Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Longitudinal tapering in meter-scale gas jets for increased efficiency of laser plasma accelerators

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By tilting a 30-cm gas jet and adjusting its throat width, longitudinal density tapering could lift laser-plasma electron beams from 9.4 GeV to 12.4 GeV and increase charge ninefold with a 19 J laser.

desk verdict Solid gas-jet engineering with careful density characterization; the headline beam gains are simulation predictions resting on a plausible but unvalidated channel-depth assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17028 v2 pith:QUVJCAWY submitted 2024-11-26 physics.acc-ph physics.plasm-ph

R. Li , A. Picksley , C. Benedetti , F. Filippi , J. Stackhouse , L. Fan-Chiang , H. E. Tsai , K. Nakamura
show 5 more authors
C. B. Schroeder J. van Tilborg E. Esarey C. G. R. Geddes A. J. Gonsalves
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords laserplasmaacceleratordensitytaperingdephasingmitigationgasjetnozzlechannelwaveguideHOFIparticle-in-cellsimulationdeLaval
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

Laser plasma accelerators can generate enormous electric fields but are limited by dephasing: electrons outrun the laser wake and stop gaining energy. This paper argues that a simple mechanical adjustment—tilting a 30-cm gas jet and changing its throat width—can create the longitudinal density up-ramp that counteracts dephasing, allowing a single stage to reach beyond 10 GeV. The authors measure the resulting density profiles and match them with fluid simulations. Particle-in-cell simulations then predict that a 2.5x linear taper driven by a 19 J laser would raise electron energy from 9.4 GeV to 12.4 GeV and increase charge from 9 pC to 81 pC. The beam results are predictions; the experimental part of the paper establishes that the required density profiles are actually achievable.

What carries the argument

The enabling device is an elongated converging–diverging (de Laval) nozzle with an elliptical exit, fed by a plenum chamber and ten solenoid valves to form a 30-cm gas sheet. Two geometric degrees of freedom produce the taper: tilting the jet changes the height of the gas relative to the drive laser, sampling a different part of the density-vs-height profile, and varying the throat width changes the local density linearly. The relevant identity is the dephasing-mitigation condition $n(z)/n_0 \approx 1 + (\pi/|\psi_0|)(z/L_d)$, which specifies the density ramp needed to keep the bunch in the accelerating region; the paper shows this ramp can be matched by an 11–14 mrad tilt. Supporting calculations come from OpenFOAM fluid simulations of the nozzle and INF&RNO particle-in-cell simulations of the accelerator, with the HOFI (hydrodynamic optical-field-ionization) channel depth assumed constant along the taper based on Sedov-Taylor scaling.

