Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 20 references

Characterization of a prototype parallel-plate $^{238}$U fission chamber with DD and DT fusion neutron sources

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 parallel-plate $^{238}$U fission chamber is shown to track DD and DT neutron rates linearly, with measured efficiencies within a factor of two of the vendor specification, and this supports its planned role in SPARC fusion power…

desk verdict Useful engineering validation with honest caveats, but the absolute calibration rests on an unquantified reference; revise claims or calibrate. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07466 v1 pith:XVMKRFZ2 submitted 2026-08-07 physics.plasm-ph

V. Hagenlocker , R.A. Tinguely , X. Wang , J.L. Ball , B. Buschmann , M. Gatu-Johnson , R. Gocht , P. Raj This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords 238Ufissionchamberparallel-platedetectorfusionneutrondiagnosticsSPARCtokamakDDandDTgeneratorsOpenMCneutronicsboratedpolyethylenecollimationpulseheightdiscrimination
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 tests a prototype parallel-plate $^{238}$U fission chamber against DD and DT neutron generators to see whether it can serve as a fast-neutron monitor for the SPARC tokamak. It reports a measured DT efficiency of about $3.6\times10^{-4}$ counts per second per unit neutron flux ($n\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}$) and a DD efficiency of about $1.9\times10^{-4}$, both within a factor of two of the vendor's $2.264\times10^{-4}$ cps/nv. The count rate tracks the source rate linearly across the scanned range, agrees with OpenMC fission-rate calculations in a collimation test, and is unchanged when stray magnetic fields up to 14 mT or 30 m cables are introduced. The authors conclude that, with borated-polyethylene collimation and suitable pulse-height thresholds, this detector is a reliable basis for SPARC's fusion power measurements at high neutron yields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing detector is a parallel-plate $^{238}$U fission chamber in which roughly 150 mg of U$_3$O$_8$ (99.98% $^{238}$U) coats interleaved plates, and fission fragments ionize the fill gas to produce countable pulses. Its direction-sensitive geometry, together with 5% borated polyethylene collimation, preferentially admits unscattered DD and DT neutrons traveling along the detector axis. A deuterated liquid organic scintillator (DLOS) serves as the reference to infer generator source rates using a simplified geometrical transport assumption, while the Monte Carlo code OpenMC reproduces the collimated geometry and computes fission rates in the uranium coatings for direct comparison with measured count rates. Pulse-height thresholds are used to reject electronic noise and, potentially, gamma-induced events.

