Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

SQUID G.A.M.E.: Gamma, Atmospheric, and Mono-Energetic Neutron Effects on Quantum Devices

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) is disturbed by neutron beams—showing two distinct fault shapes, short peaks and long bursts—while 1.25 MeV gamma rays leave it mostly unaffected.

desk verdict A useful empirical radiation study of a SQUID with a plausible fault taxonomy, but the abstract's gamma-simulation tension needs a clear operational threshold before the comparative claim is fully convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06362 v1 pith:JCTG2OEH submitted 2025-08-08 quant-ph

Gioele Casagranda , Elizabeth Auden , Carlo Cazzaniga , Maria Kastriotou , Christopher Frost , Marzio Vallero , Flavio Vella , Paolo Rech This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords superconductingquantumdevicesSQUIDneutronradiationeffectsgammaradiation-inducedfaultsGeant4simulationdecoherencefaultclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show how a superconducting quantum device, specifically a SQUID, responds to realistic radiation fields. Exposing the device to two neutron beams and a gamma source, the authors find that neutrons cause measurable disturbances while 1.25 MeV gamma rays do not, and that the neutron-induced faults fall into two shapes: short-lived peaks and long-lasting bursts. This matters because radiation-induced decoherence is one of the main practical obstacles for superconducting quantum technology; knowing which particles are dangerous and what the faults look like is a step toward shielding and error mitigation. Complementary computer simulations compare energy-deposition spectra and show that the gamma case should also deposit energy, framing the experimental gamma result as a threshold or sensitivity effect rather than a fundamental immunity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SQUID, a superconducting quantum interference device whose voltage responds to magnetic flux. The argument is carried by exposing that device to three radiation fields—14 MeV monoenergetic neutrons, atmospheric-spectrum neutrons spanning roughly 1–800 MeV, and gamma rays at 1.25 MeV average energy—and comparing the recorded voltage transients. The classifying step, separating transients into short-lived peaks and long-lasting bursts, is the mechanism that turns raw beam data into a fault taxonomy; the simulations supply complementary energy-deposition and energy-propagation spectra.

What would settle it

Re-run the gamma exposure at a much higher fluence, high enough that the simulation predicts single-event energy depositions comparable to the neutron runs. If the SQUID still shows no bursts or peaks, the claimed link between simulated energy deposition and the observed fault classes fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a SQUID—a superconducting loop that converts magnetic flux into voltage—responds to neutron irradiation with two recognizably different fault signatures, classified by shape and duration as bursts (long lasting) and peaks (short lived), while gamma rays averaging 1.25 MeV leave the device mostly unaffected. Simulations of the same exposures show that neutrons and gammas deposit energy differently and propagate it differently, yet they predict vulnerability in both cases; the experimental distinction therefore carries the comparative claim. Taken together, the experiments and simulations offer a fault taxonomy and a sensitivity map for a superconducting detec

