Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Deflection of a reflected intense circularly polarized light beam induced by asymmetric radiation pressure

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An intense circularly polarized laser pulse reflected from an overdense plasma is predicted to deflect out of the plane of incidence by milliradians, a deviation from the usual law of reflection caused by the beam's spin angular momentum.

desk verdict The paper's PIC evidence for a spin-induced beam deflection is solid, but Eq. (6) is accidentally correct only at θ=45° because two compensating errors in the derivation hide the wrong θ-scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11520 v2 pith:G6ISP56W submitted 2019-08-30 physics.plasm-ph

Y. H. Tang , Z. Gong , J. Q. Yu , Y. R. Shou , X. Q. Yan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.38.-r52.65.Rr
keywords radiationpressurespinangularmomentumcircularlypolarizedlaserplasmamirrordeflectionfromlawofreflectionMaxwellstresstensorparticle-in-cellsimulationGaussianbeam
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 predicts that when a high-intensity, circularly polarized laser pulse reflects from an overdense plasma foil (an ionized target dense enough to act as a mirror), the reflected beam does not obey the usual law of reflection: it acquires a small transverse momentum component and leaves the plane of incidence, with a mean deflection angle of a few milliradians. The origin is the spin angular momentum of the beam, whose rotating Poynting vector exerts a radiation pressure that is asymmetric across the beam spot and therefore tilts the plasma surface. The paper derives a closed-form expression for the deflection angle in terms of laser intensity, pulse duration, waist size, incidence angle, helicity, and plasma ion density and mass, and it reports 3D particle-in-cell simulations whose deflection angles follow the predicted scaling. A measurable, helicity-dependent steering of intense reflected light would be new, and it would connect the spin angular momentum of light to the mechanics of relativistic plasma mirrors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the helicity-dependent antisymmetric term in the Maxwell stress tensor of a tightly focused Gaussian beam. With helicity defined as $s=2\,\mathrm{Im}(e_x^* e_y)$ ($s=0$ for linear, $\pm1$ for circular), the averaged $\langle\sigma_{xz}\rangle$ component is proportional to $s z_R y/(z^2+z_R^2)$, which after projection onto the tilted surface produces a pressure term odd in the transverse coordinate $y$. That odd-in-$y$ pressure tilts the relativistic critical surface of the plasma, and the tilt angle is obtained by equating the radiation pressure to the ion momentum flux $2n_i m_i\langle v_\eta\rangle^2$. The same tilt is then identified with the mean deflection angle of the reflected beam, giving Eq. (6).