What would settle it

Use a neutron source with an independently known absolute yield, such as a calibrated $^{252}$Cf source or an activation-foil measurement of a generator, and measure the chamber's count rate per unit flux under the same geometry. If the resulting efficiency lies outside the factor-of-two band around $2.264\times10^{-4}$ cps/nv, the DLOS-based source rate was the limiting error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a parallel-plate $^{238}$U fission chamber, which is less sensitive than $^{235}$U counters but can see fast neutrons directly, can cover the highest neutron rates expected on SPARC. The authors report that the vendor-specified efficiency is corroborated, that count rate responds linearly to the neutron source rate, and that measured count rates agree with OpenMC simulations of fission rate versus collimator offset. They also find no significant change in response when the detector is placed in magnetic fields up to 14 mT or when the signal cable is lengthened from 1 m to 30 m. Their stated conclusion is that these results confirm the $^{238}$U FC, supported by indirect neutron shielding and appropriate pulse height thresholds, as a reliable solution for SPARC fusion power measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency and linearity slopes are all normalized to the DLOS reference detector's inferred neutron source rate, and the paper explicitly allows that this DLOS measurement could be wrong by up to 100%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SPARC can use this fission chamber behind borated-polyethylene collimation as a fast-neutron monitor for yields above about $10^{15}$ n/s.
  • The 30 m cable run from the tokamak to the diagnostic hall should not measurably degrade pulse counting, based on the 1 m versus 30 m comparison.
  • Stray magnetic fields up to at least 14 mT should leave the chamber's count rate unchanged, so the gap to SPARC's 25 mT design level is a moderate extrapolation.
  • The OpenMC model, once normalized to these measurements, can be used to choose collimator length and side shielding for the final SPARC neutron flux monitor layout.
  • The measured efficiencies justify relying on cross-calibration during plasma operations rather than an in-situ absolute calibration for the SPARC $^{238}$U fission chambers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A separate calibration of the DLOS reference against an absolutely known source, such as a calibrated $^{252}$Cf source, would turn the factor-of-two agreement into a quantitative efficiency and expose any systematic offset in the simplified geometric transport model.
  • The different zero-rate intercepts under DD (about 0.09 cps) and DT (about 0.02 cps) suggest a threshold- and environment-dependent background; SPARC could monitor that intercept as a live detector-health diagnostic.
  • Because the DT generator's angular emission profile is already characterized, the same campaign could be repeated at several angles to produce an angular response map of the parallel-plate chamber, tightening the flux estimate in the non-isotropic generator field.
  • A direct gamma irradiation test, which the paper identifies as not performed, would confirm whether the pulse-height threshold alone can exclude gamma-induced counts in the SPARC environment.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper characterizes a prototype parallel-plate 238U fission chamber intended for the SPARC tokamak neutron flux monitoring suite. The authors expose the detector to DD and DT neutron generators, measure its pulse-height spectra, count-rate linearity versus source rate, response to borated-polyethylene collimation (compared with OpenMC simulations), and behavior under stray magnetic fields up to about 14 mT and cable lengths up to 30 m. The central quantitative claims are that the measured efficiencies (epsilon_DD ~ 1.9e-4 and epsilon_DT ~ 3.6e-4 cps/nv) corroborate the vendor-specified 2.264e-4 cps/nv within a factor of two, that the response is linear, and that the detector is robust to SPARC-relevant magnetic fields and long cabling. The paper is transparent about several limitations, including the unquantified DLOS reference-detector uncertainty and the uncharacterized angular emission of the DD neutron generator, but these limitations directly affect the strength of the headline claims.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this work would provide useful validation of a commercially available fission-chamber design for high-flux DT fusion diagnostics, with direct relevance to SPARC. The manuscript has clear strengths: it combines experimental characterization with OpenMC neutronics, tests multiple SPARC-relevant environmental factors (magnetic fields, long cables, amplifier options), and is unusually candid about its uncertainties and simplifications. The relative measurements, such as the collimator offset trend and the magnetic-field comparison, are valuable even if the absolute efficiency calibration is imperfect. However, the absolute efficiency and linearity numbers, and therefore the 'confirms' language in the abstract, rest on an unquantified reference-detector calibration and on isotropic-emission assumptions that are known to be questionable. The paper would be a solid engineering contribution if those systematic uncertainties were quantified or if the central claims were correspondingly softened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figs. 6b and 6d] The absolute scale of the fitted slopes, and hence the quoted efficiencies epsilon_DD and epsilon_DT, is set entirely by the DLOS reference detector. The text itself states that uncertainties in the DLOS measurement 'are not provided... and could be as large as 100%', and the DLOS source-rate estimate uses a simplified geometrical transport approximation. Because the claimed factor-of-two agreement with the vendor value is exactly the tolerance that a 100% uncertainty can erase, the quantitative 'confirmation' conclusion does not follow from the data as presented. The authors should provide a calibrated DLOS response with a bounded systematic uncertainty, or explicitly recast the efficiency and linearity claims as relative or order-of-magnitude results.
  2. [Section 3.1, DD efficiency estimate] The DD efficiency is obtained from the slope in Fig. 6b using r = 14.5 cm and an isotropic point-source 1/(4*pi*r^2) flux normalization. The paper acknowledges both that the DD NG angular emission has not been characterized and that the small-solid-angle assumption is invalid at this distance. At 14.5 cm the detector subtends a large solid angle, and NG angular anisotropy can bias the effective flux by an amount that is not estimated. The resulting systematic uncertainty is likely comparable to, or larger than, the factor-of-two target used in the corroboration claim. A quantitative uncertainty or a measured angular emission map is needed before this value can be used to support the vendor specification.
  3. [Section 3.2, Fig. 8b] The claimed agreement between measured count rates and OpenMC fission rates is obtained only after shifting the experimental data by +5 cm and rescaling the simulation source rate. With three experimental points and two adjustable parameters, this agreement is not a strong validation of the neutronics model. The paper should show the unshifted and unscaled comparison, and state the fitted shift and scaling values with their uncertainties, or explicitly describe the comparison as qualitative. As written, the abstract's 'good agreement' overstates the strength of the evidence.
  4. [Section 3.3, Fig. 10] The absolute cps/nv values in the legend of Fig. 10 are normalized by an assumed isotropic 10^8 n/s DT source rate, so they inherit the same systematic uncertainty as the DLOS-based estimates and do not provide an independent check on the vendor efficiency. The relative comparison across magnetic-field values is valid, but the sentence in Section 3.3 stating that the values 'agree well within uncertainties and match the vendor's specification' should be qualified to reflect this normalization assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract and summary use 'corroborates', 'confirms', and 'good agreement', while Section 3.1 calls the efficiency estimates 'rough estimates' that are only 'consistent' within a factor of two; the wording should be aligned to avoid overstating the conclusions.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figs. 6b and 6d] The slope uncertainties quoted in the figure panels (e.g., 1.5e-17 cps/(n/s)) reflect only fitting statistics and are unrealistically small; the dominant systematic uncertainty from the DLOS reference detector should be propagated into the final efficiency values.
  3. [Section 2.4] The DLOS source-rate calculation is said to follow Ref. [16] with a simplified geometrical approximation; a brief statement of that approximation, such as whether it treats the source as a point, neglects scattering, or includes the detector response function, would help the reader judge its validity.
  4. [Section 3.3] The text notes that the B-field map outside the cyclotron is not well characterized; reporting the measured B-field values at the detector position in a small table would improve reproducibility and strengthen the magnetic-field robustness claim.
  5. [References] References [12], [18], and [19] are marked 'In progress'; if updated versions are available, they should be cited, and where the argument relies on unpublished details, the authors should state which specific information is taken from those works.
  6. [Figure 5] The caption of Fig. 5 should define 'T' and 'lsb' explicitly, because the threshold notation appears again in Fig. 6 and the reader must otherwise infer the relationship between the two settings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are anchored to external vendor specifications and independent OpenMC simulations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The 238U FC count rate is directly measured, and the efficiency is obtained by normalizing the slope of count rate versus DLOS-inferred NG source rate by an assumed isotropic flux at a stated radius (Section 3.1, Figs. 6b and 6d). The resulting efficiency is compared with the externally supplied vendor value (2.264e-4 cps/nv) and with the known 238U fission cross-section trend (Fig. 1b); the agreement is not built into either the measurement or the comparison. The DLOS reference has an explicitly acknowledged, unquantified systematic uncertainty ('could be as large as 100%'), and the DD efficiency assumes isotropy at close range; these are accuracy limitations, not circularity, because the measured count rates and the vendor value are independent inputs. The OpenMC comparison (Section 3.2) uses an independent Monte Carlo code and source-emissivity data from reference [13]; the admitted +5 cm offset shift and a 'slightly lower source rate' rescale are ad hoc fitting choices for three points, which weakens the validation but does not make the comparison definitionally true. The magnetic-field test normalizes by a nominal 1e8 n/s source (Section 3.3), so the absolute cps/nv values inherit that assumption; however, the main claim there is the relative insensitivity across B fields, and the normalization cancels in that comparison. Self-citations ([11], [13], [15], [16], [19]) supply programmatic context, a previously measured DT NG emissivity profile, and an analysis procedure; none of these defines the 238U FC efficiency or count-rate response in terms of the paper's own conclusions. Therefore no step of the claimed derivation reduces to its inputs by construction, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard nuclear data, on the DLOS reference detector as ground truth for source rate, on an isotropic emission assumption for efficiency conversion, and on the fidelity of the OpenMC model. The only ad hoc numeric adjustment used to close the simulation-experiment gap is the +5 cm offset shift and an unquantified source-rate scale-down; these do not enter the efficiency or linearity claims but do weaken the 'good agreement' statement.

