Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Enhanced Proton Acceleration via Petawatt Laguerre-Gaussian Lasers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single Laguerre-Gaussian laser pulse on a flat foil produced a collimated 35 MeV proton beam with roughly 2-degree divergence.

desk verdict First experimental demonstration of LG-laser-driven proton collimation, but the 60% energy-gain claim is undermined by a two-shot comparison and a plausible detection-bias artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12683 v1 pith:DM346Q63 submitted 2025-01-22 physics.plasm-ph

Wenpeng Wang , Xinyue Sun , Fengyu Sun , Zhengxing Lv , K. Glize , Zhiyong Shi , Yi Xu , Zongxin Zhang
show 8 more authors
Fenxiang Wu Jiabing Hu Jiayi Qian Jiacheng Zhu Xiaoyan Liang Yuxin Leng Ruxin Li Zhizhan Xu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.38.Kd52.65.Rr
keywords laser-drivenionaccelerationLaguerre-Gaussianlasertargetnormalsheathprotonbeamcollimationparticle-in-cellsimulationorbitalangularmomentumradiochromicfilmhollowfocus
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 claims to have demonstrated experimentally that a single femtosecond Laguerre-Gaussian laser pulse, with a hollow donut-shaped focus, can accelerate protons from a plain 4-micron aluminum foil into a collimated beam. On the same laser power, the LG drive produced protons up to about 35 MeV with a divergence of roughly 2 degrees, whereas the conventional Gaussian drive produced about 22 MeV protons spread over more than 10 degrees. The authors argue that the hollow laser profile shapes both the target and the sheath field so that the electron jet is focused and then held together by self-generated magnetic fields, which strengthens the accelerating field. If correct, this gives an all-optical route to collimated, high-repetition-rate proton sources without structured targets or a second laser.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Laguerre-Gaussian laser mode with topological charge l=1, whose donut-shaped intensity profile creates a hollow electric sheath field at the target rear and leaves a curved, hollow plasma profile after the prepulse. The mechanism is completed by the self-generated azimuthal magnetic field from the electron jet; the paper gives the collimation condition $r_B \geq r_e(1-\cos\theta)$, where $r_e$ is the electron Larmor radius, and shows electrons with $v_e=0.8c$ and $\theta=5^\circ$ stay confined in the magnetic tunnel. Supporting machinery includes a 32-step reflective phase plate that converts the Gaussian beam to the LG mode, FLASH hydrodynamic simulations of prepulse target expansion used as initial conditions, and 3D EPOCH particle-in-cell simulations that reproduce and explain the measured proton images and spectra.

What would settle it

Repeat the Gaussian-versus-LG comparison with several shots per mode at the same on-target intensity and report the spread of maximum proton energies and divergence angles; if the apparent LG advantage falls within shot-to-shot scatter, the central claim fails. A separate check would compare LG shots with a continuous phase plate against those with the 32-step plate: if collimation does not improve, the hollow-focus mechanism as modeled is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a 32-step reflective phase plate to convert a 560 TW, 28 fs, 800 nm laser into an LG l=1, p=0 mode, the authors generated a hollow focal spot with inner radius 0.6 µm and outer radius 4.7 µm and on-target intensity 2.8×$10^{20}$ W/cm². On a 4 µm Al foil this produced a proton beam with maximum energy about 35 MeV and divergence about 2 degrees, a 60% energy increase and much stronger collimation than the Gaussian focus at 8.8×$10^{20}$ W/cm² on identical targets. Three-dimensional PIC simulations attribute the result to a sequence: the LG prepulse leaves the rear target surface curved inward, the hollow sheath field initially focuses the plasma jet, and the electron-dominated jet current generates a magnetic tunnel that confines electrons and sustains a stronger charge-separation field, enhancing target-normal sheath acceleration. The paper claims this is the first experimental realization of LG-laser-driven collimated proton acceleration on a simple planar target.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison is two single shots with different focal intensities (8.8×$10^{20}$ W/cm² Gaussian versus 2.8×$10^{20}$ W/cm² LG), so the paper's claim that the LG mode causes the higher energy and lower divergence assumes shot-to-shot laser contrast, target conditions, and RCF analysis choices did not bias the outcome.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single LG pulse on a planar target can replace structured targets or two-laser arrangements for collimated proton generation, removing a major obstacle to high-repetition operation.
  • At fixed laser power, converting the beam to LG mode can raise maximum proton energy by about 60% (from 22 to 35 MeV in this configuration) while reducing divergence from >10 degrees to about 2 degrees.
  • The hollow prepulse is not a liability: it shapes the rear surface and helps launch the focusing sheath field, so LG drive turns prepulse-induced deformation into part of the collimation mechanism.
  • Because the mechanism is all-optical and target-independent, it should transfer to other petawatt facilities and to thinner or thicker foils once the laser amplitude is matched.
  • Applications needing high-brilliance, high-flux beams — proton radiography, fast ignition, warm dense matter studies, and possibly proton therapy — become more practical if the divergence and energy gains hold up.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the paper reports single shots, so the quantitative 60% and 2-degree numbers are point estimates; a multi-shot campaign with matched focal intensities would be the natural confirmation.
  • Editorial extension: if the magnetic-tunnel collimation picture is right, higher topological charge l or a continuous phase plate should improve collimation further, and the divergence should worsen at lower electron current; both are testable before running full repetition-rate systems.
  • Editorial extension: the mechanism suggests that prepulse contrast is not merely a nuisance parameter; tuning the prepulse shape (not just removing it) could deliberately sculpt the rear surface and enhance the sheath field, which the paper leaves implicit.
  • Editorial extension: the same hollow-sheath focusing may apply to heavier ion species or to electron acceleration, though the paper does not demonstrate those cases.
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 manuscript reports an experimental and numerical study of proton acceleration from 4-µm aluminum foils driven by a single femtosecond petawatt-class Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) laser at the SULF facility. The authors compare one Gaussian-laser shot with one LG-laser shot, reporting that the LG case yields a maximum proton energy of about 35 MeV versus about 22 MeV for the Gaussian case (a claimed 60% increase) and a high-energy proton divergence reduced from >10° to about 2°. Three-dimensional PIC simulations, initialized from FLASH-computed prepulse-expanded target profiles, are used to attribute the improvement to hollow-sheath focusing of the electron jet followed by self-generated magnetic-field collimation, which strengthens the TNSA field. The paper concludes that a single LG laser on a planar target offers an all-optical route to collimated, higher-energy proton beams.

