arxiv: 2604.23913 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-26 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Efficient Generation of Neutrons Based on Ultrashort Laser-driven Direct Acceleration in Microwire-Array Targets

Kaiyuan Feng , Debin Zou , Bo Cui , Shukai He , Yingzi Dai , Wei Qi , Jinlong Luo , Jie Feng

show 12 more authors

Xinyan Li Zehao Chen Lixiang Hu Chengyu Qin Guobo Zhang Hui Zhang Zhigang Deng Xiaohu Yang Fuqiu Shao Liangliang Ji Weiming Zhou Tongpu Yu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 04:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph hep-ex

keywords neutron generationlaser-plasma accelerationmicrowire targetsdirect laser accelerationultrashort laser pulsesproton accelerationnuclear reactions

0 comments

The pith

Microwire arrays with optimal spacing accelerate protons to generate high-yield neutron sources from moderate-intensity lasers.

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

This paper establishes that microwire-array targets irradiated by ultrashort laser pulses enable efficient direct acceleration of protons, which then drive neutron production in a secondary converter. Identifying the best array period markedly raises both the peak proton energy and the count of protons above 1 MeV. Experiments with a 1 PW, 25 fs laser at 10^20 W/cm² intensity reached a neutron yield of 8.33 million per joule per steradian from a LiD converter through specific nuclear reactions. Simulations that match the data predict a forward neutron yield of 36.7 million per joule per steradian when the converter is switched to beryllium under identical laser conditions. The resulting source supports high-repetition-rate operation with compact and economical laser systems.

Core claim

We demonstrate efficient neutron generation based on direct laser acceleration in microwire-array targets. The optimal array period significantly increases proton energy and the number of protons above 1 MeV. Using a 1 PW, approximately 25 fs laser at moderate intensity of 10^20 W/cm², a neutron yield of up to (8.33 ± 0.84) × 10^6 n/sr/J is measured from the LiD converter via ^7Li(p,n) and D(p,n+p) reactions. Self-consistent simulations reproduce these results and forecast an unprecedented forward pulsed neutron yield of 3.67 × 10^7 n/sr/J with a Be converter under the same laser conditions.

What carries the argument

The microwire-array target with its optimal period, which carries the argument by enhancing direct laser acceleration to raise proton energies and fluxes above 1 MeV for subsequent nuclear reactions.

If this is right

The optimal array period increases both maximum proton energy and the number of protons exceeding 1 MeV relative to other targets.
The LiD converter produces the measured neutron yield of (8.33±0.84)×10^6 n/sr/J through the stated nuclear reactions.
Switching to a Be converter is predicted to deliver a forward neutron source with 3.67×10^7 n/sr/J under identical laser conditions.
The approach favors applications that need high repetition rates with compact and economical laser systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same microwire geometry could be tested with other converter materials or slightly higher laser energies to map the scaling of neutron output.
Pulsed sources of this type might be combined with existing laser facilities to perform time-resolved neutron imaging or scattering experiments.
Refinements in array fabrication or laser pulse shaping could further raise the proton yield and push neutron output beyond the simulated limit.

