pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26391 · v1 · pith:LDZ7BP2Anew · submitted 2026-06-24 · ⚛️ physics.ins-det

Calibration and Performance of Germanium High Voltage Detectors for SuperCDMS SNOLAB

M.F. Albakry , I. Alkhatib , D. Alonso-Gonz\'alez , J. Anczarski , T. Aralis , T. Aramaki , A. Ashtari Esfahani , I. Ataee Langroudy
show 135 more authors
R. Bhattacharyya A.J. Biffl P.L. Brink M. Buchanan R. Bunker B. Cabrera R. Calkins R.A. Cameron P. Camus C. Cartaro D.G. Cerde\~no Y.-Y. Chang M. Chaudhuri J.-H. Chen R. Chen J. Cooley J. Corbett P. Cushman R. Cyna S. Das K. Dering S. Dharani M.L. di Vacri M.D. Diamond M. Elwan S. Fallows E. Figueroa-Feliciano S.L. Franzen G. Gerbier R. Germond A. Gevorgian M. Ghaith G. Godden S.R. Golwala G. Gonzalez J. Hall C.A.S. Harms C. Hays B.A. Hines Z. Hong L. Hsu M.E. Huber V. Iyer M. Jha V.K.S. Kashyap M.H. Kelsey K.T. Kennard Z. Kromer A. Kubik N.A. Kurinsky J. Leyva J. Liu Y. Liu E. Lopez Asamar P. Lukens R. L\'opez No\'e R. Mahapatra J.S. Mammo A. Mayer P.C. McNamara \'E. Michaud E. Michielin K. Mickelson N. Mirabolfathi M. Mirzakhani B. Mohanty D. Mondal D. Monteiro S. Nagorny J. Nelson H. Neog H. Nguyen J.L. Orrell M.D. Osborne S.M. Oser P. Pakarha L. Pandey S. Pandey R. Partridge P.K. Patel D.S. Pedreros W. Peng M.A. Penner W.L. Perry R. Podviianiuk M. Potts S.S. Poudel A. Pradeep M. Pyle W. Rau A. Rehberg T. Reynolds M. Rios A. Roberts A.E. Robinson L. Rosado Del Rio J.L. Ryan T. Saab D. Sadek B. Sadoulet S. Salehi J. Sander A. Sattari R.W. Schnee S. Scorza B. Serfass R.S. Shenoy A. Simchony P. Sinervo Z.J. Smith R. Soni K. Stifter M. Stukel H. Sun E. Tanner N. Tenpas D. Toback R. Underwood A.N. Villano J. Viol O. Wen Z. Williams M.J. Wilson J. Winchell J. Xiong S. Yellin B.A. Young B. Zatschler S. Zatschler A. Zaytsev E. Zhang J. Zheng L. Zheng A. Zuniga M.J. Zurowski
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 00:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ins-det
keywords germanium detectorshigh voltage biasenergy calibrationcryogenic detectorsdark matter searchenergy resolutionSuperCDMS
0
0 comments X

The pith

Germanium high-voltage detectors calibrate low energies with 71Ge peaks and resolve hundreds-of-keV events to better than 3%.

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

The paper describes performance tests of new SuperCDMS high-voltage germanium detectors in the CUTE facility at SNOLAB. It details how the detectors operate under bias voltages up to 90 V and uses electron capture peaks from 71Ge decay to establish an energy calibration in the keV to sub-keV range. The tests also reveal that the same detectors can measure interactions at hundreds of keV with energy resolution better than 3% at 356 keV. This combination of low- and high-energy capabilities was not the original design focus but emerges under the low-background underground conditions.

Core claim

SuperCDMS HV germanium detectors maintain accurate calibration from sub-keV to keV energies via 71Ge electron capture peaks while delivering energy resolution better than 3% at 356 keV under biases up to 90 V.

What carries the argument

Electron capture peaks from 71Ge decay, which supply discrete energy lines for calibrating the detector response across the low-energy range under applied high voltage.