Significance. If the central result were firmly established, this would be the first experimental demonstration of LG-laser-driven collimation of TNSA protons on a flat target, and the proposed mechanism (hollow sheath focusing plus magnetic collimation) is physically interesting and potentially useful for high-repetition-rate applications. The authors have made a serious effort to connect experiment and simulation: the PIC runs are initialized from FLASH target-expansion profiles based on measured prepulse parameters and are not fitted to the final proton energy or divergence, and the 3D simulations qualitatively reproduce both the collimated jet and the energy ordering. However, the quantitative claims (60% energy enhancement and ~2° divergence) are not established at the level expected for a journal report. The experimental comparison rests on two single shots with different focal intensities, the RCF analysis uses an assumed exponential spectrum and manually selected angular regions, and the PIC simulations cap the electron density at 35 n_c, far below the roughly 250 n_c expected for Al7+ at solid density.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experimental Results, Fig. 2] The central quantitative claim of a 60% increase in maximum proton energy rests on one Gaussian shot and one LG shot, with no shot-to-shot statistics, error bars, or reproducibility information. The two shots also differ in focal intensity (8.8×10^20 W/cm^2 for the Gaussian case versus 2.8×10^20 W/cm^2 for the LG case), in addition to differing in mode and prepulse/target-expansion history. TNSA spectra are known to be highly shot-dependent, so the 22 MeV to 35 MeV comparison is not sufficient to establish the claimed enhancement. The authors should provide multiple shots per mode or otherwise quantify the run-to-run variation, and they should discuss how the intensity difference affects the interpretation of a mode-induced energy gain.
  2. [Methods, 'Analysis of RCFs' and Fig. 2l] The inferred Gaussian maximum energy of 22 MeV is vulnerable to a detection-bias artifact. The RCF deconvolution assumes an exponential spectrum f(E) = N0/E exp[-E/(kBT)] and selects 'a circle of a determined size and position that includes the high-intensity region,' while the Thomson parabola positioned 43 cm from the target has a limited acceptance aperture. For the Gaussian shot, whose beam spreads over a radius of about 5 cm on the RCF (divergence >10°), the areal density of high-energy protons is much lower than for the collimated LG beam, so the same number of high-energy protons can fall below the RCF optical-density threshold or outside the selected integration region. This would make the reported Gaussian Emax an underestimate and could produce the appearance of a 22→35 MeV enhancement even without a true energy increase. The authors should re-analyze the full RCF images, quantify the Thomson parabola acceptance, and ideally pass the simulated proton distributions through the actual RCF/TP detection geometry to test whether the reported difference survives.
  3. [Experimental Results, Fig. 2k and Methods] The quoted ~2° divergence and the statement that '~20% protons lie within the divergence of 2°' are obtained from a manually selected high-intensity region and from a spectrum fit with assumed exponential form. No sensitivity analysis is given for the circle size, circle position, or spectral fit parameters. It is therefore unclear whether the divergence reduction is a robust measured property or an artifact of the analysis choices. An objective moment-based analysis of the full RCF image, or of the beam profile before the RCF, would provide a more convincing measure of divergence and of the fraction of protons within a given cone.
  4. [Methods, PIC simulation] The PIC simulations set the maximum electron density in the aluminum layer to n_e = 35 n_c and assume an average ionization state Al7+. For solid aluminum at 2.7 g/cm^3, the electron density for Al7+ is approximately 250 n_c (and about 450 n_c for fully ionized Al), so the simulated target is more than a factor of 7 underdense relative to the experiment. This changes the laser absorption, hot-electron generation, and sheath-field dynamics and prevents the simulations from providing a quantitative validation of the 35 MeV energy or the 60% enhancement. The authors should either run solid-density (or explicitly density-converged) simulations or clearly frame the simulations as a qualitative mechanism study, not as a quantitative benchmark. This limitation is especially important because the experimental energy comparison itself is based on only two shots.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a typo ('IP plated' should be 'IP plates') and the panel references are confusing: the text refers to Fig. 2l for the spectra, while the caption mentions 'm, LG and n, G laser'; the reader cannot tell which panel corresponds to which laser mode.
  2. [Methods, FLASH simulation and PIC simulation] There is a coordinate inconsistency: the FLASH simulation places the front surface of the target at y = 60 µm, while the PIC simulation states the expanded target is positioned obliquely at x = 0 µm. The mapping between the two coordinate systems should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Experimental setup, Fig. 1] The definition of the LG laser intensity is not fully transparent: the paper gives inner and outer focal-spot radii of about 0.6 and 4.7 µm and an FWHM energy concentration of about 30%, but does not specify the effective area used to obtain I_LG = 2.8×10^20 W/cm^2. This should be stated precisely because the comparison with the Gaussian intensity depends on it.
  4. [Simulation results, collimation condition] The collimation condition r_B ≥ r_e (1 − cos θ) is introduced as a single-particle estimate, but its derivation and validity range are not given. A brief derivation or a reference would help the reader understand the assumptions behind the magnetic-tunnel confinement picture.
  5. [Introduction, references] The claim that LG laser effects 'have not yet been validated experimentally' is immediately followed by references to earlier experimental works on hollow and LG beams (Refs. [60–62]); the distinction between those works and the present experiment should be stated more clearly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the experimental comparison is measured, the simulations are initialized from measured laser and plasma parameters, and the proposed mechanism is derived in situ.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—35 MeV vs 22 MeV Emax and roughly 2° vs >10° divergence—are experimental observables obtained from RCF stacks and a Thomson parabola, not model outputs fitted to those endpoints. The RCF unfolding assumes an exponential spectrum and standard response functions (SRIM/PySrim), and the region selection is a data-analysis choice; this may affect interpretation but does not make the claimed enhancement equivalent to the input by construction. The PIC simulations (EPOCH) are initialized from measured laser amplitudes (aLG=11.4, aG=20), measured focal-spot profiles, and FLASH-computed target expansion from the measured prepulse; they are not tuned to reproduce the final proton energy or divergence. The proposed mechanism is supported by the paper's own 3D simulations and by a derived single-particle collimation condition rB >= re(1−cos θ), not by an imported uniqueness theorem or by a definitional identity. Self-citations (e.g., [51], [59], [61], [68]) appear in the background and in numerical-method citations, but they are not load-bearing: the prior LG work is re-derived here with a new simulation campaign and the experimental demonstration is independent. The detection-bias concern (Gaussian high-energy tail diluted below RCF/TP thresholds) is a substantive diagnostic-acceptance question for the comparison, not a circularity, since no quoted equation makes the prediction equal to its inputs.