What would settle it

Measure the HOFI channel radius and focusing strength at several longitudinal positions along the tilted 30-cm jet; if the channel depth varies significantly along the density ramp, rerun the particle-in-cell simulation with the measured channel and check whether the 12.4 GeV, 81 pC result survives. Alternatively, run the tilted jet with a 19 J drive and compare the measured electron spectrum to the untapered baseline; absence of a >12 GeV, greatly increased charge beam would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that longitudinal density tapering—a gradual rise in gas density along the propagation direction—can be realized in a meter-scale gas jet by tilting the jet and adjusting the throat width, and that this taper substantially improves laser plasma accelerator performance. In the untapered baseline simulation of a 30-cm hydrogen plasma with nitrogen dopant in the first 12 cm, a 19 J, 40 fs laser produces a 9.4 GeV, 9 pC beam with ~6% rms energy spread. With a 2.5x linear density taper over the full length and dopant restricted to 8–10 cm, the same laser produces 12.4 GeV, 81 pC, and ~4% spread. The mechanism is that the rising density shortens the plasma wavelength along the accelerator, keeping the injected bunch in the accelerating phase of the wake longer; the increased density before injection also steepens the laser, raising the charge. Although the density profiles are demonstrated experimentally, the electron-beam gains are simulation results, not yet measured.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume the plasma channel that guides the laser keeps the same depth even as the gas density rises along the jet; if the channel actually changes shape with density, the predicted energy and charge gains may not appear in experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the predicted gains hold in experiment, a single LPA stage driven by 19 J laser energy could produce >12 GeV electron beams, exceeding the ~9 GeV untapered ceiling with the same laser.
  • The order-of-magnitude charge increase (9 pC to 81 pC) would make 10-GeV-class beams far more useful for applications like free-electron lasers and colliders.
  • Because the taper is set by two mechanical parameters—jet tilt and throat width—arbitrary slowly varying density profiles become practical for meter-scale targets.
  • The elliptical nozzle's higher density-to-mass-flow ratio suggests up to 30–40% higher repetition rate than a straight de Laval nozzle, relevant for high-repetition-rate LPA facilities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next experiment would run the tilted 30-cm jet with the exact 2.5x taper and 19 J drive to test whether the simulated 12.4 GeV, 81 pC beam appears; the density profiles in this paper make that test directly feasible.
  • The constant-channel-depth assumption could be tested by measuring the HOFI channel radius along the taper; if the channel varies, the optimal taper shape may differ from the ideal linear ramp.
  • The dephasing-mitigation formula implies that taper shape could be optimized beyond linear—for example, matching the local dephasing length—potentially recovering some of the 15.1 GeV seen in the fixed-injector 1.5x taper case while keeping the high charge.
  • The same tilting technique could be applied to shorter jets or other gas species, transferring the method to sub-GeV staged accelerators where dephasing also limits energy.
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 reports a combined experimental and computational study of longitudinal density tapering in meter-scale gas jets for laser plasma accelerators. Using a masked wavefront-sensor interferometry setup, the authors measure the longitudinal gas density profiles of a 30 cm de Laval nozzle gas jet and show that tilting the jet and varying the throat width can generate approximately linear density ramps. OpenFOAM simulations of the nozzle flow are validated against the measurements at two backing pressures and for two nozzle shapes (elliptical and straight). The paper then presents INF&RNO particle-in-cell simulations predicting that a 2.5× linear density taper over 30 cm would increase the electron beam energy from 9.4 GeV to 12.4 GeV and the charge from 9 pC to 81 pC for a 19 J, 40 fs drive laser with an optimized nitrogen dopant injection window, and that a 1.5× taper after the injection region could yield over 15 GeV. The experimental contribution is the demonstration and characterization of the tapered gas density profiles; the accelerator performance gains are simulation predictions.

Significance. The experimental gas-density measurements are carefully executed: the influence of the masking plate is checked, the CFD inlet pressures are calibrated against two experimental valve pressures with consistent scaling, and the elliptical and straight nozzle geometries are compared directly. The PIC predictions are genuine in the sense that they are not fitted to the target energy; the density ramp is set by the experimental tilt and throat width and the beam output is a forward prediction. If the simulation results are robust, the paper would demonstrate a simple gas-jet modification that could enable >10 GeV single-stage acceleration with a 19 J laser and an order-of-magnitude charge increase, which would be a significant step for LPAs. However, the central acceleration claim rests entirely on a single INF&RNO simulation with an assumed constant HOFI channel depth and an idealized linear density ramp, and no sensitivity studies are provided; these limitations temper the significance of the simulation-based conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV (PIC simulations)] The statement that 'The channel depth is kept constant along the channel length in these simulations' is load-bearing for the predicted energy and charge gains, but the justification given concerns the shock front radius, not the channel depth. In a HOFI-generated channel, the density depression scales with the local ambient density, so holding Δn constant while the on-axis density n0 ramps by a factor of 2.5 changes the normalized channel depth Δn/n0 by the same factor along the accelerator. This alters the guiding strength and the wake phase-velocity profile that the taper is specifically intended to control, and a moderate error in Δn(z) could shift the result by more than the claimed 32% energy increase. The paper provides no sensitivity scan over Δn(z) and no channel-formation simulation to support the assumption. I request that the authors either justify the constant-depth approximation with a dedicated simulation or demonstrate that the headline result is robust to plausible variations of the channel depth with density.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV (simulated beam spectra)] The abstract states that tapering increases the accelerated charge by an order of magnitude, but the comparison is not controlled: the untapered baseline uses a nitrogen dopant region of 0-12 cm (9 pC), while the headline tapered case uses an 8-10 cm dopant window (81 pC). The paper's own 1.5× taper with a 0-12 cm dopant region produces 15.1 GeV but only 9 pC, showing that the energy gain does not by itself produce a charge gain when the injection window is fixed. The charge increase therefore results from the combination of tapering and the optimized, and different, injection window. The abstract should state this explicitly, or the authors should compare like with like, for example by quoting the 225 pC, 11 GeV result for the 2.5× taper with the 0-12 cm dopant region.
  3. [Section IV, Figure 5a] The PIC simulations use an ideal 2.5× linear density ramp, whereas the experimentally measured tilted-jet profile shows a pronounced flat region between roughly 8 and 13 cm of the 30 cm length, as acknowledged in the text. Because the proposed scheme relies on the detailed density ramp to compensate dephasing, the simulated 12.4 GeV/81 pC result may not be realizable with the density profile actually demonstrated. The authors should simulate the LPA with the measured density profile (or a parameterization that includes the flat region) to quantify the effect of the deviation from linearity, or at minimum discuss the sensitivity of the beam energy and charge to such fluctuations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] The text reads 'Raleigh range'; the correct spelling is 'Rayleigh range.'
  2. [Section III] The simulation domain is described as 'shown in Figure 1e', but the actual simulation domain appears in Figure 2a; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Section II] The sentence 'the data ≤4 mm from the nozzle is distorted' should read 'density data at heights ≤4 mm from the nozzle are distorted.'
  4. [Section IV] The phase notation is inconsistent: Eq. (3) uses |ψ0|, while the surrounding text uses |Ψ0| for the same quantity.
  5. [Conclusion] The phrase 'proving through simulations' is too strong for a simulation-based prediction; 'indicating' or 'suggesting' would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the PIC acceleration gains are genuine simulations; the only blemish is minor non-load-bearing self-citation plus a modeling caveat.