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation depends on an unstated threshold for what counts as a disturbance: the simulation predicts gamma rays should deposit energy in the SQUID, but the experiment finds gammas mostly harmless, so the two observations only agree if some response threshold is assumed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radiation-hardening of superconducting quantum hardware should prioritize neutron shielding when SQUID-like sensors are used, because the neutron fields produce observable faults while the tested gamma field does not.
  • Fault classification by transient shape gives a practical way to tag corrupted data: short peaks and long bursts can be recognized in real time and excluded or corrected.
  • The simulated energy-deposition spectra provide a quantitative basis for comparing mixed radiation environments, allowing the device's response to be predicted before exposure.
  • The gamma-ray result points toward a disturbance threshold below which energy deposition is tolerated; locating that threshold would turn the qualitative 'mostly unaffected' into a quantitative criterion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to test whether bursts correspond to phonon-mediated flux trapping and peaks to direct charge deposition; correlating burst duration with the simulated location of energy deposition would be a decisive experiment.
  • The two-class fault taxonomy could transfer to other superconducting quantum devices such as transmon qubits, since radiation-induced quasiparticle and phonon dynamics are shared, though the paper does not demonstrate that transfer.
  • Repeating the gamma exposure at higher photon energy or fluence could locate the boundary at which gamma rays begin to produce peaks or bursts, which would test the threshold interpretation the authors' comparison implies.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The abstract reports an experimental study of a SQUID exposed to three radiation fields: monoenergetic 14 MeV neutrons (NILE, ISIS), atmospheric 1–800 MeV neutrons (ChipIR, ISIS), and 1.25 MeV gamma rays (CALLIOPE, ENEA). The claimed findings are that the SQUID is sensitive to both neutron fields, that gammas leave it mostly unaffected, and that neutron-induced faults can be classified into two categories—long-lasting bursts and short-lived peaks. Geant4 simulations are said to highlight differences in energy deposition and propagation but predict SQUID vulnerability for both neutrons and gammas. The central comparative claim is a sensitivity map and a fault taxonomy, with simulation used as a mechanistic explanation.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the work would provide a useful comparative radiation-response benchmark for a superconducting quantum device and a simple fault taxonomy (bursts vs. peaks) that could inform error mitigation and shielding design. The use of multiple beam facilities and Geant4 simulations is a strength in principle: it combines experiment and modeling to address a real problem in quantum device reliability. However, the significance is currently conditional: the abstract alone does not establish quantitative, reproducible measures of 'sensitivity' or 'mostly unaffected,' nor does it demonstrate that the fault classification is stable and not post hoc. The Geant4 connection is potentially valuable, but the reported tension between simulated gamma vulnerability and observed gamma insensitivity must be resolved by an explicit device-response threshold.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, gamma-ray result] The central comparative claim—that gammas leave the SQUID 'mostly unaffected' while neutrons affect it—conflicts with the same paragraph's statement that Geant4 predictions show vulnerability in both cases. The manuscript must specify the operational definition of 'affected': the measured observable, the threshold or trigger level, the noise floor, and the statistical comparison between neutron and gamma runs. Without this, the gamma null result could be a threshold artifact, and the sensitivity map is not falsifiable.
  2. [Abstract, fault classification] The bursts-versus-peaks taxonomy requires a quantitative criterion: amplitude thresholds, duration cutoffs, and counting statistics. The abstract states only 'according to their shape and duration.' If these categories are defined after inspecting the data, the classification may be non-predictive. Please state how the two classes are separated and how stable this separation is across runs and bias conditions.
  3. [Abstract, Geant4-to-experiment link] The reconciliation between simulated energy deposition and observed device response is missing. The manuscript should define a transfer function that maps simulated deposited energy to a predicted fault rate or voltage excursion for both neutrons and gammas. This is the load-bearing step that would explain why the gamma simulation predicts vulnerability even though the experiment sees little effect; without it, the simulation is not connected to the experimental outcome.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, quantitative data] The abstract contains no numerical results: no fault rates, counts, dose levels, or error bars. At least one quantitative comparative metric (e.g., fault rate per neutron/gamma fluence, or an upper limit for gammas) should be stated to make the claims assessable.
  2. [Abstract, terminology] 'Mostly unaffected' is vague and should be replaced by a statistical bound or a confidence interval. Similarly, 'sensitive' should be quantified by a response magnitude or rate.
  3. [Title/Abstract, acronym] The acronym 'G.A.M.E.' is not expanded in the abstract; if it is meant to convey the three radiation types, a footnote or expanded form would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified in the available abstract; the claims are empirical and the Geant4 simulation is an independent modeling effort.

full rationale

The provided manuscript excerpt contains only the abstract; no derivation chain, equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are available for inspection. The central claims are empirical observations: the SQUID responds to neutron fields, 1.25 MeV gamma rays leave it mostly unaffected, and neutron-induced faults fall into two shape/duration categories (bursts and peaks). The Geant4 simulation is described as an independent computational model that highlights differences in deposition spectra and energy propagation while predicting vulnerability in both cases. The apparent tension between the simulation predicting gamma vulnerability and the experiment showing gammas mostly unaffected is a consistency or threshold-interpretation issue, not a circular one: no quantity is shown to be defined in terms of the result it is supposed to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Because the full text is not available, no specific reduction (e.g., Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or a fitted value presented as a forecast) can be exhibited. Under the hard rule requiring quoted evidence of circularity, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are visible from the abstract. The main implicit assumptions are the fidelity of Geant4 and the experimental isolation of radiation-induced events. Any thresholds used to define bursts versus peaks or to map simulation energy deposition to device sensitivity would be free parameters, but they are not described in the abstract.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Geant4 accurately models energy deposition and propagation in the SQUID.
    The abstract relies on Geant4 to explain the different responses to neutrons and gamma rays; this is a standard modeling assumption but is not verified in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Observed transients are induced by radiation rather than electrical noise or measurement artifacts.
    The fault classification into bursts and peaks assumes the experimental setup cleanly isolates radiation effects, which cannot be checked from the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SQUID G.A.M.E.: Gamma, Atmospheric, and Mono-Energetic Neutron Effects on Quantum Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCTG2OEH