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

The ledger is modest. The quantitative claims depend on a fitted spectral model, hand-set focal-spot parameters, and a strong density cap in the PIC simulations. No new physical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are standard plasma simulation and diagnostics approximations, but the density cap and exponential spectrum ansatz are not validated by sensitivity studies.

free parameters (4)
  • RCF exponential spectrum parameters (N0, kBT) = not quoted; fitted per shot
    Methods: dN/dE = N0/E exp(-E/kBT); N0 and beta are solved by Newton least squares from RCF data. The quoted maximum energies depend on this fit.
  • Gaussian focal spot weighting (Rx, gamma) = Rx=3.3 um, gamma=1.1
    Chosen to reproduce the measured 5.2 um FWHM focal spot in FLASH; not fitted to proton energies.
  • LG focal spot approximation = two Gaussians, radius 5 um, separation 6 um; w_LG=3 um
    Chosen to match the measured donut focal spot; affects the simulated field topology and the inferred mechanism.
  • PIC maximum electron density = ne=35 nc
    Set for computational efficiency; solid aluminum is roughly 460 nc, so this is a strong simplification with no sensitivity study.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Al foil is treated as fully ionized Al7+ plasma with electron density capped at 35 nc
    Methods, PIC simulation. A computational simplification with no sensitivity study, so the simulated electric and magnetic fields may not be quantitatively representative.
  • domain assumption FLASH-predicted target expansion accurately represents the experimental target state
    Fig. 3 and Methods. PIC initial conditions are built from FLASH outputs, so errors in prepulse modeling propagate into the mechanism.
  • domain assumption RCF response functions from SRIM and OD calibration from literature are accurate
    Methods, Analysis of RCFs. No in-house calibration curve is shown, so absolute energies and doses rely on external calibrations.
  • domain assumption Proton spectrum is exponential: dN/dE = N0/E exp(-E/kBT)
    Methods, Analysis of RCFs. If the true spectrum is non-exponential, the deconvolved maximum energy and divergence fractions could change.
  • standard math Single-particle Larmor collimation condition rB >= re(1-cos theta) captures the simulated B-field collimation
    Applies relativistic electron motion in a static magnetic field; reasonable but simplified, and used to explain the simulation rather than to derive proton energies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Proton Acceleration via Petawatt Laguerre-Gaussian Lasers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DM346Q63