free parameters (3)
  • Post-hoc offset shift in collimator comparison = +5 cm
    Used in Section 3.2 to make experimental and simulated offset scans overlap; stated placement uncertainty is about 2 cm, so the shift is an unexplained adjustment rather than an independently measured value.
  • OpenMC source-rate scale factor = slightly lower than the nominal 1e8 n/s, unquantified
    Also used in Section 3.2 to bring simulations into agreement; no value is given.
  • Pulse-height integration threshold = channel 64 (DD), channel 128 (DT)
    Hand-chosen thresholds separate fission events from noise and alpha background and affect absolute count rates and efficiencies. The authors state the DT result is insensitive to including the alpha peak, so this is a minor parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DLOS-measured total neutron rate is an accurate reference for the NG source rate.
    Used as the x-axis in Fig. 6 for all linearity fits and efficiency calculations. The authors state uncertainties in the DLOS measurement are not provided and could be as large as 100%. Location: Sections 2.4, 3.1.
  • domain assumption Neutrons are emitted isotropically into 4π for efficiency estimation.
    Used to convert fitted slopes (cps per n/s) to efficiency (cps per n/cm2/s) in Section 3.1. The authors call this 'not strictly true' for an accelerator source and invalid for the close DD geometry.
  • domain assumption JENDL 238U fission cross sections are reliable for interpreting DT/DD sensitivity.
    Figure 1 uses JENDL libraries to motivate the 238U choice and the expected DT/DD sensitivity ratio; the plotted spread across library versions shows some residual uncertainty.
  • domain assumption OpenMC model with geometry from [13] and measured component dimensions reproduces the laboratory arrangement.
    The claimed agreement between simulated fission rates and measured count rates in Section 3.2 depends on the DT NG emissivity profile from [13], vendor compositions, and simplified lab geometry.
  • domain assumption Hand-held magnetometer readings and the nominal 100 G line characterize the B-field at the detector.
    Section 3.3 says the B-field map outside the cyclotron is not well characterized and the true field is a mix of transverse and parallel components; results are normalized assuming this field estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization of a prototype parallel-plate $^{238}$U fission chamber with DD and DT fusion neutron sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XVMKRFZ2