@misc{pith2026250806362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SQUID G.A.M.E.: Gamma, Atmospheric, and Mono-Energetic Neutron Effects on Quantum Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCTG2OEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06362}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum devices are a promising solution to many research applications, including medical imaging, precision magnetic field measurements, condensed matter physics, and overcoming the limits of classical computing. Among the available implementations, the superconducting technology is the current focus of scientific research and industrial applications, excelling in performance and scalability. Despite this, superconducting quantum systems are extremely prone to decoherence, and in particular, they are highly sensitive to radiation events. In this paper, we analyze the response of a superconducting device (SQUID) to radiation. We expose the SQUID to beams of monoenergetic 14 MeV neutrons (NILE - ISIS), atmospheric 1-800 MeV neutrons (ChipIR - ISIS), and gamma rays with 1.25 MeV average energy (CALLIOPE - ENEA). These experiments show that the SQUID is sensitive to the two neutron fields, while gamma rays at 1.25 MeV leave it mostly unaffected. Following our experiments with neutrons, it is possible to characterize the SQUID's response and even classify faults according to their shape and duration. We identify two categories: bursts (long lasting) and peaks (short lived). To investigate the different responses to neutrons and gamma rays, we employ Geant4 simulations, which highlight differences in the deposition spectra and the energy propagation, but likewise predict the vulnerability of the SQUID in both cases.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Radiopurity material assays and radiation exposure projections for superconducting qubit measurements at SNOLAB

    physics.ins-det 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Background Monte Carlo plus material assays predict under one millihertz per silicon qubit chip in SNOLAB's CUTE cryostat, with ~10 eV deposits able to cause correlated multi-qubit errors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, G. J. Norris, M. Gabureac, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, ``Repeated quantum error detection in a surface code,'' Nature Physics, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 875--880, Aug 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0920-y

    doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0920-y 2020

  2. [2]

    Tiurev, P.-J

    K. Tiurev, P.-J. H. S. Derks, J. Roffe, J. Eisert, and J.-M. Reiner, ``Correcting non-independent and non-identically distributed errors with surface codes,'' Quantum , vol. 7, p. 1123, Sep. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-09-26-1123

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-09-26-1123 2023

  3. [3]

    Katsuda, K

    M. Katsuda, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, ``Simulation and performance analysis of quantum error correction with a rotated surface code under a realistic noise model,'' Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 6, p. 013024, Jan 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013024

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013024 2024

  4. [4]

    Vallero, G

    M. Vallero, G. Casagranda, F. Vella, and P. Rech, ``On the efficacy of surface codes in compensating for radiation events in superconducting devices,'' in Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage, and Analysis, ser. SC '24. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE Press, Nov 2024, Art. no. 69, Atlanta, GA, USA...

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    McEwen, L

    M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Fowler, F. Arute, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, B. B. Buckley, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, R. Collins, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, C. Erickson, M. Giustina, S. D. Harrington, S. Hong, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, P. V. Klimov, F. Kostritsa, P. Laptev, A. Locharla, X. Mi, K. C. Miao, S. Mo...

    2022

  6. [6]

    Casagranda, M

    G. Casagranda, M. Vallero, F. Vella, and P. Rech, ``Understanding the contributions of terrestrial radiation sources to error rates in quantum devices,'' IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 1324--1334, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Auden and P

    E. Auden and P. Rech, ``Single-event effects in neutron-irradiated high-temperature dc superconducting quantum interference devices,'' July 2023, presentation held at NSREC 2023, LA-UR-23-28291

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A. P. Veps\" a l\" a inen, A. H. Karamlou, J. L. Orrell, A. S. Dogra, B. Loer, F. Vasconcelos, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Formaggio, B. A. VanDevender, and W. D. Oliver, ``Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence,'' Nature, vol. 584, no. 7822, p. 551–556, Aug 2020. [Online]. Avail...