@misc{pith2026250112683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Proton Acceleration via Petawatt Laguerre-Gaussian Lasers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DM346Q63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12683}
}
read the original abstract

High-energy, high-flux collimated proton beams with high repetition rates are critical for applications such as proton therapy, proton radiography, high-energy-density matter generation, and compact particle accelerators. However, achieving proton beam collimation has typically relied on complex and expensive target fabrication or precise control of auxiliary laser pulses, which poses significant limitations for high-repetition applications. Here, we demonstrate an all-optical method for collimated proton acceleration using a single femtosecond Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) laser with an intensity exceeding 1020 W/cm2 irradiating a simple planar target. Compared to conventional Gaussian laser-driven schemes, the maximum proton energy is enhanced by 60% (reaching 35 MeV) and beam divergence is much reduced. Particle-in-cell simulations reveal that a plasma jet is initially focused by the hollow electric sheath field of the LG laser, and then electrons in the jet are further collimated by self-generated magnetic fields. This process amplifies the charge-separation electric field between electrons and ions, leading to increased proton energy in the longitudinal direction and improved collimation in the transverse direction. This single-LG-laser-driven collimation mechanism offers a promising pathway for high-repetition, high-quality proton beam generation, with broad potential applications including proton therapy and fast ignition in inertial confinement fusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Generation of high power spatially-structured laser pulses via forward Raman amplification in plasma

    physics.plasm-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations show that forward Raman amplification in plasma can amplify structured laser beams (vortex, Bessel, Airy) by 10^4 to 10^5 times in intensity, reaching around 10^17 W/cm2 with sub-cycle self-compression.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Yanovsky, V

    V. Yanovsky, V. Chvykov, G. Kalinchenko, P. Rousseau, T. Planchon, T. Matsuoka, A. Maksimchuk, J. Nees, G. Cheriaux, G. Mourou, and K. Krushelnick, Ultra-high intensity-300-TW laser at 0.1 Hz repetition rate., Opt. Express 16, 2109 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    J. W. Yoon, Y. G. Kim, I. W. Choi, J. H. Sung, H. W. Lee, S. K. Lee, and C. H. Nam, Realization of laser in- tensity over 1023 W/cm2, Optica 8, 630 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    G. A. Mourou, T. Tajima, and S. V. Bulanov, Optics in the relativistic regime, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 309 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Macchi, M

    A. Macchi, M. Borghesi, and M. Passoni, Ion accelera- 7 tion by superintense laser-plasma interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 751 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Bulanov, T

    S. Bulanov, T. Esirkepov, V. Khoroshkov, A. Kuznetsov, and F. Pegoraro, Oncological hadrontherapy with laser ion accelerators, Phys. Lett. A 299, 240 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    S. V. Bulanov and V. S. Khoroshkov, Feasibility of using laser ion accelerators in proton therapy, Plasma Phys. Rep. 28, 453 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    S. V. Bulanov, J. J. Wilkens, T. Z. Esirkepov, G. Korn, G. Kraft, S. D. Kraft, M. Molls, and V. S. Khoroshkov, Laser ion acceleration for hadron therapy, Physics- Uspekhi 57, 1149 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Borghesi, D

    M. Borghesi, D. H. Campbell, A. Schiavi, M. G. Haines, O. Willi, A. J. MacKinnon, P. Patel, L. A. Gizzi, M. Gal- imberti, R. J. Clarke, F. Pegoraro, H. Ruhl, and S. Bu- lanov, Electric field detection in laser-plasma interac- tion experiments via the proton imaging technique, Phys. Plasmas 9, 2214 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    S. Kar, A. Green, H. Ahmed, A. Alejo, A. P. L. Robinson, M. Cerchez, R. Clarke, D. Doria, S. Dorkings, J. Fernan- dez, S. R. Mirfayzi, P. McKenna, K. Naughton, D. Neely, P. Norreys, C. Peth, H. Powell, J. A. Ruiz, J. Swain, O. Willi, and M. Borghesi, Beamed neutron emission dr...

    2016

  2. [10]

    M. Roth, D. Jung, K. Falk, N. Guler, O. Deppert, M. De- vlin, A. Favalli, J. Fernandez, D. Gautier, M. Geis- sel, R. Haight, C. E. Hamilton, B. M. Hegelich, R. P. Johnson, F. Merrill, G. Schaumann, K. Schoenberg, M. Schollmeier, T. Shimada, T. Taddeucci, J. L. Tybo, F. Wagner,...