Load-bearing premise

That the optimal microwire array period produces a substantial increase in the number and energy of protons above 1 MeV, and that the integrated simulations accurately predict the neutron yield for the beryllium converter.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures the actual neutron yield per joule when a beryllium converter is used with the same 1 PW, 25 fs laser and optimal microwire array would confirm or refute the predicted 3.67×10^7 n/sr/J value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23913 by Bo Cui, Chengyu Qin, Debin Zou, Fuqiu Shao, Guobo Zhang, Hui Zhang, Jie Feng, Jinlong Luo, Kaiyuan Feng, Liangliang Ji, Lixiang Hu, Shukai He, Tongpu Yu, Weiming Zhou, Wei Qi, Xiaohu Yang, Xinyan Li, Yingzi Dai, Zehao Chen, Zhigang Deng.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic drawing of neutron generation based on direct laser acceleration. 3D-printed microwire arrays (MWAs) are attached to a view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Experimental results. (a), (b) Proton energy spectra measured with TPS and the total number of protons per joule of laser energy view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Distributions of (a)-(c) the MWA density view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of (a) the normalized laser fields at view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulation results of three di view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. 3D PIC simulation results at view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. 2D PIC simulation results. (a), (b) Distribution of the electron view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We report on an experimental demonstration of efficient neutron generation based on direct laser acceleration in microwire-array targets irradiated by ultrashort (tens of femtoseconds) laser pulses. The optimal array period was identified, at which the maximum proton energy and the number of protons with energies exceeding $1~\mathrm{MeV}$ were significantly increased. Using a $1~\mathrm{PW}$, $\sim25~\mathrm{fs}$ laser at a moderate intensity of $\sim10^{20}~\mathrm{W/cm^2}$, a high neutron yield of up to $(8.33\pm0.84)\times10^{6}~\mathrm{n/sr/J}$ was detected from the LiD converter via $^7\mathrm{Li}(p,n)$ and $\mathrm{D}(p,n+p)$ nuclear reactions. Self-consistent integrated simulations reproduced the experimental results and predicted that with a Be converter, a forward pulsed neutron source with an unprecedented yield per joule of $3.67\times10^{7}~\mathrm{n/sr/J}$ can be obtained under identical laser conditions. This type of neutron source is favorable for applications that require a high repetition rate utilizing compact and economical laser systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Microwire arrays give a measurable experimental boost to proton-driven neutron yield, but the Be converter prediction is an extrapolation that rests on untested transfer of the simulated spectrum.

read the letter

The main thing to take away is that this experiment shows microwire arrays can enhance direct laser acceleration enough to produce a respectable neutron yield from a LiD target, with the data backed by matching simulations, though the Be prediction is an untested extrapolation. The paper's contribution is the identification of an optimal microwire array period that significantly increases the number of protons above 1 MeV and their maximum energy. This leads to the measured neutron yield of up to (8.33±0.84)×10^6 n/sr/J using a 1 PW, 25 fs laser at 10^20 W/cm² intensity. The self-consistent simulations that reproduce the LiD neutron data are a strength, as they suggest the proton spectrum from the target is being captured accurately enough for the nuclear reactions to match. This setup is attractive because it uses existing laser tech for a pulsed source that could run at high repetition rates. On the downside, the predicted yield of 3.67×10^7 n/sr/J with a Be converter relies on transferring the proton input directly to a different material and optimizing the converter thickness. The abstract does not indicate any sensitivity analysis for how changes in the proton energy distribution or reaction modeling would affect this number. If the PIC code overestimates the high-energy tail or misses some transport effects, the forecast could be optimistic. The experimental LiD result stands on its own, but the Be part is more speculative. This paper would interest people in laser-plasma interactions who are developing compact neutron sources for things like radiography or nuclear physics experiments. The target design and the specific yield value provide concrete data that others could build on or compare against. A reader focused on applications would get practical value from the experimental numbers, while theorists might look at the simulation approach. I think it deserves peer review. The experimental demonstration is grounded and the target idea is novel enough to warrant detailed feedback on the methods and any additional validation for the predictions.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of neutron generation via direct laser acceleration in microwire-array targets using a 1 PW, ~25 fs laser at ~10^20 W/cm². An optimal array period is identified that increases maximum proton energy and the number of protons above 1 MeV. A neutron yield of (8.33±0.84)×10^6 n/sr/J is measured from a LiD converter through ^7Li(p,n) and D(p,n+p) reactions, with self-consistent simulations reproducing the data and predicting 3.67×10^7 n/sr/J for a Be converter under identical conditions, positioning this as a high-repetition-rate pulsed neutron source.

Significance. If the results hold, the work would advance compact laser-driven neutron sources by achieving competitive yields per joule at moderate intensities with ultrashort pulses. Credit is due for the experimental yield reported with uncertainty bars and for simulations that reproduce the LiD data; these elements provide a concrete, falsifiable basis. The Be-converter prediction, if validated, would highlight a pathway to higher performance without increasing laser requirements.

major comments (2)