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8 2020

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    J. M. Martinis, ``Saving superconducting quantum processors from qubit decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays,'' npj Quantum Information, vol. 7, Jun 2021, Art. no. 90 . [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00431-0

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. A. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. D'Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, C. H. Liu, A. Opremcak, B. G. Christensen, J. L. DuBois, and R. McDermott, ``Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits,'' Nature, vol...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Cardani, I

    L. Cardani, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, F. De Dominicis, G. D’Imperio, M. Laubenstein, A. Mariani, L. Pagnanini, S. Pirro, C. Tomei, N. Casali, F. Ferroni, D. Frolov, L. Gironi, A. Grassellino, M. Junker, C. Kopas, E. Lachman, C. R. H. McRae, J. Mutus, M. Nastasi, D. P. Pappas,...

    2023

  4. [12]

    A. I. Braginski and J. Clarke, Introduction. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004, ch. 1, pp. 1--28. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/3527603646.ch1

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce Dubois, M. Asai, G. Barrand, R. Capra, S. Chauvie, R. Chytracek, G. Cirrone, G. Cooperman, G. Cosmo, G. Cuttone, G. Daquino, M. Donszelmann, M. Dressel, G. Folger, F. Foppiano, J. Generowicz, V. Grichine, S. Guatelli, P....

    2006

  6. [14]

    Kelsey, R

    M. Kelsey, R. Agnese, Y. Alam, I. A. Langroudy, E. Azadbakht, D. Brandt, R. Bunker, B. Cabrera, Y.-Y. Chang, H. Coombes, R. Cormier, M. Diamond, E. Edwards, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, J. Gao, P. Harrington, Z. Hong, M. Hui, N. Kurinsky, R. Lawrence, B. Loer, M. Masten, E. Michaud,...

    2023

  7. [15]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Cambridge University Press, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    T. E. Roth, R. Ma, and W. C. Chew, ``The transmon qubit for electromagnetics engineers: An introduction,'' IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 65, no. 2, p. 8–20, Apr 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2022.3176593

    2023

  9. [17]

    Chesca, R

    B. Chesca, R. Kleiner, and D. Koelle, SQUID Theory. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004, ch. 2, pp. 29--92. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/3527603646.ch2

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    Cantor and D

    R. Cantor and D. Koelle, Practical DC SQUIDS: Configuration and Performance. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004, ch. 5, pp. 171--217. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/3527603646.ch5

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    Cardani, F

    L. Cardani, F. Valenti, N. Casali, G. Catelani, T. Charpentier, M. Clemenza, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, G. D'Imperio, L. Gironi, L. Gr \"u nhaupt, D. Gusenkova, F. Henriques, M. Lagoin, M. Martinez, G. Pettinari, C. Rusconi, O. Sander, C. Tomei, A. V. Ustinov, M. Weber, W. Wer...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Yelton, C

    E. Yelton, C. P. Larson, V. Iaia, K. Dodge, G. La Magna, P. G. Baity, I. V. Pechenezhskiy, R. McDermott, N. A. Kurinsky, G. Catelani, and B. L. T. Plourde, ``Modeling phonon-mediated quasiparticle poisoning in superconducting qubit arrays,'' Phys. Rev. B, vol. 110, Jul 2024, A...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    F. D. Dominicis, T. Roy, A. Mariani, M. Bal, N. Casali, I. Colantoni, F. Crisa, A. Cruciani, F. Ferroni, D. L. Helis, L. Pagnanini, V. Pettinacci, R. M. Pilipenko, S. Pirro, A. Puiu, A. Romanenko, D. v Zanten, S. Zhu, A. Grassellino, and L. Cardani, ``Evaluating radiation impa...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B. Loer, P. Harrington, B. Archambault, E. Fuller, B. Pierson, I. Arnquist, K. Harouaka, T. Schlieder, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. Niedzielski, J. Yoder, K. Serniak, W. Oliver, J. Orrell, R. Bunker, B. VanDevender, and M. Warner, ``Abatement of ionizing radiation for superconducti...

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    R. J. Nicholls, S. Diaz-Moreno, W. Iliffe, Y. Linden, T. Mousavi, M. Aramini, M. Danaie, C. R. M. Grovenor, and S. C. Speller, ``Understanding irradiation damage in high-temperature superconductors for fusion reactors using high resolution x-ray absorption spectroscopy,'' Comm...