    2013

  3. [11]

    P. K. Patel, A. J. Mackinnon, M. H. Key, T. E. Cowan, M. E. Foord, M. Allen, D. F. Price, H. Ruhl, P. T. Springer, and R. Stephens, Isochoric heating of solid- density matter with an ultrafast proton beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 125004 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    Tabak, J

    M. Tabak, J. Hammer, M. E. Glinsky, W. L. Kruer, S. C. Wilks, J. Woodworth, E. M. Campbell, M. D. Perry, and R. J. Mason, Ignition and high gain with ultrapowerful lasers*, Phys. Plasmas 1, 1626 (1994)

    1994

  5. [13]

    Naumova, T

    N. Naumova, T. Schlegel, V. T. Tikhonchuk, C. Labaune, I. V. Sokolov, and G. Mourou, Hole boring in a dt pellet and fast-ion ignition with ultraintense laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 025002 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Krushelnick, E

    K. Krushelnick, E. Clark, R. Allott, F. Beg, C. Dan- son, A. Machacek, V. Malka, Z. Najmudin, D. Neely, P. Norreys, M. Salvati, M. Santala, M. Tatarakis, I. Watts, M. Zepf, and A. Dangor, Ultrahigh-intensity laser-produced plasmas as a compact heavy ion injection source, IEEE ...

    2000

  7. [15]

    S. J. Gitomer, R. D. Jones, F. Begay, A. W. Ehler, J. F. Kephart, and R. Kristal, Fast ions and hot electrons in the laser–plasma interaction, Phys. Fluids 29, 2679 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    A. P. Fews, P. A. Norreys, F. N. Beg, A. R. Bell, A. E. Dangor, C. N. Danson, P. Lee, and S. J. Rose, Plasma ion emission from high intensity picosecond laser pulse interactions with solid targets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1801 (1994)

    1994

  9. [17]

    F. N. Beg, A. R. Bell, A. E. Dangor, C. N. Danson, A. P. Fews, M. E. Glinsky, B. A. Hammel, P. Lee, P. A. Nor- reys, and M. Tatarakis, A study of picosecond laser–solid interactions up to 10 19 W cm −2, Phys. Plasmas 4, 447 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    Krushelnick, E

    K. Krushelnick, E. L. Clark, Z. Najmudin, M. Salvati, M. I. K. Santala, M. Tatarakis, A. E. Dangor, V. Malka, D. Neely, R. Allott, and C. Danson, Multi-mev ion pro- duction from high-intensity laser interactions with un- derdense plasmas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 737 (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    G. S. Sarkisov, V. Y. Bychenkov, V. N. Novikov, V. T. Tikhonchuk, A. Maksimchuk, S.-Y. Chen, R. Wagner, G. Mourou, and D. Umstadter, Self-focusing, channel for- mation, and high-energy ion generation in interaction of an intense short laser pulse with a he jet, Phys. Rev. E 59...

    1999

  12. [20]

    Ditmire, J

    T. Ditmire, J. W. G. Tisch, E. Springate, M. B. Ma- son, N. Hay, R. A. Smith, J. Marangos, and M. H. R. Hutchinson, High-energy ions produced in explosions of superheated atomic clusters, Nature 386, 54 (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    E. L. Clark, K. Krushelnick, J. R. Davies, M. Zepf, M. Tatarakis, F. N. Beg, A. Machacek, P. A. Norreys, M. I. K. Santala, I. Watts, and A. E. Dangor, Measure- ments of energetic proton transport through magnetized plasma from intense laser interactions with solids, Phys. Rev....

    2000

  14. [22]

    Maksimchuk, S

    A. Maksimchuk, S. Gu, K. Flippo, D. Umstadter, and V. Y. Bychenkov, Forward ion acceleration in thin films driven by a high-intensity laser, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 4108 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    R. A. Snavely, M. H. Key, S. P. Hatchett, T. E. Cowan, M. Roth, T. W. Phillips, M. A. Stoyer, E. A. Henry, T. C. Sangster, M. S. Singh, S. C. Wilks, A. MacKinnon, A. Offenberger, D. M. Pennington, K. Yasuike, A. B. Langdon, B. F. Lasinski, J. Johnson, M. D. Perry, and E. M. Ca...

    2000

  16. [24]

    S. C. Wilks, A. B. Langdon, T. E. Cowan, M. Roth, M. Singh, S. Hatchett, M. H. Key, D. Pennington, A. MacKinnon, and R. A. Snavely, Energetic proton generation in ultra-intense laser–solid interactions, Phys. Plasmas 8, 542 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Borghesi, A

    M. Borghesi, A. J. Mackinnon, D. H. Campbell, D. G. Hicks, S. Kar, P. K. Patel, D. Price, L. Romagnani, A. Schiavi, and O. Willi, Multi-mev proton source in- vestigations in ultraintense laser-foil interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 055003 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    M. Zepf, E. L. Clark, F. N. Beg, R. J. Clarke, A. E. Dangor, A. Gopal, K. Krushelnick, P. A. Norreys, M. Tatarakis, U. Wagner, and M. S. Wei, Proton acceler- ation from high-intensity laser interactions with thin foil targets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 064801 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    T. E. Cowan, J. Fuchs, H. Ruhl, A. Kemp, P. Audebert, M. Roth, R. Stephens, I. Barton, A. Blazevic, E. Bram- brink, J. Cobble, J. Fern´ andez, J.-C. Gauthier, M. Geis- sel, M. Hegelich, J. Kaae, S. Karsch, G. P. Le Sage, S. Letzring, M. Manclossi, S. Meyroneinc, A. Newkirk, H....