@misc{pith2026260807466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization of a prototype parallel-plate $^238$U fission chamber with DD and DT fusion neutron sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XVMKRFZ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07466}
}
abstract

The SPARC tokamak will employ $^{238}$U-based fission chambers (FCs) to monitor high-performance deuterium-tritium (DT) plasma operations, spanning neutron yield rates from ${\sim}10^{15}$ to ${>}10^{19}$ n/s. This work validates the $^{238}$U FC design, which utilizes a parallel-plate detector geometry and borated polyethylene collimation to prioritize unscattered DD and DT fusion neutrons. Experimental testing with both DD and DT neutron generators corroborates vendor-specified efficiencies and demonstrates excellent detector linearity, with measured count rates showing good agreement with OpenMC neutronics simulations. Further characterization confirms the $^{238}$U FC's robustness against SPARC-relevant environmental challenges, including stray magnetic fields up to 14 mT and possible signal degradation risks associated with $\sim$30 m long cable runs. These results confirm that the $^{238}$U FC, supported by indirect neutron shielding as well as appropriate pulse height thresholds, provides a reliable solution for fusion power measurements as part of the SPARC neutron diagnostics suite.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. b, we see that 238U is ∼2 times more sensitive to DT than DD neutron energies. 10 5 10 3 10 1 10 1 10 3 10 5 10 7 energy (eV) 10 10 10 8 10 6 10 4 10 2 10 0 10 2 10 4 fission cross-section (b) (a) 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 energy (MeV) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 fission cross-section (b) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The parallel plate 238U fission chamber: (a) schematic diagram of detector functionality, and (b) top-down photograph, with plastic supports (green) braced by lead bricks. 2.2. Electronics and data acquisition Two mineral insulated cable leads can be seen on the right in Figs. 2a and 2b. Each inner conductor connects to one set of the “interleaved” parallel plates. In pulse counting mode, one lead is shorted to grou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Cooknell preamplifier for the U238 fission chamber (FC). Center: Leads of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 238U FC, supported by high density polyethylene (HDPE) blocks, placed within the radiation fields of (a) DD and (b) DT neutron generators (NG). In (a), the deuterated liquid organic scintillator (DLOS) reference detector can be seen on the right. Note that in [PIT…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Digitized voltage waveforms from the 238U FC for two cable lengths L = [1, 30] m and two thresholds T = [100, 1000] lsb. For N waveform samples, the mean curve and shaded standard deviation is shown. Next, we assess the 238U FC’s linearity with the neutron source rate.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a,c) Pulse height spectra and (b,d) detector linearity for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Experimental setup and (b) horizontal cross-section of the OpenMC model for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Pulse height spectra and (b) total count rates - integrated above the dotted threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experimental setup of the 238U FC within the radiation field of the DT NG (top center) and the nominal 100 G line (red dots) of a cyclotron (at left, out of frame). Note that the 238U FC leads and preamplifier are secured / weighed down by lead bricks (bottom). The DLO…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Pulse height spectrum (PHS) of the 238U FC with shaded uncertainties for three magnetic field strengths B = 1 − 2 mT (black), 4 − 7 mT (blue), and 8 − 14 mT (magenta). The count rate (cps) is normalized by the nominal neutron flux (nv = n/cm2/s), assuming a total DT N…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neutron measurement techniques for tokamak plasmas.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 36(2):209, feb 1994