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Zheng, J

    Y. Zheng, J. Zheng, X. Wang, and Y. Lu, ``Gamma radiation effects on high-temperature superconducting rebco tape,'' Superconductor Science and Technology, vol. 37, no. 4, p. 045013, mar 2024. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/ad2fda

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    SQUID® User's Guide

    STAR Cryoelectronics, LLC , Mr. SQUID® User's Guide. [Online]. Available: https://starcryo.com/wp-content/themes/education-pro/manuals/MrSQm66.pdf

  18. [26]

    Cazzaniga, P

    C. Cazzaniga, P. L. Dapica, K. Ngo, M. Paoletti, V. Smith, C. Brown, M. Tardocchi, E. P. Cippo, D. Rigamonti, S. Colombi, S. Lilley, M. Kastriotou, and C. D. Frost, ``Characterization measurements of compact neutron generators of the new nile facility,'' IEEE Transactions on N...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Cazzaniga, N

    C. Cazzaniga, N. Bhuiyan, M. Kastriotou, D. Chiesa, S. Lilley, and C. D. Frost, ``Fast neutron measurements for the characterization of the chipir beamline,'' IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 1520--1526, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Baccaro, A

    S. Baccaro, A. Cemmi, I. Di Sarcina, and G. Ferrara, ``Gamma irradiation calliope facility at enea-casaccia research centre (rome, italy),'' Fusion and Technology for Nuclear Safety and Security Department Casaccia Research Centre, Ed, p. 49, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    C. P. Larson, E. Yelton, K. Dodge, K. Okubo, J. Batarekh, V. Iaia, N. A. Kurinsky, and B. L. T. Plourde, ``Quasiparticle poisoning of superconducting qubits with active gamma irradiation,'' 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.07354

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of chapter in the book,'' in Title of His Published Book, xth ed. City of Publisher,

  23. [31]

    G. O. Young, ``Synthetic structure of industrial

  24. [32]

    Chen, Linear Networks and Systems

    W.-K. Chen, Linear Networks and Systems. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth, 1993, pp. 123--135

    1993

  25. [33]

    J. K. Author, ``Name of paper,'' Abbrev. Title of Periodical, vol. x, no. x, pp. xxx-xxx, Abbrev. Month, year, DOI

  26. [34]

    J. U. Duncombe, ``Infrared navigation---Part I: An

  27. [35]

    E. P. Wigner, ``Theory of traveling-wave optical laser,''

  28. [36]

    E. H. Miller, ``A note on reflector arrays,'' IEEE

  29. [37]

    H. Qin, Y. Cui, Z. Wu, Q. Chen and D. Xing, "Real-Time

  30. [38]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of report,'' Abbrev. Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev

  31. [39]

    E. E. Reber, R. L. Michell, and C. J. Carter, ``Oxygen absorption in the earth's atmosphere,'' Aerospace Corp., Los Angeles, CA, USA, Tech. Rep. TR-0200 (4230-46)-3, Nov. 1988

    1988

  32. [40]

    J. H. Davis and J. R. Cogdell, ``Calibration program for the 16-foot antenna,'' Elect. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. Texas, Austin, TX, USA, Tech. Memo. NGL-006-69-3, Nov. 15, 1987

    1987

  33. [41]

    Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev

    Name of Manual/Handbook, x ed., Abbrev. Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev. State, Country, year, pp

  34. [42]

    Transmission Systems for Communications, 3rd ed., Western Electric Co., Winston-Salem, NC, USA, 1985, pp. 44--60

    1985

  35. [43]

    Motorola Semiconductor Data Manual, Motorola Semiconductor Products Inc., Phoenix, AZ, USA, 1989

    1989

  36. [44]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of chapter in the book,'' in Title of Published Book, xth ed. City of

  37. [45]

    Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., Chicago, IL, USA: Univ

    The Founders' Constitution, Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., Chicago, IL, USA: Univ. Chicago Press, 1987. [Online]. Available: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/ . Accessed on: April 25, 2020

    1987

  38. [46]

    ZOmega Terahertz

    The Terahertz Wave eBook. ZOmega Terahertz

  39. [47]

    Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., The

    Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., The

  40. [48]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' in Abbreviated Name of Conf., City of Conf., Abbrev. State (if

  41. [49]

    D. B. Payne and J. R. Stern, ``Wavelength-switched

  42. [50]

    J.K. Author. (year, month). Title. presented at abbrev. conference title

  43. [51]

    Intranets: Internet technologies deployed behind the firewall for corporate productivity