What would settle it

Measure (or simulate with helicity reversed) the transverse momentum $P_y$ of a circularly polarized $10^{19}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$, tens-of-femtosecond, few-micron-waist pulse reflected from an overdense hydrogen plasma at $45^\circ$ incidence: the mean deflection $\bar{\varphi}=P_y/|P_x|$ must scale as $\sqrt{I_0}\,\tau\tan\theta/w_0^2$, must reverse sign when $s=+1$ is changed to $s=-1$, and must vanish for linear polarization; failure of any of these scalings would rule out the claimed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spin angular momentum, not orbital angular momentum, can deflect a reflected intense laser beam out of the plane of incidence. For a paraxial Gaussian beam of helicity $s$ (with $s=+1$ for right-circular and $-1$ for left-circular), the temporally averaged radiation pressure on a tilted plasma surface contains the antisymmetric term $\langle P_{\mathrm{las}}\rangle = (2I_0/c)e^{-2(x^2+y^2)/w_0^2}\left(\cos^2\theta_i - \frac{s\lambda y}{\pi w_0^2}\sin 2\theta_i\right)$, so points on one side of the spot are pushed harder than points on the other. Balance against the ion momentum flux, $\langle P_{\mathrm{las}}\rangle = 2n_i m_i\langle v_\eta\rangle^2$, gives a helicity-dependent surface velocity; integrating over the pulse duration produces a surface tilt, and the reflected beam follows it. The resulting mean deflection angle is $\bar{\varphi}\simeq -\frac{\lambda\tau s\tan\theta}{\pi w_0^2}\sqrt{\frac{I_0}{n_i m_i c}}$, with the sign set by the helicity. The paper verifies the direction and the $\sqrt{I_0}$ and $\tau$ scaling in 3D particle-in-cell simulations, finding a common numerical factor of $0.62$ between the theoretical lines and the simulated points.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative prediction rests on the premise that the laser-shaped plasma surface is a rigidly tilted mirror whose tilt angle equals the beam's deflection, and that the surface speed is set by balancing light pressure against ion momentum; if the real surface does not behave this way, the predicted angle is wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A circularly polarized intense pulse reflected from an overdense foil should miss the specular direction by a few milliradians, with the direction set by helicity and the magnitude growing as $\sqrt{I_0}$ and linearly with pulse duration.
  • Tighter focusing amplifies the effect: Eq. (6) predicts a $1/w_0^2$ dependence, so smaller waists give larger deflections at fixed intensity.
  • The deflection is absent for linear polarization, where the simulated transverse momentum of the reflected beam is two orders of magnitude smaller.
  • A low-contrast prepulse does not destroy the effect: as the plasma scale length grows, the deflection magnitude first increases and then decreases, and Eq. (6) ceases to apply for very long scale lengths.
  • Existing experiments have resolved angular changes at the micro-radian level, so the predicted milliradian deflection should be detectable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Reversing the helicity from right- to left-circular should produce an equal and opposite deflection; the paper simulates only $s=+1$, so a helicity-reversal run is a direct, still-open test of Eq. (6).
  • If the tilt picture is right, the plasma foil should itself receive a small transverse recoil; measuring lateral target motion could corroborate the mechanism independently of the reflected-beam angle.
  • Because Eq. (6) contains $\sqrt{1/(n_i m_i)}$, comparing hydrogen with heavier-ion foils at equal density would separate the momentum-balance assumption from the details of surface deformation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript predicts and simulates a transverse deflection of an intense circularly polarized laser beam reflected from an overdense plasma foil. Starting from the paraxial Maxwell stress tensor of a Gaussian beam, the authors derive an asymmetric radiation-pressure term proportional to the beam helicity (Eq. (3)), balance it against the ion momentum flux to obtain a surface tilt (Eqs. (4)-(5)), and arrive at a deflection formula, Eq. (6), scaling as tan(theta) * sqrt(I0) * tau. Supporting three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations with EPOCH for theta = 45 degrees show a mean deflection angle Py/Px of about -2.5 mrad for circular polarization, a much smaller signal for linear polarization, scaling with intensity and duration that roughly matches Eq. (6) after a common factor 0.62 is introduced, and persistence of the effect in the presence of an exponential preplasma.

Significance. The qualitative mechanism is attractive and the numerical evidence for the existence of a polarization-dependent out-of-plane deflection at theta = 45 degrees is fairly convincing: the Py signal is specific to circular polarization, has the expected sign and magnitude, and scales with I0 and tau as expected. The angular-momentum argument distinguishing this effect from the usual Imbert-Fedorov shift is a useful contribution. If the formula survives correction and additional angle scans, the effect would be an experimentally accessible new phenomenon in relativistic laser-plasma interaction. However, the central quantitative formula is not yet established: Eq. (6) contains an angle dependence that is tested at only one incidence angle, and the numerical 'confirmation' depends on an unexplained multiplicative coefficient.