[Simulation results and discussion] The headline prediction of 3.67×10^7 n/sr/J with the Be converter (abstract) rests on direct transfer of the simulated proton spectrum and yield (>1 MeV) from the LiD case. No sensitivity study on proton-distribution uncertainties, converter-thickness variations, or Be-specific cross-section integration is described, so any systematic offset in the PIC-modeled direct-acceleration spectrum scales linearly into the forecasted yield.
[Experimental methods] The experimental neutron yield of (8.33±0.84)×10^6 n/sr/J (abstract) is central to the claim of efficient generation. Full details on diagnostics, background subtraction, detector calibration, and how the quoted uncertainty was propagated are required to assess whether the measurement robustly supports the reported value and the subsequent simulation validation.

minor comments (2)

[Notation and units] The notation n/sr/J is used throughout but should be defined explicitly on first appearance in the main text.
[Results] A brief comparison table or figure panel showing proton spectra for the optimal versus non-optimal array periods would clarify the claimed enhancement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review, which highlights both the potential impact of our work and areas where additional clarity would strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to incorporate the requested details and discussions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The headline prediction of 3.67×10^7 n/sr/J with the Be converter (abstract) rests on direct transfer of the simulated proton spectrum and yield (>1 MeV) from the LiD case. No sensitivity study on proton-distribution uncertainties, converter-thickness variations, or Be-specific cross-section integration is described, so any systematic offset in the PIC-modeled direct-acceleration spectrum scales linearly into the forecasted yield.

Authors: We agree that an explicit sensitivity analysis would enhance confidence in the Be-converter prediction. The proton spectrum and yield are taken from the same PIC simulations that were validated by reproducing the measured LiD neutron yield within experimental uncertainty, providing a self-consistent basis. Be cross sections are drawn from standard evaluated nuclear data libraries. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the simulation discussion section that quantifies the effect of plausible ±10% variations in the high-energy proton tail and converter thickness on the predicted yield, thereby addressing the linear scaling concern raised. revision: yes
Referee: The experimental neutron yield of (8.33±0.84)×10^6 n/sr/J (abstract) is central to the claim of efficient generation. Full details on diagnostics, background subtraction, detector calibration, and how the quoted uncertainty was propagated are required to assess whether the measurement robustly supports the reported value and the subsequent simulation validation.

Authors: The Experimental Methods section and Supplementary Information already contain the requested information: CR-39 track detectors with energy filtering, background subtraction via control shots, absolute calibration against a Pu-Be source, and uncertainty propagation combining Poisson counting statistics with systematic contributions from detector efficiency and solid-angle determination. To improve accessibility we will expand the main-text Methods paragraph with a concise step-by-step summary and an additional supplementary figure showing raw track distributions and calibration data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; experimental yield and validated simulation extrapolation are independent

full rationale

The paper's core results rest on direct experimental detection of neutron yield from the LiD converter via specific nuclear reactions, with the optimal microwire period identified through measured increases in proton energy and number above 1 MeV. Self-consistent simulations are shown to reproduce these measured yields and are then used to extrapolate to a Be converter under identical laser conditions, producing the quoted forward neutron yield. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs: there is no self-definitional loop (e.g., a parameter fitted to data then renamed as a prediction of the same quantity), no fitted input called a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported solely via self-citation whose verification depends on the present work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the external experimental benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on experimental optimization of target geometry and simulation validation; limited information is available from the abstract alone.

free parameters (2)

microwire array period
Experimentally identified optimal spacing to increase proton energy and count above 1 MeV
laser intensity
Moderate intensity of ~10^20 W/cm^2 used in the experiment

axioms (2)

domain assumption Direct laser acceleration of protons occurs efficiently in microwire-array targets under ultrashort pulse irradiation
Invoked to explain enhanced proton spectra at the optimal array period
standard math Neutrons are produced via the ^7Li(p,n) and D(p,n+p) reactions in the converter
Standard nuclear reaction channels used to interpret the detected signal

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5583 in / 1547 out tokens · 93574 ms · 2026-05-08T04:55:53.966840+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references

[1]

The preplasma profile obtained from RHD simulations is first applied to the PIC simulation as the initial (∆t =0) density distribution of MW A target

have been performed to investigate the processes of pre- plasma formation, laser proton acceleration and neutron pro- duction, respectively. The preplasma profile obtained from RHD simulations is first applied to the PIC simulation as the initial (∆t =0) density distribution of MW A target. All proton information from PIC simulations is then imported into...
[2]

Vartsky et al., Nucl

D. Vartsky et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 623, 603 (2010)

2010
[4]