If this is right

  • The detectors can record both the low-energy signals targeted by dark matter searches and higher-energy interactions in the same dataset.
  • Calibration established at low energies transfers reliably enough to support percent-level resolution at hundreds of keV.
  • Performance data from the underground test directly inform the analysis methods planned for the full SuperCDMS SNOLAB run.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same 71Ge calibration approach may prove applicable to the silicon HV detectors tested in the same campaign.
  • High-energy resolution opens the possibility of using known gamma lines for in-situ checks during long dark matter exposures.
  • Further increases in bias voltage or refinements in pulse-shape analysis could be tested to see whether resolution improves beyond the reported level.

Load-bearing premise

The electron capture peaks from 71Ge decay supply an accurate and unbiased energy calibration for the keV to sub-keV range at the bias voltages and operating conditions used in the test.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the energy scale fixed by the 71Ge peaks deviates from the known position of the 356 keV line by more than the claimed resolution width.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26391 by A. Ashtari Esfahani, A.E. Robinson, A. Gevorgian, A.J. Biffl, A. Kubik, A. Mayer, A.N. Villano, A. Pradeep, A. Rehberg, A. Roberts, A. Sattari, A. Simchony, A. Zaytsev, A. Zuniga, B.A. Hines, B.A. Young, B. Cabrera, B. Mohanty, B. Sadoulet, B. Serfass, B. Zatschler, C.A.S. Harms, C. Cartaro, C. Hays, D. Alonso-Gonz\'alez, D.G. Cerde\~no, D. Mondal, D. Monteiro, D. Sadek, D.S. Pedreros, D. Toback, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, E. Lopez Asamar, \'E. Michaud, E. Michielin, E. Tanner, E. Zhang, G. Gerbier, G. Godden, G. Gonzalez, H. Neog, H. Nguyen, H. Sun, I. Alkhatib, I. Ataee Langroudy, J. Anczarski, J. Cooley, J. Corbett, J. Hall, J.-H. Chen, J. Leyva, J. Liu, J.L. Orrell, J.L. Ryan, J. Nelson, J. Sander, J.S. Mammo, J. Viol, J. Winchell, J. Xiong, J. Zheng, K. Dering, K. Mickelson, K. Stifter, K.T. Kennard, L. Hsu, L. Pandey, L. Rosado Del Rio, L. Zheng, M.A. Penner, M. Buchanan, M. Chaudhuri, M.D. Diamond, M.D. Osborne, M.E. Huber, M. Elwan, M.F. Albakry, M. Ghaith, M.H. Kelsey, M. Jha, M.J. Wilson, M.J. Zurowski, M.L. Di Vacri, M. Mirzakhani, M. Potts, M. Pyle, M. Rios, M. Stukel, N.A. Kurinsky, N. Mirabolfathi, N. Tenpas, O. Wen, P. Camus, P.C. McNamara, P. Cushman, P.K. Patel, P.L. Brink, P. Lukens, P. Pakarha, P. Sinervo, R.A. Cameron, R. Bhattacharyya, R. Bunker, R. Calkins, R. Chen, R. Cyna, R. Germond, R. L\'opez No\'e, R. Mahapatra, R. Partridge, R. Podviianiuk, R. Soni, R.S. Shenoy, R. Underwood, R.W. Schnee, S. Das, S. Dharani, S. Fallows, S.L. Franzen, S.M. Oser, S. Nagorny, S. Pandey, S.R. Golwala, S. Salehi, S. Scorza, S.S. Poudel, S. Yellin, S. Zatschler, T. Aralis, T. Aramaki, T. Reynolds, T. Saab, V. Iyer, V.K.S. Kashyap, W.L. Perry, W. Peng, W. Rau, Y. Liu, Y.-Y. Chang, Z. Hong, Z.J. Smith, Z. Kromer, Z. Williams.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: HV detector in its housing. The first zoom shows a section of nine QET cells. The second zoom shows an individual cell with the tungsten TES surrounded by the aluminum fins. The readout scheme used in the CUTE campaign is identical to the one designed for SuperCDMS: the readout cables inside the cryostat (one per detector) terminate at a custom-designed printed circuit board, the Vacuum Interface Board (VI… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Channel layout of the SuperCDMS HV detectors. Each colored section represents one phonon channel: on each side, there are two outer ring channels, A and B, three wedge channels, C, D and E, arranged counter-clockwise (when viewed from above the face), and one circular channel, F, in the center (the channel and side labels are shown in the sketch). The detectors are arranged in so-called towers. A tower con… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows examples of event distributions for three wedge channels (CDE) and a ring channel with two wedge channels (CDA) together with simulated distributions1 . The simulations are still under active development and not fully validated yet. It is therefore no surprise that there are some differences between DMC results and measured data. Perhaps the most striking difference is that DMC predicts a stronger re… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: summarizes