major comments (3)
  1. [Analytical modeling, Eq. (4)] The step from the pressure in Eq. (3) to the velocity in Eq. (4) is algebraically incorrect. Substituting Eq. (3) into the stated balance <P_las> = 2 n_i m_i <v_eta>^2 gives <v_eta> = cos(theta) sqrt(I0/(n_i m_i c)) exp[-(x^2+y^2)/w0^2] (1 - lambda s y/(pi w0^2) tan(theta)); the overall cos(theta) factor is omitted in Eq. (4). Because this factor is not absorbed anywhere else, the displacement difference and the tilt angle in Eq. (5) also miss a factor cos(theta).
  2. [Equations (5)-(6) and Fig. 5] The relation <phi> ~ alpha is asserted without derivation and is not the correct reflection geometry. For a small tilt alpha of the surface normal in the y-direction, a ray incident along z is reflected with a transverse component k_r,y ~ 2k cos(theta) alpha, so the beam deflection is <phi> ~ 2 cos(theta) alpha, not alpha. Combining this with the corrected Eq. (5) gives <phi> proportional to sin(2theta), not tan(theta). Since every simulation in Fig. 5(d) is at theta = 45 degrees, where sin(2theta) = tan(theta), the existing data cannot distinguish the two scalings. A scan over theta is required to validate the formula.
  3. [Fig. 5(d) and text after Eq. (6)] The statement that all lines are close to the simulation data points after multiplying by the same scale coefficient 0.62 makes the comparison a fit rather than a parameter-free confirmation. A global factor of 0.62 is introduced after computing the theoretical lines, so the agreement demonstrates only the scaling of <phi> with I0 and tau at the single simulated angle; it does not test the absolute magnitude predicted by Eq. (6). The origin of this factor (spatial averaging, plasma density profile, momentum transfer to ions) should be derived or explicitly acknowledged as an empirical parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion] The phrase 'non-linear polarized' appears several times; the intended term is presumably circularly polarized.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The derivation of Eq. (2) is not fully specified: the ordering that justifies neglecting the gradient-divergence term relative to k^2 A is not stated, and the notation omega_0 in Eq. (2) differs from omega used in the vector potential; please align the notation.
  3. [From Eq. (5) to Eq. (6)] The 'spatial average effect' leading from Eq. (5) to Eq. (6) is not derived. Please provide the averaging procedure or state explicitly that it is part of the empirical 0.62 factor.
  4. [Fig. 3(a)-(b)] The discrepancy between the theoretical and simulated pressure maps is described only as 'a little difference on scale'; please quantify and explain this difference.
  5. [Fig. 5(b)] The legend to Fig. 5(b) should clearly state that the blue triangular line is for p-linear polarization; the text and figure should be consistent about whether the comparison is p-linear or linear polarization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (6) is derived from radiation-pressure and momentum-balance inputs, and the simulation comparison is not used as input to the prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The paper starts from the Maxwell stress tensor of a paraxial Gaussian beam, obtains the temporally averaged radiation pressure Eq. (3), combines it with the independent momentum-balance relation <P_las> = 2 n_i m_i <v_eta>^2 from Ref. [47] to obtain the surface velocity Eq. (4), then constructs the surface tilt Eq. (5) and the deflection angle Eq. (6). The predicted deflection angle phi is not introduced as an input anywhere; it is the output of the model. The comparison with PIC simulations uses an explicitly stated common scale factor of 0.62 after the theoretical lines are computed, and the text says this openly: 'all lines are close to the simulation data points after multiplied by a same scale coefficient 0.62.' This is a calibration or validation step, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The cited momentum-balance relation is external to the authors and is not a self-citation chain. The unexplained 'spatial average effect' bridging Eqs. (5) and (6) is an analytic gap, not a circular reduction. Concerns about a missing cos theta factor, the tilt-to-deflection geometry, and the fact that only theta = pi/4 is simulated are correctness and validation concerns, not evidence that the derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on standard paraxial optics, the assumption of total reflection by an overdense foil, a simplified momentum-balance model for the plasma surface, and an unstated identification between surface tilt and reflected-beam angle. The only numerical fudge is the scale coefficient 0.62 used to match the simulation data.

free parameters (1)
  • scale_coefficient = 0.62
    Multiplied onto all theoretical lines in Fig. 5(d) to match the simulation points; the paper states all lines are close after multiplication by the same scale coefficient, so the absolute magnitude of Eq. (6) is not confirmed without this fitted factor.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Paraxial approximation and ∇∇·A << k^2 A for the laser beam eigenmode
    Used to derive the Maxwell stress tensor components in Eq. (2); fails for extremely tight focusing but reasonable for w0 = 5 μm.
  • domain assumption Overdense plasma foil acts as a perfect reflector with negligible fields inside
    Assumed when computing radiation pressure on the foil surface; simulations use 12 nc, which is overdense.
  • domain assumption Non-grazing incidence and neglect of higher-order terms in Eq. (3)
    Explicitly stated in the paper; limits the formula to moderate incidence angles.
  • domain assumption Momentum balance ⟨P_las⟩ = 2 n_i m_i ⟨v_η⟩^2 for the plasma surface
    Taken from Ref [47]; connects radiation pressure to surface velocity and is the basis of Eq. (4).
  • ad hoc to paper Reflected beam deflection angle equals the surface tilt angle, φ̄ ≈ α
    Assumed without derivation to convert surface deformation into beam deflection; this is the central quantitative link between the plasma deformation and the observed angle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deflection of a reflected intense circularly polarized light beam induced by asymmetric radiation pressure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G6ISP56W

@misc{pith2026190811520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deflection of a reflected intense circularly polarized light beam induced by asymmetric radiation pressure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G6ISP56W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11520}
}
abstract