full rationale

The paper's headline result (tapering increases electron energy from ~9 GeV to >12 GeV and charge by an order of magnitude) is produced by INF&RNO PIC simulations with an experimentally realizable linear density ramp, not by fitting to the claimed 12.4 GeV/81 pC output. The untapered baseline (9.4 GeV, 9 pC) is compared with tapered cases under identical laser and plasma parameters taken from Ref. 27, and the dopant window is kept the same (0-12 cm) in the baseline and first tapered case, so the increases are computed, not imposed. The analytic ramp estimate, Eq. (3), is imported from Ref. 30, which shares authors with this paper (Schroeder, Esarey, Leemans), but it is a minor non-load-bearing self-citation: it only sets the scale of the required density gradient (n(z=2Ld)/n0 ~ 2), and the simulated gain does not reduce to that formula. The OpenFOAM simulations adjust inlet pressures to match measured density profiles; this is a calibration of the gas-jet model and is separate from the beam-energy prediction, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The one caveat is the constant-channel-depth assumption in Sec. IV: "The channel depth is kept constant along the channel length in these simulations. We expect this to be a reasonable approximation..." The paper's Sedov-Taylor justification concerns shock-front radius, not channel depth directly, so this is a sensitivity/correctness gap rather than a circular step, because channel depth is not defined in terms of the predicted beam energy and no feedback from the acceleration result sets the channel depth. Overall, no step of the derivation is equivalent by construction to its input; the score reflects only the minor self-citations and the non-circular modeling simplification.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on prior analytical dephasing theory, PIC modeling, and a calibrated CFD inlet pressure; the constant-channel-depth assumption is the largest unverified input.

free parameters (4)
  • CFD inlet pressure, elliptical nozzle = 220 kPa (35.5 kPa at lower valve pressure)
    Set to match the measured density profile; the ratio of inlet pressures matches the ratio of experimental valve pressures, so it is a disclosed calibration rather than a fit to the accelerator result.
  • CFD inlet pressure, straight nozzle = 96.5 kPa
    Set to match the measured density profile; there is no independent measurement of the pressure at the nozzle inlet.
  • Taper ratio for the main tapered case = 2.5x over 30 cm
    Chosen because it is achievable by a 14 mrad tilt; the headline 12.4 GeV / 81 pC result depends on this ramp.
  • Dopant (injection) window for the headline case = 8 to 10 cm
    Chosen to reduce energy spread; the 12.4 GeV / 81 pC result uses this window, while a 0 to 12 cm window gives 11 GeV / 225 pC.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dephasing-mitigation density profile formula n(z)/n0 ≈ 1 + π/|ψ0| z/Ld (Eq. 3) from Ref. 30
    The paper uses this prior analytical model to define the target taper; it is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption INF&RNO PIC simulation accurately models laser propagation, self-steepening, and electron injection/acceleration
    All electron-beam performance numbers are simulation output; no beam experiment is reported.
  • domain assumption HOFI channel depth is constant along the tapered plasma
    Section IV states 'The channel depth is kept constant along the channel length in these simulations. We expect this to be a reasonable approximation...'; this is the weakest assumption.
  • domain assumption 2D nozzle symmetry and k-epsilon RAS turbulence model
    Section III uses 2D OpenFOAM simulations with a k-epsilon turbulence model to predict gas flow.
  • domain assumption Initial on-axis plasma density of 1.05e17 cm^-3 and laser parameters from Ref. 27
    The PIC setup reuses the 19 J, 40 fs, 53 um laser and density from the prior 10 GeV experiment; these are inputs, not fitted here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Longitudinal tapering in meter-scale gas jets for increased efficiency of laser plasma accelerators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUVJCAWY

@misc{pith2026241117028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Longitudinal tapering in meter-scale gas jets for increased efficiency of laser plasma accelerators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUVJCAWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17028}
}
read the original abstract

Modern laser plasma accelerators (LPAs) often require plasma waveguides tens of cm long to propagate a high-intensity drive laser pulse. Tapering the longitudinal gas density profile in 10 cm scale gas jets could allow for single stage laser plasma acceleration well beyond 10 GeV with current petawatt-class laser systems. Via simulation and interferometry measurements, we show density control by longitudinally adjusting the throat width and jet angle. Density profiles appropriate for tapering were calculated analytically and via particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations, and were matched experimentally. These simulations show that tapering can increase electron beam energy using 19 J laser energy from ~9 GeV to >12 GeV in a 30 cm plasma, and the accelerated charge by an order of magnitude. This paper was published in Review of Scientific Instruments on April 11, 2025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0250698

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17028 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) Gas jet density measurement setup. The phase offset of the probe beam ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The simulation domain is shown in a). Inlet boundary con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Density lineouts from simulations and experimental data of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measured longitudinal density profile of the uniform throat width and nonuniform throat width configuration are shown in a) and b), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. a) The measured, normalized gas densities of the longitudi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [3]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  4. [4]

    Tajima \ and\ author J

    author author T. Tajima \ and\ author J. M. \ Dawson ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.267 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 43 ,\ pages 267 ( year 1979 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.43.267 1979

  5. [5]

    Esarey , author C

    author author E. Esarey , author C. B. \ Schroeder , \ and\ author W. P. \ Leemans ,\ @noop journal journal Reviews of modern physics \ volume 81 ,\ pages 1229 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Wang , author K

    author author W. Wang , author K. Feng , author L. Ke , author C. Yu , author Y. Xu , author R. Qi , author Y. Chen , author Z. Qin , author Z. Zhang , author M. Fang , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 595 ,\ pages 516 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    author author C. B. \ Schroeder , author E. Esarey , author C. Geddes , author C. Benedetti , \ and\ author W. P. \ Leemans ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams \ volume 13 ,\ pages 101301 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    author author C. G. \ Geddes , author S. Rykovanov , author N. H. \ Matlis , author S. Steinke , author J.-L. \ Vay , author E. H. \ Esarey , author B. Ludewigt , author K. Nakamura , author B. J. \ Quiter , author C. B. \ Schroeder , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Mate...

    work page 2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Borisov , author A

    author author A. Borisov , author A. Borovskiy , author V. Korobkin , author A. Prokhorov , author O. Shiryaev , author X. Shi , author T. Luk , author A. McPherson , author J. Solem , author K. Boyer , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 68 ,\ pag...

    1992

  2. [10]

    Krushelnick , author A

    author author K. Krushelnick , author A. Ting , author C. Moore , author H. Burris , author E. Esarey , author P. Sprangle , \ and\ author M. Baine ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 78 ,\ pages 4047 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997

  3. [11]

    Durfee III \ and\ author H

    author author C. Durfee III \ and\ author H. Milchberg ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 71 ,\ pages 2409 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993

  4. [12]

    Zigler , author Y

    author author A. Zigler , author Y. Ehrlich , author C. Cohen , author J. Krall , \ and\ author P. Sprangle ,\ @noop journal journal JOSA B \ volume 13 ,\ pages 68 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  5. [13]