Wallerstein et al., Rev

G. Wallerstein et al., Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 995 (1997)

1997
[5]

Taylor et al., Science315, 1092 (2007)

A. Taylor et al., Science315, 1092 (2007)

2007
[6]

S. C. V ogel and J. S. Carpenter, JOM64, 104 (2012)

2012
[7]

Altstadt et al., Ann

E. Altstadt et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy34, 36 (2007)

2007
[8]

Alvarez et al., Phys

J. Alvarez et al., Phys. Proc.60, 29 (2014)

2014
[9]

Yogo et al., Eur

A. Yogo et al., Eur. Phys. J. A59, 191 (2023)

2023
[10]

Zimmer et al., Eur

M. Zimmer et al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 1107 (2024)

2024
[11]

Canova et al., High Power Laser Sci

F. Canova et al., High Power Laser Sci. Eng.13, e79 (2025)

2025
[12]

Gutberlet et al., Rev

T. Gutberlet et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum.97, 021501 (2026)

2026
[13]

S. N. Chen et al., Matter Radiat. Extrem.4, 054002 (2019)

2019
[14]

Zweiback et al., Phys

J. Zweiback et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 3640 (2000)

2000
[15]

Pomerantz et al., Phys

I. Pomerantz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 184801 (2014)

2014
[16]

D. P. Higginson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 054802 (2015)

2015
[17]

Qi et al., Phys

W. Qi et al., Phys. Plasmas26, 043103 (2015)

2015
[18]

Yogo et al., Phys

A. Yogo et al., Phys. Rev. X13, 011011 (2023)

2023
[19]

Guler et al., J

N. Guler et al., J. Appl. Phys.120, 154901 (2016)

2016
[20]

X. R. Jiang et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 034032 (2021)

2021
[21]

Jiao et al., Front

X. Jiao et al., Front. Phys.10, 964696 (2023)

2023
[22]

Treffert et al., Instruments5, 38 (2021)

F. Treffert et al., Instruments5, 38 (2021)

2021
[23]

K. L. Lancaster et al., Phys. Plasmas11, 3404 (2004)

2004
[24]

D. P. Higginson et al., Phys. Plasmas18, 102701 (2011)

2011
[25]

Feng et al., High Energy Density Phys.36, 100753 (2020)

J. Feng et al., High Energy Density Phys.36, 100753 (2020)

2020
[26]

Alejo et al., Plasma Phys

A. Alejo et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion59, 064004 (2017)

2017
[27]

Kar et al., New J

S. Kar et al., New J. Phys.18, 053002 (2016)

2016
[28]

Davis et al., Plasma Phys

J. Davis et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion52, 045015 (2010)

2010
[29]

Liu et al., Phys

P. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 044004 (2022)

2022
[30]

Kleinschmidt et al., Phys

A. Kleinschmidt et al., Phys. Plasmas25, 053102 (2018)

2018
[31]

Roth et al., Phys

M. Roth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 044802 (2013)

2013
[32]

Maksimchuk et al., Appl

A. Maksimchuk et al., Appl. Phys. Lett.102, 191117 (2013)

2013
[33]

Y . L. Yao et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 025101 (2023)

2023
[34]

Cui et al., High Power Laser Part

B. Cui et al., High Power Laser Part. Beams33, 094004 (2021)

2021
[35]

Favalli et al., Sci

A. Favalli et al., Sci. Rep.15, 724 (2025)

2025
[36]

Zimmer et al., Nat

M. Zimmer et al., Nat. Commun.13, 1173 (2022)

2022
[37]

P. A. Norreys et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion40, 175 (1998)

1998
[38]

Disdier, J

L. Disdier, J. P. Garconnet, G. Malka, and J. L. Miquel, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1454 (1999)

1999
[39]

Youssef et al., Phys

A. Youssef et al., Phys. Plasmas12, 112701 (2005)

2005
[40]

J. Hah, J. A. Nees, M. D. Hammig, K. Krushelnick, and A. G. R. Thomas, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion60, 054011 (2018)

2018
[41]

D. F. Kong et al., Matter Radiat. Extrem.7, 064401 (2022)

2022
[42]

B. M. Knight et al., High Power Laser Sci. Eng.12, e2 (2024)

2024
[43]