    2004

  20. [28]

    N¨ urnberg, M

    F. N¨ urnberg, M. Schollmeier, E. Brambrink, A. Blaˇ zevi´ c, D. C. Carroll, K. Flippo, D. C. Gautier, M. Geißel, K. Harres, B. M. Hegelich, O. Lundh, K. Markey, P. McKenna, D. Neely, J. Schreiber, and M. Roth, Ra- 8 diochromic film imaging spectroscopy of laser-accelerated pr...

    2009

  21. [29]

    H. Ruhl, S. V. Bulanov, T. E. Cowan, T. V. Lise ˘ ıkina, P. Nickles, F. Pegoraro, M. Roth, and W. Sandner, Com- puter simulation of the three-dimensional regime of pro- ton acceleration in the interaction of laser radiation with a thin spherical target, Plasma Phys. Rep.27, 363 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    R. A. Snavely, B. Zhang, K. Akli, Z. Chen, R. R. Free- man, P. Gu, S. P. Hatchett, D. Hey, J. Hill, M. H. Key, Y. Izawa, J. King, Y. Kitagawa, R. Kodama, A. B. Lang- don, B. F. Lasinski, A. Lei, A. J. MacKinnon, P. Pa- tel, R. Stephens, M. Tampo, K. A. Tanaka, R. Town, Y. Toya...

    2007

  23. [31]

    S. Kar, K. Markey, M. Borghesi, D. C. Carroll, P. McKenna, D. Neely, M. N. Quinn, and M. Zepf, Ballis- tic focusing of polyenergetic protons driven by petawatt laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 225003 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Bartal, M

    T. Bartal, M. E. Foord, C. Bellei, M. H. Key, K. A. Flippo, S. A. Gaillard, D. T. Offermann, P. K. Patel, L. C. Jarrott, D. P. Higginson, M. Roth, A. Otten, D. Kraus, R. B. Stephens, H. S. McLean, E. M. Gi- raldez, M. S. Wei, D. C. Gautier, and F. N. Beg, Focus- ing of short-p...

    2012

  25. [33]

    B. Qiao, M. E. Foord, M. S. Wei, R. B. Stephens, M. H. Key, H. McLean, P. K. Patel, and F. N. Beg, Dynamics of high-energy proton beam acceleration and focusing from hemisphere-cone targets by high-intensity lasers, Phys. Rev. E 87, 013108 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    McGuffey, J

    C. McGuffey, J. Kim, M. S. Wei, P. M. Nilson, S. N. Chen, J. Fuchs, P. Fitzsimmons, M. E. Foord, D. Mariscal, H. S. McLean, P. K. Patel, R. B. Stephens, and F. N. Beg, Focussing protons from a kilojoule laser for intense beam heating using proximal target struc- tures, Sci. Re...

    2020

  27. [35]

    S. Kar, K. Markey, P. T. Simpson, C. Bellei, J. S. Green, S. R. Nagel, S. Kneip, D. C. Carroll, B. Dromey, L. Willingale, E. L. Clark, P. McKenna, Z. Najmudin, K. Krushelnick, P. Norreys, R. J. Clarke, D. Neely, M. Borghesi, and M. Zepf, Dynamic control of laser- produced prot...

    2008

  28. [36]

    Burza, A

    M. Burza, A. Gonoskov, G. Genoud, A. Persson, K. Svensson, M. Quinn, P. McKenna, M. Marklund, and C.-G. Wahlstr¨ om, Hollow microspheres as targets for staged laser-driven proton acceleration, New J. Phys. 13, 013030 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    S. Kar, H. Ahmed, R. Prasad, M. Cerchez, S. Brauck- mann, B. Aurand, G. Cantono, P. Hadjisolomou, C. L. S. Lewis, A. Macchi, G. Nersisyan, A. P. L. Robinson, A. M. Schroer, M. Swantusch, M. Zepf, O. Willi, and M. Borgh- esi, Guided post-acceleration of laser-driven ions by a m...

    2016

  30. [38]

    Schollmeier, S

    M. Schollmeier, S. Becker, M. Geißel, K. A. Flippo, A. Blaˇ zevi´ c, S. A. Gaillard, D. C. Gautier, F. Gr¨ uner, K. Harres, M. Kimmel, F. N¨ urnberg, P. Rambo, U. Schramm, J. Schreiber, J. Sch¨ utrumpf, J. Schwarz, N. A. Tahir, B. Atherton, D. Habs, B. M. Hegelich, and M. Roth...

    2008

  31. [39]

    Nishiuchi, I

    M. Nishiuchi, I. Daito, M. Ikegami, H. Daido, M. Mori, S. Orimo, K. Ogura, A. Sagisaka, A. Yogo, A. S. Pirozhkov, H. Sugiyama, H. Kiriyama, H. Okada, S. Kanazawa, S. Kondo, T. Shimomura, M. Tanoue, Y. Nakai, H. Sasao, D. Wakai, H. Sakaki, P. Bolton, I. W. Choi, J. H. Sung, J. ...