    Durfee III , author J

    author author C. Durfee III , author J. Lynch , \ and\ author H. Milchberg ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 51 ,\ pages 2368 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995

  6. [14]

    Volfbeyn , author E

    author author P. Volfbeyn , author E. Esarey , \ and\ author W. Leemans ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 6 ,\ pages 2269 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999

  7. [15]

    Ditmire , author R

    author author T. Ditmire , author R. Smith , \ and\ author M. Hutchinson ,\ @noop journal journal Optics letters \ volume 23 ,\ pages 322 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998

  8. [16]

    Kumarappan , author K

    author author V. Kumarappan , author K. Kim , \ and\ author H. Milchberg ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 94 ,\ pages 205004 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  9. [17]

    Ting , author C

    author author A. Ting , author C. Moore , author K. Krushelnick , author C. Manka , author E. Esarey , author P. Sprangle , author R. Hubbard , author H. Burris , author R. Fischer , \ and\ author M. Baine ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 4 ,\ pages 1889 ( ...

    1997

  10. [18]

    Butler , author D

    author author A. Butler , author D. Spence , \ and\ author S. M. \ Hooker ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 89 ,\ pages 185003 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002

  11. [19]

    Spence , author A

    author author D. Spence , author A. Butler , \ and\ author S. Hooker ,\ @noop journal journal JOSA B \ volume 20 ,\ pages 138 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  12. [20]

    author author W. P. \ Leemans , author B. Nagler , author A. J. \ Gonsalves , author C. T \'o th , author K. Nakamura , author C. G. \ Geddes , author E. Esarey , author C. B. \ Schroeder , \ and\ author S. M. \ Hooker ,\ @noop journal journal Nature physics \ volume 2 ,\ page...

    2006

  13. [21]

    Leemans , author A

    author author W. Leemans , author A. Gonsalves , author H.-S. \ Mao , author K. Nakamura , author C. Benedetti , author C. Schroeder , author C. T \'o th , author J. Daniels , author D. Mittelberger , author S. Bulanov , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters ...

    2014

  14. [22]

    author author A. J. \ Gonsalves et al. ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.084801 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 122 ,\ pages 084801 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    author author R. J. \ Shalloo , author C. Arran , author L. Corner , author J. Holloway , author J. Jonnerby , author R. Walczak , author H. Milchberg , \ and\ author S. M. \ Hooker ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 97 ,\ pages 053203 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  16. [24]

    Shalloo , author C

    author author R. Shalloo , author C. Arran , author A. Picksley , author A. Von Boetticher , author L. Corner , author J. Holloway , author G. Hine , author J. Jonnerby , author H. Milchberg , author C. Thornton , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Accelerators an...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Picksley , author A

    author author A. Picksley , author A. Alejo , author R. Shalloo , author C. Arran , author A. Von Boetticher , author L. Corner , author J. Holloway , author J. Jonnerby , author O. Jakobsson , author C. Thornton , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 102...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Feder , author B

    author author L. Feder , author B. Miao , author J. Shrock , author A. Goffin , \ and\ author H. Milchberg ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Research \ volume 2 ,\ pages 043173 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  19. [27]

    Miao , author J

    author author B. Miao , author J. E. \ Shrock , author L. Feder , author R. C. \ Hollinger , author J. Morrison , author R. Nedbailo , author A. Picksley , author H. Song , author S. Wang , author J. J. \ Rocca , \ and\ author H. M. \ Milchberg ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.031038 jo...

    doi

  20. [28]

    Shrock , author B

    author author J. Shrock , author B. Miao , author L. Feder , \ and\ author H. Milchberg ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 29 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  21. [29]

    Miao , author J

    author author B. Miao , author J. Shrock , author E. Rockafellow , author A. Sloss , \ and\ author H. Milchberg ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10236 \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Picksley , author J

    author author A. Picksley , author J. Stackhouse , author C. Benedetti , author K. Nakamura , author H. Tsai , author R. Li , author B. Miao , author J. Shrock , author E. Rockafellow , author H. Milchberg , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 133 ...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Suk , author C

    author author H. Suk , author C. Kim , author G. Kim , author J. Kim , author I. Ko , \ and\ author H. Lee ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2003.07.003 journal journal Physics Letters A \ volume 316 ,\ pages 233 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    Pukhov \ and\ author I

    author author A. Pukhov \ and\ author I. Kostyukov ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics \ volume 77 ,\ pages 025401 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  25. [33]