    O N Jarvis. Neutron measurement techniques for tokamak plasmas.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 36(2):209, feb 1994

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    Japanese evaluated nuclear data library version 3 revision-2: Jendl-3.2.Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 32(12):1259–1271, 1995

    Tsuneo NAKAGA W A, Keiichi SHIBATA, Satoshi CHIBA, Tokio FUKAHORI, Yutaka NAKAJIMA, Yasuyuki KIKUCHI, Toshihiko KA W ANO, Yukinori KANDA, Takaaki OHSA W A, Hiroyuki MATSUNOBU, Masayoshi KA W AI, Atsushi ZUKERAN, Takashi W ATANABE, Sin iti IGARASI, Kazuaki KOSAKO, and Tetsuo ASAMI. Japanese evaluated nuclear data library version 3 revision-2: Jendl-3.2.Jou...

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Japanese evaluated nuclear data library version 3 revision-3: Jendl- 3.3.Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 39(11):1125–1136, 2002

    Keiichi SHIBATA, Toshihiko KA W ANO, Tsuneo NAKAGA W A, Osamu IW AMOTO, Jun ichi KATAKURA, Tokio FUKAHORI, Satoshi CHIBA, Akira HASEGA W A, Toru MURATA, Hiroyuki MATSUNOBU, Takaaki OHSA W A, Yutaka NAKAJIMA, Tadashi YOSHIDA, Atsushi ZUKERAN, Masayoshi KA W AI, Mamoru BABA, Makoto ISHIKA W A, Tetsuo ASAMI, Takashi W ATANABE, Yukinobu W ATANABE, Masayuki IG...

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Jendl-4.0: A new library for nuclear science and engineering.Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 48(1):1–30, 2011

    Keiichi SHIBATA, Osamu IW AMOTO, Tsuneo NAKAGA W A, Nobuyuki IW AMOTO, Akira ICHIHARA, Satoshi KUNIEDA, Satoshi CHIBA, Kazuyoshi FURUTAKA, Naohiko OTUKA, Takaaki OHSA W A, Toru MURATA, Hiroyuki MATSUNOBU, Atsushi ZUKERAN, So KAMADA, and Jun ichi KATAKURA. Jendl-4.0: A new library for nuclear science and engineering.Journal of Nuclear Science and Technolog...

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Japanese evaluated nuclear data library version 5: Jendl-5.Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 60(1):1–60, 2023

    Osamu Iwamoto, Nobuyuki Iwamoto, Satoshi Kunieda, Futoshi Minato, Shinsuke Nakayama, Yutaka Abe, Kohsuke Tsubakihara, Shin Okumura, Chikako Ishizuka, Tadashi Yoshida, Satoshi Chiba, Naohiko Otuka, Jean-Christophe Sublet, Hiroki Iwamoto, Kazuyoshi Yamamoto, Yasunobu Nagaya, Kenichi Tada, Chikara Konno, Norihiro Matsuda, Kenji Yokoyama, Hiroshi Taninaka, Ak...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    C. L. Fiore and R. L. Boivin. Performance of the neutron diagnostic system for Alcator C-Mod.Review of Scientific Instruments, 66(1):945–947, 01 1995

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    O. N. Jarvis, G. Sadler, P. van Belle, and T. Elevant. In-vessel calibration of the jet neutron monitors using a 252cf neutron source: Difficulties experienced.Review of Scientific Instruments, 61(10):3172– 3174, 10 1990