    2009

  32. [40]

    Ter-Avetisyan, M

    S. Ter-Avetisyan, M. Schn¨ urer, R. Polster, P. Nickles, and W. Sandner, First demonstration of collimation and monochromatisation of a laser accelerated proton burst, Laser and Particle Beams 26, 637 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    W. Wang, J. Liu, Y. Cai, C. Wang, L. Liu, C. Xia, A. Deng, Y. Xu, Y. Leng, R. Li, and Z. Xu, Angular and energy distribution of fast electrons emitted from a solid surface irradiated by femtosecond laser pulses in various conditions, Phys. Plasmas 17, 023108 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    M. Roth, I. Alber, V. Bagnoud, C. R. D. Brown, R. Clarke, H. Daido, J. Fernandez, K. Flippo, S. Gail- lard, C. Gauthier, M. Geissel, S. Glenzer, G. Gregori, M. G¨ unther, K. Harres, R. Heathcote, A. Kritcher, N. Kugland, S. LePape, B. Li, M. Makita, J. Mithen, C. Niemann, F. N...

    2009

  35. [43]

    Ikegami, S

    M. Ikegami, S. Nakamura, Y. Iwashita, T. Shirai, H. Souda, Y. Tajima, M. Tanabe, H. Tongu, H. Itoh, H. Shintaku, A. Yamazaki, H. Daido, A. Yogo, S. Orimo, M. Mori, M. Nishiuchi, K. Ogura, A. Sagisaka, A. S. Pirozhkov, H. Kiriyama, S. Kanazawa, S. Kondo, Y. Yamamoto, T. Shimomu...

    2009

  36. [44]

    Toncian, M

    T. Toncian, M. Borghesi, J. Fuchs, E. d’Humi` eres, P. An- tici, P. Audebert, E. Brambrink, C. A. Cecchetti, A. Pi- pahl, L. Romagnani, and O. Willi, Ultrafast laser-driven microlens to focus and energy-select mega-electron volt protons, Science 312, 410 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Ferguson, P

    S. Ferguson, P. Martin, H. Ahmed, E. Aktan, M. Alanazi, M. Cerchez, D. Doria, J. S. Green, B. Greenwood, B. Od- lozilik, O. Willi, M. Borghesi, and S. Kar, Dual stage approach to laser-driven helical coil proton acceleration, New J. Phys. 25, 013006 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    D. T. Offermann, K. A. Flippo, J. Cobble, M. J. Schmitt, S. A. Gaillard, T. Bartal, D. V. Rose, D. R. Welch, M. Geissel, and M. Schollmeier, Characterization and fo- cusing of light ion beams generated by ultra-intensely ir- radiated thin foils at the kilojoule scale a), Phys....

    2011

  39. [47]

    W. P. Wang, B. F. Shen, H. Zhang, X. M. Lu, J. F. Li, S. H. Zhai, S. S. Li, X. L. Wang, R. J. Xu, C. Wang, Y. X. Leng, X. Y. Liang, R. X. Li, and Z. Z. Xu, Multi- stage proton acceleration controlled by double beam im- age technique, Phys. Plasmas 25, 063116 (2018). 9

    2018

  40. [48]

    W. P. Wang, B. F. Shen, H. Zhang, X. M. Lu, J. F. Li, S. H. Zhai, S. S. Li, X. L. Wang, R. J. Xu, C. Wang, Y. X. Leng, X. Y. Liang, R. X. Li, and Z. Z. Xu, Spectrum tailoring of low charge-to-mass ion beam by the triple- stage acceleration mechanism, Phys. Plasmas 26, 043102 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Vieira and J

    J. Vieira and J. T. Mendon¸ ca, Nonlinear laser driven donut wakefields for positron and electron acceleration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 215001 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Y. Shi, B. Shen, L. Zhang, X. Zhang, W. Wang, and Z. Xu, Light fan driven by a relativistic laser pulse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 235001 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    W. Wang, B. Shen, X. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y. Shi, and Z. Xu, Hollow screw-like drill in plasma using an intense laguerre-gaussian laser, Sci. Rep. 5, 8274 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Zhang, B

    X. Zhang, B. Shen, Y. Shi, X. Wang, L. Zhang, W. Wang, J. Xu, L. Yi, and Z. Xu, Generation of intense high-order vortex harmonics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 173901 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    X.-L. Zhu, M. Chen, T.-P. Yu, S.-M. Weng, L.-X. Hu, P. McKenna, and Z.-M. Sheng, Bright attosecond γ- ray pulses from nonlinear compton scattering with laser- illuminated compound targets, Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 174102 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    L. B. Ju, C. T. Zhou, K. Jiang, T. W. Huang, H. Zhang, T. X. Cai, J. M. Cao, B. Qiao, and S. C. Ruan, Manip- ulating the topological structure of ultrarelativistic elec- tron beams using laguerre-gaussian laser pulse, New J. Phys. 20, 063004 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    W. P. Wang, C. Jiang, B. F. Shen, F. Yuan, Z. M. Gan, H. Zhang, S. H. Zhai, and Z. Z. Xu, New optical manipu- lation of relativistic vortex cutter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 024801 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    K. H. Pae, H. Song, C.-M. Ryu, C. H. Nam, and C. M. Kim, Low-divergence relativistic proton jet from a thin solid target driven by an ultra-intense circularly polar- ized laguerre-gaussian laser pulse, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 62, 055009 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    D. R. Blackman, Y. Shi, S. R. Klein, M. Cernaianu, D. Doria, P. Ghenuche, and A. Arefiev, Electron acceler- ation from transparent targets irradiated by ultra-intense helical laser beams, Commun. Phys. 5, 116 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Zhao, Y.-T