A novel deflection effect of an intense laser beam with spin angular momentum is revealed theoretically by an analytical modeling using radiation pressure and momentum balance of laser plasma interaction in the relativistic regime, as a deviation from the law of reflection. The reflected beam deflects out of the plane of incidence with a deflection angle up to several milliradians, when a non-linear polarized laser, with the intensity $I_0\sim10^{19}$W/cm$^2$ and duration around tens of femtoseconds, is obliquely incident and reflected by an overdense plasma target. This effect originates from the asymmetric radiation pressure caused by spin angular momentum of the laser photons. The dependence of the deflection angle of a Gaussian-type laser on the parameters of laser pulse and plasma foil is theoretically derived, which is also confirmed by three dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of circularly polarized laser beams with the different intensity and pulse duration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11520 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of reflection of an intense cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The Poynting vectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The temporally averaged radiation pressure differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The electric field and angular profile of the reflected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a)-(c) The temporal evolution of linear momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The dependence of deflection angle (a) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    G. A. Mourou, T. Tajima, and S. V. Bulanov, Reviews of modern physics 78, 309 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [1]

    (6) A series of 3D PIC simulations with different laser in- tensity and pulse duration are performed to further tes- tify Eq

    (5) Via accounting for the spatial average effect, the deflec- tion angle of the reflected beam can be derived as ¯φ≃− λτs tanθ πw2 0 √ I0 nimic. (6) A series of 3D PIC simulations with different laser in- tensity and pulse duration are performed to further tes- tify Eq. (6). The numerical deflection angles in each simulations, calculated via ¯φ = Py/|Px|, are...

    work page

  3. [2]

    T. L. Heath et al. , The works of Archimedes (Courier Corporation, 2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics (Wiley, 1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [4]

    Strickland and G

    D. Strickland and G. Mourou, Optics communications 55, 447 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [5]

    Thaury, F

    C. Thaury, F. Qu´ er´ e, J.-P. Geindre, A. Levy, T. Ceccotti, P. Monot, M. Bougeard, F. R´ eau, P. dOliveira, P. Aude- bert, et al., Nature Physics 3, 424 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    Balabanski, R

    D. Balabanski, R. Popescu, D. Stutman, K. Tanaka, O. Tesileanu, C. Ur, D. Ursescu, and N. Zamfir, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 117, 28001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Chekhlov, J

    O. Chekhlov, J. Collier, I. Ross, P. Bates, M. Notley, C. Hernandez-Gomez, W. Shaikh, C. Danson, D. Neely, P. Matousek, et al., Optics letters 31, 3665 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    G. H. Miller, E. I. Moses, and C. R. Wuest, Optical Engineering 43, 2841 (2004)

    2004

  2. [9]

    M. Born, E. Wolf, A. B. Bhatia, P. C. Clemmow, D. Ga- bor, A. R. Stokes, A. M. Taylor, P. A. Wayman, and W. L. Wilcock, Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light, 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1999)

    1999

  3. [10]

    Goos and H

    F. Goos and H. H¨ anchen, Annalen der Physik 436, 333 (1947)

    1947

  4. [11]

    Artmann, Annalen der Physik 437, 87 (1948)

    K. Artmann, Annalen der Physik 437, 87 (1948)

    1948

  5. [12]

    McGuirk and C

    M. McGuirk and C. Carniglia, JOSA 67, 103 (1977)

    1977

  6. [13]

    J. W. Ra, H. Bertoni, and L. Felsen, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 24, 396 (1973)

    1973

  7. [14]

    Y. M. Antar and W. M. Boerner, Canadian Journal of 7 Physics 52, 962 (1974)

    1974

  8. [15]

    C. C. Chan and T. Tamir, Optics letters 10, 378 (1985)

    1985

  9. [16]

    Fedorov, Dokl

    F. Fedorov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 105, 465 (1955)

    1955

  10. [17]

    Schilling, Annalen der Physik 471, 122 (1965)

    H. Schilling, Annalen der Physik 471, 122 (1965)

    1965

  11. [18]

    Imbert, Physical Review D 5, 787 (1972)

    C. Imbert, Physical Review D 5, 787 (1972)

    1972

  12. [19]

    K. Y. Bliokh and A. Aiello, Journal of Optics 15, 014001 (2013)

    2013

  13. [20]

    Player, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral 20, 3667 (1987)

    M. Player, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral 20, 3667 (1987)

    1987

  14. [21]

    Fedoseyev, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 21, 2045 (1988)