the outcome of these fits for detec￾tor 1 (0 V and 50 V). For clarity, instead of the peak posi￾tion itself, the figure shows the nominal interaction energy divided by the fitted peak position (which can be interpreted as a calibration factor), together with the uncertainties. At 0 V, these calibration factors are consistent with each other (which is also true for detector 3), which means that t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy spectra with 71Ge EC peaks for detector 1 at 0 V (top) and 50 V bias (bottom) after applying all basic and data quality selection criteria, as well as the low radius event selection (50 V data only). The nominal peak energies as well as the peak positions in the original (uncalibrated, non￾linearized) spectra, as determined by our fit procedure, are indicated in the plots. to as voltage-scan data), … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 71Ge EC peak position versus voltage, separately for K-shell (top) and L-shell peaks (bottom). For each detector, a line following Eq. 2 is fit to the data points acquired under non-zero bias voltages, where in case of the K-shell peaks, the fit range is limited to ≤30 V (light blue box) because the data points at higher voltage show a clear sub-linear trend which is attributed to saturation effects. The f… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the peak positions (K-shell and L-shell) in detector 1, first converted to energy using the 0 V calibra￾tion and then divided by the total expected phonon energy according to Eq. (2), as a function of the applied voltage. Data following this equation would show a voltage indepen￾dent ratio of 1. The L-shell data points are consistent with being voltage-independent, but at a ratio larger than 1. This … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the 1 𝜎 baseline resolution in total phonon energy units, calculated assuming standard NTL amplification (see Eq. (2)), as a function of bias voltage for all detectors. Detectors 1 and 3 show a modest worsening of the resolution with increasing bias voltage, while in detector 6 the effect is more pronounced. This observation may be explained by a noise contribution originating from the pres￾ence of i… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Resolution model fit (solid line) for detector 1 when operated under a bias of 50 V. The shaded band represents the 1 𝜎 fit uncertainty. The measured 1 𝜎 resolution values, the fit parameter 𝐴 and the effective Fano factor F′ for detectors 1 and 3 are listed in Tab. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Calibration function for the 50 V data set collected with detector 1 after neutron activation and while being exposed to the 133Ba source. The fit function is a second order polynomial. We estimate the systematic effects from non-flat back￾grounds in a similar way as was done for the 0 V spectrum, while here we also consider the effects of events with re￾duced NTL gain on the spectrum. We fit the spectrum… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Calibrated energy spectra up to 400 keV interaction energy for detector 1, operated at 0 V (green) and 50 V bias (blue). Dashed lines indicate the energies of the 133Ba gamma emission lines as well as the K-shell and L-shell capture lines from the 71Ge decay. The backscatter peak at ∼160 keV results from gammas scattering in the surrounding material before entering the detector; its position and shape dep… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As SuperCDMS SNOLAB is getting ready to search for low mass dark matter particles, using cryogenic Ge and Si detectors, a set of six of the new SuperCDMS High Voltage (HV) detectors (four Ge and two Si) were tested in the Cryogenic Underground TEst facility (CUTE) at SNOLAB. This provided the first opportunity to gain experience with this new detector type and assess their performance thoroughly under low background conditions. Here we describe the SuperCDMS HV detector concept and discuss some of the newly developed analysis methods and approaches. Focusing on the Ge detectors, we investigate the detector performance under voltage bias (up to 90 V), exercise the low energy (keV to sub-keV range) calibration based on the electron capture peaks generated by the decay of $^{71}$Ge, assess the detector resolution, and demonstrate the unexpected (and encouraging) ability of these detectors to also measure high energy interactions in the hundreds of keV range with good resolution (better than 3% at 356 keV).