Lelievre et al., Phys

R. Lelievre et al., Phys. Plasmas31, 093107 (2024)

2024
[44]

Wang et al., Phys

S. Wang et al., Phys. Plasmas32, 063102 (2025)

2025
[45]

Stuhl et al., Phys

L. Stuhl et al., Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023137 (2025)

2025
[46]

Osvay et al., Eur

K. Osvay et al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 574 (2024)

2024
[47]

Osvay et al., Sci

K. Osvay et al., Sci. Rep.14, 25302 (2024)

2024
[48]

Curtis et al., Nat

A. Curtis et al., Nat. Commun.9, 1077 (2018)

2018
[49]

X. R. Jiang et al., Nucl. Fusion60, 076019 (2020)

2020
[50]

H. X. Deng et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion64, 085004 (2022)

2022
[51]

Miran et al., Phys

F. Miran et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044020 (2023)

2023
[52]

Z. Y . Lei et al., Matter Radiat. Extremes9, 057202 (2024)

2024
[53]

Pukhov, Z.-M

A. Pukhov, Z.-M. Sheng, and J. M. ter Vehn, Phys. Plasmas6, 2847 (1999)

1999
[54]

Kluge et al., New J

T. Kluge et al., New J. Phys.14, 023038 (2012)

2012
[55]

Jiang et al., Phys

S. Jiang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 085002 (2016)

2016
[56]

Qin et al., Commun

C. Qin et al., Commun. Phys.5, 124 (2022)

2022
[57]

S. P. Hatchett et al., Phys. Plasmas7, 2076 (2000)

2076
[58]

R. A. Snavely et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2945 (2000)

2000
[59]

S. C. Wilks et al., Phys. Plasmas8, 542 (2001)

2001
[60]

L. J. Perkins et al., Nucl. Fusion40, 1 (2000)

2000
[61]

D. L. Williams, C. M. Brown, D. Tong, A. Sulymanand, and C. K. Gary, J. Imaging6, 128 (2010)

2010
[62]

Valli `eres et al., Nat

S. Valli `eres et al., Nat. Commun.16, 11498 (2025)

2025
[63]

Hong et al., Matter Radiat

W. Hong et al., Matter Radiat. Extrem.6, 064001 (2021)

2021
[64]

Bohr, Nature137, 425 (1936)

N. Bohr, Nature137, 425 (1936)

1936
[65]

Ditmire et al., Nature398, 489 (1999)

T. Ditmire et al., Nature398, 489 (1999)

1999
[66]

Zulick et al., Appl

C. Zulick et al., Appl. Phys. Lett.102, 124101 (2013)

2013
[67]

Ter-Avetisyan et al., Phys

S. Ter-Avetisyan et al., Phys. Plasmas12, 012702 (2005)

2005
[68]

Fryxell et al., Astrophys

B. Fryxell et al., Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser.131, 273 (2000)

2000
[69]

T. D. Arber et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion57, 113001 (2015)

2015
[70]

P. M. Shikhaliev, J. L. Ducote, T. Xu, and S. Molloi, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.52, 1257 (2005)

2005
[71]

L. L. Ji, J. Snyder, A. Pukhov, R. R. Freeman, and K. U. Akli, Sci. Rep.6, 23256 (2016)

2016
[72]

D. B. Zou et al., Sci. Rep.7, 42666 (2017)

2017
[73]

Davis and G

J. Davis and G. M. Petrov, Phys. Plasmas15, 083102 (2008)

2008
[74]

L. Yi, A. Pukhov, P. Luu-Thanh, and B. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 115001 (2016)

2016
[75]

Y . Z. Dai et al., arXiv:2604, 03568 (2026)

2026
[76]

S. Faik, A. Tauschwitz, and I. Iosilevskiy, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.227, 117 (2018)

2018
[77]

D. B. Zou et al., Nucl. Fusion59, 066034 (2019). 7 End Matter Appendix A—Details of self-consistent integrated simulation: Self-consistent simulations are carried out by employing the ra- diation hydrodynamic (RHD) code Flash [67], particle-in-cell (PIC) code Epoch [68] and Monte Carlo (MC) toolkit Geant4 [69]. Here, we provide a detailed account of the p...

2019