    V. Fedoseyev, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 21, 2045 (1988)

    1988

  15. [22]

    Onoda, S

    M. Onoda, S. Murakami, and N. Nagaosa, Physical re- view letters 93, 083901 (2004)

    2004

  16. [23]

    K. Y. Bliokh and Y. P. Bliokh, Physical Review E 75, 066609 (2007)

    2007

  17. [24]

    K. Y. Bliokh, A. Niv, V. Kleiner, and E. Hasman, Nature Photonics 2, 748 (2008)

    2008

  18. [25]

    Hosten and P

    O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, Science 319, 787 (2008)

    2008

  19. [26]

    Aiello and J

    A. Aiello and J. Woerdman, Optics letters 33, 1437 (2008)

    2008

  20. [27]

    Aiello, M

    A. Aiello, M. Merano, and J. Woerdman, Physical Re- view A 80, 061801 (2009)

    2009

  21. [28]

    Y. Qin, Y. Li, X. Feng, Y.-F. Xiao, H. Yang, and Q. Gong, Optics express 19, 9636 (2011)

    2011

  22. [29]

    K. Y. Bliokh, I. V. Shadrivov, and Y. S. Kivshar, Optics letters 34, 389 (2009)

    2009

  23. [30]

    Merano, N

    M. Merano, N. Hermosa, J. Woerdman, and A. Aiello, Physical Review A 82, 023817 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Zhang, B

    L. Zhang, B. Shen, X. Zhang, S. Huang, Y. Shi, C. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Pei, and Z. Xu, Physical review letters 117, 113904 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Y. Shi, B. Shen, L. Zhang, X. Zhang, W. Wang, and Z. Xu, Physical review letters 112, 235001 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    W. Gong, B. Shen, L. Zhang, and X. Zhang, New Journal of Physics 21, 043022 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Brabetz, S

    C. Brabetz, S. Busold, T. Cowan, O. Deppert, D. Jahn, O. Kester, M. Roth, D. Schumacher, and V. Bagnoud, Physics of Plasmas 22, 013105 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Denoeud, L

    A. Denoeud, L. Chopineau, A. Leblanc, and F. Qu´ er´ e, Physical review letters 118, 033902 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Chopineau, A

    L. Chopineau, A. Leblanc, G. Blaclard, A. Denoeud, M. Th´ evenet, J. Vay, G. Bonnaud, P. Martin, H. Vin- centi, and F. Qu´ er´ e, Physical Review X9, 011050 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Arber, K

    T. Arber, K. Bennett, C. Brady, A. Lawrence- Douglas, M. Ramsay, N. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. Bell, et al. , Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion 57, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Gibbon, Short Pulse Laser Interactions with Matter: An Introduction (Imperial College Press, 2005)

    P. Gibbon, Short Pulse Laser Interactions with Matter: An Introduction (Imperial College Press, 2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Kaw and J

    P. Kaw and J. Dawson, The Physics of Fluids 13, 472 (1970)

    1970

  33. [41]

    Lefebvre and G

    E. Lefebvre and G. Bonnaud, Physical review letters 74, 2002 (1995)

    1995

  34. [42]

    Shen and Z

    B. Shen and Z. Xu, Physical Review E 64, 056406 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Willingale, S

    L. Willingale, S. Nagel, A. Thomas, C. Bellei, R. Clarke, A. Dangor, R. Heathcote, M. Kaluza, C. Kamperidis, S. Kneip, et al. , Physical review letters 102, 125002 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    J. Gray, P. Thomas, and X. Zhu, Review of Scientific Instruments 72, 3714 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Genoud, F

    G. Genoud, F. Wojda, M. Burza, A. Persson, and C.-G. Wahlstr¨ om, Review of Scientific Instruments82, 033102 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Iwasi´ nska-Kowalska, Metrology and Measurement Systems 21, 27 (2014)

    O. Iwasi´ nska-Kowalska, Metrology and Measurement Systems 21, 27 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Fedoseyev, Optics Communications 282, 1247 (2009)

    V. Fedoseyev, Optics Communications 282, 1247 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Robinson, P

    A. Robinson, P. Gibbon, M. Zepf, S. Kar, R. Evans, and C. Bellei, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 51, 024004 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Peebles, M

    J. Peebles, M. Wei, A. Arefiev, C. McGuffey, R. Stephens, W. Theobald, D. Haberberger, L. Jarrott, A. Link, H. Chen, et al. , New Journal of Physics 19, 023008 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.