPTR Reference Manual, TRIUMF (2024), available athttps: //gitlab.triumf.ca/beamphys/transoptr

    2024

  11. [19]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis,et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Transactions on nuclear science53, 270 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis,et al., Recent developments in geant4, Nuclear instru- ments and methods in physics research section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. a. Amako,et al., Geant4—a simulation toolkit, Nuclear instru- ments and methods in physics research section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Ahdida, D

    C. Ahdida, D. Bozzato, D. Calzolari,et al., New capabilities of the fluka multi-purpose code, Frontiers in PhysicsV olume 9 - 2021, 10.3389/fphy.2021.788253 (2022)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Battistoni, T

    G. Battistoni, T. Boehlen, F. Cerutti, P. W. Chin, L. S. Esposito, A. Fass` o, A. Ferrari, A. Lechner, A. Empl, A. Mairani, A. Mereghetti, P. G. Ortega, J. Ranft, S. Roesler, P. R. Sala, V. Vlachoudis, and G. Smirnov, Overview of the fluka code, Annals of Nuclear Energy 82, 10...

    2015

  16. [24]

    Hugo, G., Ahdida, C., Bozzato, D.,et al., Latest fluka developments, EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 10, 20 (2024). 21

    2024

  17. [25]

    Derevjankin, On the representation of the quadrupole lens potential, Zh

    G. Derevjankin, On the representation of the quadrupole lens potential, Zh. Tkh. Fiz.(USSR) 42, 1178 (1972)

    1972

  18. [26]

    Vasil’ev, Spatial field of a quadrupole lens: An analytical approach, Nuclear Instruments and Methods151, 65 (1978)

    G. Vasil’ev, Spatial field of a quadrupole lens: An analytical approach, Nuclear Instruments and Methods151, 65 (1978)

    1978

  19. [27]

    H. A. Enge, Effect of extended fringing fields on ion-focusing properties of deflecting magnets, Review of Scientific Instruments35, 278 (1964)

    1964

  20. [28]

    Baartman,Buckley Field Survey: E-linac Quads, Tech

    R. Baartman,Buckley Field Survey: E-linac Quads, Tech. Rep. (TRIUMF, 2013) Internal document available upon request

    2013

  21. [29]

    Mahon,Magnetic Measurement of Permanent Magnet Quadrupole, Tech

    A. Mahon,Magnetic Measurement of Permanent Magnet Quadrupole, Tech. Rep. TRI-BN- 23-28 (TRIUMF, 2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Baartman,The Buckley Quads: Hysteresis, Calibration, Tech

    R. Baartman,The Buckley Quads: Hysteresis, Calibration, Tech. Rep. TRI-BN-13-12 (TRI- UMF, 2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Mahon and T

    A. Mahon and T. Planche,Dark Light Beam Optics Specifications, Tech. Rep. (TRIUMF, 2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Bruck,Circular Particle Accelerators(Los Alamos Scienetific Laboratory, 1972) Chap

    H. Bruck,Circular Particle Accelerators(Los Alamos Scienetific Laboratory, 1972) Chap. CHAPTER XXIX LONGITUDINAL INSTABILITY

    1972

  25. [33]

    Nozar,e-Linac 100 kW Tuning Beam Dump Local and Upstream (EHDT beamline) Shielding Design, Tech

    M. Nozar,e-Linac 100 kW Tuning Beam Dump Local and Upstream (EHDT beamline) Shielding Design, Tech. Rep. TRI-DN-13-29 (TRIUMF)https://documents.triumf.ca/ docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-103968/TRI-DN-13-29.pdf

  26. [34]

    Trinczek,Specifications of the ARIEL eHall Shielding, Tech

    M. Trinczek,Specifications of the ARIEL eHall Shielding, Tech. Rep. TRI-DN-13- 11 (TRIUMF)https://documents.triumf.ca/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-77790/ SpecificationsForeHallShieldingPhase1_JAN2014.pdf

  27. [35]

    Donadon, A., Hugo, G., Theis, C., and Vlachoudis, V., Flair3 – recasting simulation experi- ences with the advanced interface for fluka and other monte carlo codes, EPJ Web Conf.302, 11005 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Ferrari, P

    A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, Fluka, CERN-library in: http://fluka. web. cern. ch/fluka55, 100 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Fontana, Fluka advanced calculations on stopping power and multiple coulomb scattering (2014), 3rd Fluka Advanced Course and Workshop, LNF, Italy

    A. Fontana, Fluka advanced calculations on stopping power and multiple coulomb scattering (2014), 3rd Fluka Advanced Course and Workshop, LNF, Italy

    2014

  30. [38]

    Kluck, R

    H. Kluck, R. Breier, A. Fuß,et al., Impact of geant4’s electromagnetic physics constructors on accuracy and performance of simulations for rare event searches, The European Physical 22 Journal C86, 150 (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    Androulakaki, M

    E. Androulakaki, M. Kokkoris, M. Mayer,et al., A comparative study of multiple scattering calculations implemented in general–purpose monte carlo and selected ion beam analysis codes, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materia...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.