    J. Zhao, Y.-T. Hu, Y. Lu, H. Zhang, L.-X. Hu, X.-L. Zhu, Z.-M. Sheng, I. C. E. Turcu, A. Pukhov, F.-Q. Shao, and T.-P. Yu, All-optical quasi-monoenergetic gev positron bunch generation by twisted laser fields, Commun. Phys. 5, 15 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    plasma lens

    W. P. Wang, H. Dong, Z. Y. Shi, Y. X. Leng, R. X. Li, and Z. Z. Xu, Collimated particle acceleration by vortex laser-induced self-structured “plasma lens”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 121, 214102 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Leblanc, A

    A. Leblanc, A. Denoeud, L. Chopineau, G. Mennerat, P. Martin, and F. Qu´ er´ e, Plasma holograms for ultrahigh- intensity optics, Nat. Phys. 13, 440 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    W. P. Wang, C. Jiang, H. Dong, X. M. Lu, J. F. Li, R. J. Xu, Y. J. Sun, L. H. Yu, Z. Guo, X. Y. Liang, Y. X. Leng, R. X. Li, and Z. Z. Xu, Hollow plasma acceleration driven by a relativistic reflected hollow laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 034801 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Porat, S

    E. Porat, S. Lightman, I. Cohen, and I. Pomerantz, Spiral phase plasma mirror, J. Opt. 24, 085501 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    X. Wang, B. Shen, X. Zhang, W. Wang, J. Xu, L. Yi, and Y. Shi, High energy protons generation by two sequential laser pulses, Phys. Plasmas 22, 043106 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Brabetz, S

    C. Brabetz, S. Busold, T. Cowan, O. Deppert, D. Jahn, O. Kester, M. Roth, D. Schumacher, and V. Bagnoud, Laser-driven ion acceleration with hollow laser beams, Phys. Plasmas 22, 013105 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    Longman and R

    A. Longman and R. Fedosejevs, Mode conversion effi- ciency to laguerre-gaussian oam modes using spiral phase optics, Opt. Express 25, 17382 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Ziegler, I

    T. Ziegler, I. G¨ othel, S. Assenbaum, C. Bernert, F.- E. Brack, T. E. Cowan, N. P. Dover, L. Gaus, T. Kluge, S. Kraft, F. Kroll, J. Metzkes-Ng, M. Nishiuchi, I. Prencipe, T. P¨ uschel, M. Rehwald, M. Reimold, H.-P. Schlenvoigt, M. E. P. Umlandt, M. Vescovi, U. Schramm, and K....

    2024

  59. [67]

    Fryxell, K

    B. Fryxell, K. Olson, P. Ricker, F. X. Timmes, M. Zin- gale, D. Q. Lamb, P. MacNeice, R. Rosner, J. W. Truran, and H. Tufo, Flash: An adaptive mesh hydrodynamics code for modeling astrophysical thermonuclear flashes, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 131, 273 (2000)

    2000

  60. [68]

    W. Wang, C. Jiang, S. Li, H. Dong, B. Shen, Y. Leng, R. Li, and Z. Xu, Monoenergetic proton beam accelerated by single reflection mechanism only during hole-boring stage, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 7, e55 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Spitzer and R

    L. Spitzer and R. H¨ arm, Transport phenomena in a com- pletely ionized gas, Phys. Rev. 89, 977 (1953)

    1953

  62. [70]

    Kemp and J

    A. Kemp and J. M. ter Vehn, An equation of state code for hot dense matter, based on the qeos description, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As- sociated Equipment 415, 674 (1998)

    1998

  63. [71]

    Eidmann, Radiation transport and atomic physics modeling in high-energy-density laser-produced plasmas, Laser and Particle Beams 12, 223 (1994)

    K. Eidmann, Radiation transport and atomic physics modeling in high-energy-density laser-produced plasmas, Laser and Particle Beams 12, 223 (1994)

    1994

  64. [72]

    T. D. Arber, K. Bennett, C. S. Brady, A. Lawrence- Douglas, M. G. Ramsay, N. J. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. G. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. R. Bell, and C. P. Ridgers, Con- temporary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma mod- elling, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 57, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  65. [73]

    Schollmeier, M

    M. Schollmeier, M. Geissel, A. B. Sefkow, and K. A. Flippo, Improved spectral data unfolding for ra- diochromic film imaging spectroscopy of laser-accelerated proton beams, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 043305 (2014). Acknowledgements: This study is supported by the Natural Science F...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.