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    Batistoni, S

    P. Batistoni, S. Popovichev, Z. Ghani, A. Cufar, L. Giacomelli, P. Hawkins, K. Keogh, S. Jednorog, E. Laszynska, S. Loreti, A. Peacock, M. Pillon, R. Price, A. Reed, D. Rigamonti, J. Stephens, J. Bielecki, S. Conroy, J. Dankowski, V. Krasilnikov, and JET contributors. 14 MeV calibration of JET neutron detectors—phase 2: in-vessel calibration.Nuclear Fusio...

    work page 2018

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    E. B. Nieschmidt, A. C. England, H. W. Hendel, D. L. Hillis, J. A. Isaacson, L. P. Ku, and F. Y. Tsang. Effects of neutron energy spectrum on the efficiency calibration of epithermal neutron detectors. Review of Scientific Instruments, 56(5):1084–1086, 05 1985

    1985

  2. [10]

    A. J. Creely, M. J. Greenwald, S. B. Ballinger, D. Brunner, J. Canik, J. Doody, T. F¨ ul¨ op, D. T. Garnier, R. Granetz, T. K. Gray, C. Holland, N. T. Howard, J. W. Hughes, J. H. Irby, V. A. Izzo, G. J. Kramer, A. Q. Kuang, B. LaBombard, Y. Lin, B. Lipschultz, N. C. Logan, J. ...

    2020

  3. [11]

    P. Raj, J. L. Ball, J. Carmichael, J. A. Frenje, R. Gocht, G. Gorini, I. Holmes, M. Gatu Johnson, R. Kennedy, S. Mackie, M. Nocente, E. Panontin, M. Petruzzo, M. Rebai, M. Reinke, J. Rice, D. Rigamonti, M. Dalla Rosa, A. A. Saltos, M. Tardocchi, R. A. Tinguely, and X. Wang. Ov...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Wang et al

    X. Wang et al. Characterization of a BF 3 Proportional Counter for Neutron Measurements in the SPARC Tokamak.Fusion Engineering and Design, 2026. In progress

    2026

  5. [13]

    Sakabe, E

    T. Sakabe, E. Edwards, A. Lanzrath, N. Goles, J. Ball, S. Mackie, S. Segantin, K. Mukai, J. Yagi, R. A. Tinguely, and K. B. Woller. Neutron Energy Distribution and Energy-Corrected Spatial Distribution Around a Sealed-Tube DT Fusion Neutron Generator.IEEE Transactions on Plasm...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Becchetti, R.S

    F.D. Becchetti, R.S. Raymond, R.O. Torres-Isea, A. Di Fulvio, S.D. Clarke, S.A. Pozzi, and M. Febbraro. Deuterated-xylene (xylene-d10; ej301d): A new, improved deuterated liquid scintillator for neutron energy measurements without time-of-flight.Nuclear Instruments and Methods...

    2016

  7. [15]

    J. L. Ball, E. Panontin, S. Mackie, R. A. Tinguely, and P. Raj. Evaluating deuterated-xylene for use as a fusion neutron spectrometer.Review of Scientific Instruments, 95(12):123514, 12 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    J.L. Ball, S. Mackie, J.G. van de Lindt, W. Morrissey, A. Perevalov, Z.D. Short, N.R. Schwartz, T. Koeth, B.L. Beaudoin, C.A. Romero-Talam´ as, J.E. Rice, and R.A. Tinguely. Measurements of fusion yield on the Centrifugal Mirror Fusion Experiment.Nuclear Fusion, 66(1):016010, nov 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Taieb, B

    J. Taieb, B. Laurent, G. B´ elier, A. Sardet, and C. Varignon. A new fission chamber dedicated to prompt fission neutron spectra measurements.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 833:1–7, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Panontin et al

    E. Panontin et al. Synthetic model of gamma-ray emission during DT experiments on the SPARC tokamak.Nuclear Fusion, 2026. In progress

    2026

  11. [19]

    Raj et al

    P. Raj et al. Final design of the SPARC neutron flux monitors for fusion power diagnostics.Fusion Engineering and Design, 2026. In progress

    2026

  12. [20]

    Romano et al

    Paul K. Romano et al. Openmc: A state-of-the-art monte carlo code for research and development. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 82:90–97, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

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