    PROCESS Corporation, Boston, MA, USA. Intranets: Internet technologies deployed behind the firewall for corporate productivity. Presented at INET96 Annual Meeting. [Online]. Available: http://home.process.com/Intranets/wp2.htp . Accessed on: April 25, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    J. K. Author. ``Title of report,'' Company. City, State, Country. Rep. no.,

  45. [53]

    R. J. Hijmans and J. van Etten, ``Raster: Geographic analysis and modeling with raster data,'' R Package Version 2.0-12, Jan. 12, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster . Accessed on: April 25, 2020

    2012

  46. [54]

    Lytera UG, Kirchhain, Germany [Online]

    Teralyzer. Lytera UG, Kirchhain, Germany [Online]. Available: http://www.lytera.de/Terahertz\_THz\_Spectroscopy.php?id=home, Accessed on: Jun. 5, 2014

    2014

  47. [55]

    Number of Congress, Session

    Legislative body. Number of Congress, Session. (year, month day). Number of bill or resolution, Title. [Type

  48. [56]

    U.S. House. 102nd Congress, 1st Session. (1991, Jan. 11). H. Con. Res. 1, Sense of the Congress on Approval of Military Action. [Online]. Available: LEXIS Library: GENFED File: BILLS

    1991

  49. [57]

    (year, month day)

    Name of the invention, by inventor's name. (year, month day). Patent Number [Type

  50. [58]

    Musical toothbrush with mirror, by L.M.R. Brooks. (1992, May 19). Patent D 326 189 [Online]. Available: NEXIS Library: LEXPAT File: DES

    1992

  51. [59]

    Ebehard and E

    D. Ebehard and E. Voges, ``Digital single sideband

  52. [60]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of patent,'' U.S. Patent x xxx xxx , Abbrev. Month, day, year

  53. [61]

    Brandli and M

    G. Brandli and M. Dick, ``Alternating current fed power supply,'' U.S. Patent 4 084 217, Nov. 4, 1978

    1978

  54. [62]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of thesis,'' M.S. thesis, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev

  55. [63]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of dissertation,'' Ph.D. dissertation, Abbrev

  56. [64]

    J. O. Williams, ``Narrow-band analyzer,'' Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993. p. 50

    1993

  57. [65]

    Kawasaki, ``Parametric study of thermal and chemical nonequilibrium nozzle flow,'' M.S

    N. Kawasaki, ``Parametric study of thermal and chemical nonequilibrium nozzle flow,'' M.S. thesis, Dept. Electron. Eng., Osaka Univ., Osaka, Japan, 1993. p. 30

    1993

  58. [66]

    J. K. Author, private communication, Abbrev. Month, year

  59. [67]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' unpublished

  60. [68]

    J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' to be published

  61. [69]

    Harrison, private communication, May 1995

    A. Harrison, private communication, May 1995

    1995

  62. [70]

    Smith, ``An approach to graphs of linear forms,'' unpublished

    B. Smith, ``An approach to graphs of linear forms,'' unpublished

  63. [71]

    Brahms, ``Representation error for real numbers in binary computer arithmetic,'' IEEE Computer Group Repository, Paper R-67-85

    A. Brahms, ``Representation error for real numbers in binary computer arithmetic,'' IEEE Computer Group Repository, Paper R-67-85

  64. [72]

    Title of Standard, Standard number, date

  65. [73]

    Title of Standard, Standard number, Corporate author, location, date

  66. [74]

    IEEE Criteria for Class IE Electric Systems, IEEE Standard 308, 1969

    1969

  67. [75]

    Letter Symbols for Quantities, ANSI Standard Y10.5-1968

    1968

  68. [76]

    Fardel, M

    R. Fardel, M. Nagel, F. Nuesch, T. Lippert, and A. Wokaun, ``Fabrication of organic light emitting diode pixels by laser-assisted forward transfer,'' Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 91, no. 6, Aug. 2007, Art. no. 061103

    2007

  69. [77]

    Zhang and N

    J. Zhang and N. Tansu, ``Optical gain and laser characteristics of InGaN quantum wells on ternary InGaN substrates,'' IEEE Photon. J., vol. 5, no. 2, Apr. 2013, Art. no. 2600111

    2013

  70. [78]

    S. Azodolmolky, Jordi Perell\' o , Marianna Angelou, Fernando Agraz, Luis Velasco, Salvatore Spadaro, et al., Experimental demonstration of an impairment aware network planning and operation tool for transparent/translucent optical networks,'' J. Lightwave. Technol., vol. 29, ...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.