    Rittershofer , author C

    author author W. Rittershofer , author C. B. \ Schroeder , author E. Esarey , author F. J. \ Grüner , \ and\ author W. P. \ Leemans ,\ 10.1063/1.3430638 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 17 ,\ pages 063104 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi

  26. [34]

    Guillaume , author A

    author author E. Guillaume , author A. D\"opp , author C. Thaury , author K. Ta Phuoc , author A. Lifschitz , author G. Grittani , author J.-P. \ Goddet , author A. Tafzi , author S. W. \ Chou , author L. Veisz , \ and\ author V. Malka ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.155002 journal...

    doi

  27. [35]

    Aniculaesei , author V

    author author C. Aniculaesei , author V. B. \ Pathak , author H. T. \ Kim , author K. H. \ Oh , author B. J. \ Yoo , author E. Brunetti , author Y. H. \ Jang , author C. I. \ Hojbota , author J. H. \ Shin , author J. H. \ Jeon , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Scientific Repor...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Jasak , author A

    author author H. Jasak , author A. Jemcov , author Z. Tukovic , et al. ,\ in\ @noop booktitle International workshop on coupled methods in numerical dynamics ,\ Vol.\ volume 1000 \ ( organization Dubrovnik, Croatia) ,\ year 2007 )\ pp.\ pages 1--20 NoStop

    2007

  29. [37]

    Benedetti , author C

    author author C. Benedetti , author C. Schroeder , author E. Esarey , \ and\ author W. Leemans ,\ in\ @noop booktitle AIP Conference Proceedings ,\ Vol.\ volume 1507 \ ( organization American Institute of Physics ,\ year 2012 )\ pp.\ pages 252--257 NoStop

    2012

  30. [38]

    Benedetti , author C

    author author C. Benedetti , author C. Schroeder , author C. Geddes , author E. Esarey , \ and\ author W. Leemans ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion \ volume 60 ,\ pages 014002 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  31. [39]

    KRISHNAN ,\ @noop title Linear gas jet with tailored density profile , \ type Tech

    author author M. KRISHNAN ,\ @noop title Linear gas jet with tailored density profile , \ type Tech. Rep. \ ( institution Alameda Applied Sciences Corporation ,\ year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  32. [40]

    Krishnan ,\ @noop title A novel gas jet for laser wakefield acceleration , \ type Tech

    author author M. Krishnan ,\ @noop title A novel gas jet for laser wakefield acceleration , \ type Tech. Rep. \ ( institution Alameda Applied Sciences Corporation ,\ year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  33. [41]

    author author D. E. \ Mittelberger , author M. Th \'e venet , author K. Nakamura , author A. J. \ Gonsalves , author C. Benedetti , author J. Daniels , author S. Steinke , author R. Lehe , author J.-L. \ Vay , author C. B. \ Schroeder , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Zhou , author H.-E

    author author O. Zhou , author H.-E. \ Tsai , author T. M. \ Ostermayr , author L. Fan-Chiang , author J. Van Tilborg , author C. B. \ Schroeder , author E. Esarey , \ and\ author C. G. \ Geddes ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 28 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  35. [43]

    author author J. P. \ Couperus , author A. K \"o hler , author T. Wolterink , author A. Jochmann , author O. Zarini , author H. Bastiaens , author K. Boller , author A. Irman , \ and\ author U. Schramm ,\ @noop journal journal Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Researc...

    2016

  36. [44]

    author author B. E. \ Launder \ and\ author B. I. \ Sharma ,\ @noop journal journal Letters in heat and mass transfer \ volume 1 ,\ pages 131 ( year 1974 ) NoStop

    1974

  37. [45]

    author author S. H. \ El-Tahry ,\ @noop journal journal J. Energy;(United States) \ volume 7 ( year 1983 ) NoStop

    1983

  38. [46]

    Geuzaine \ and\ author J.-F

    author author C. Geuzaine \ and\ author J.-F. \ Remacle ,\ @noop journal journal International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering \ volume 79 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  39. [47]

    Rebay ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of computational physics \ volume 106 ,\ pages 125 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    author author S. Rebay ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of computational physics \ volume 106 ,\ pages 125 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993

  40. [48]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

  41. [49]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.