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports on the testing of six SuperCDMS High Voltage detectors (four Ge and two Si) in the CUTE facility at SNOLAB. It describes the HV detector concept, newly developed analysis methods, low-energy calibration in the keV to sub-keV range using 71Ge electron-capture peaks under biases up to 90 V, resolution assessment, and an unexpected high-energy capability with resolution better than 3% at 356 keV.

Significance. If the high-energy resolution result holds under verified calibration, the work supplies important operational data for SuperCDMS SNOLAB and identifies an expanded physics capability for these detectors. As a purely experimental report resting on measured data with no self-referential derivations, it provides direct, falsifiable performance benchmarks.

major comments (2)
  1. [High-energy performance demonstration (abstract and corresponding results section)] The headline claim of resolution better than 3% at 356 keV (abstract and high-energy performance section) is load-bearing for the central result yet rests on extrapolation from the 71Ge low-energy calibration (few–10 keV). No independent high-energy source, linearity plot versus energy, or charge-collection efficiency check at hundreds of keV is described, leaving open the possibility that HV-induced trapping or field non-uniformity biases the quoted figure.
  2. [Calibration and resolution assessment sections] The abstract and calibration sections state resolution and performance numbers without accompanying uncertainties, data-exclusion criteria, or explicit fitting procedures. These omissions prevent verification of the quoted figures and must be supplied for the low-energy and high-energy claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures and results text] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the number of events and any cuts applied when reporting resolution at 356 keV.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for bias voltage and energy scale should be made consistent between the low-energy calibration and high-energy sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly to improve clarity and verifiability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [High-energy performance demonstration (abstract and corresponding results section)] The headline claim of resolution better than 3% at 356 keV (abstract and high-energy performance section) is load-bearing for the central result yet rests on extrapolation from the 71Ge low-energy calibration (few–10 keV). No independent high-energy source, linearity plot versus energy, or charge-collection efficiency check at hundreds of keV is described, leaving open the possibility that HV-induced trapping or field non-uniformity biases the quoted figure.

    Authors: We agree that the 356 keV resolution figure is extrapolated from the low-energy 71Ge calibration assuming linear response across the energy range. The manuscript does not present an independent high-energy calibration, linearity plot, or dedicated charge-collection efficiency measurement at hundreds of keV. We will revise the abstract and high-energy performance section to explicitly state the extrapolation method, discuss the physical basis for assuming linearity in these HV detectors, and address the possible impact of trapping or field non-uniformity. The claim will be qualified to reflect these limitations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Calibration and resolution assessment sections] The abstract and calibration sections state resolution and performance numbers without accompanying uncertainties, data-exclusion criteria, or explicit fitting procedures. These omissions prevent verification of the quoted figures and must be supplied for the low-energy and high-energy claims.

    Authors: We accept that the quoted resolution and performance numbers require supporting details. In the revised manuscript we will add uncertainties to all reported resolution values, describe the event selection and data-exclusion criteria applied in the analysis, and provide explicit descriptions of the fitting procedures (including functional forms and goodness-of-fit metrics) for both the low-energy 71Ge peaks and the high-energy features. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely experimental report with no derivations, predictions, or self-referential equations

full rationale

The manuscript is an experimental performance report on Ge HV detectors. It describes hardware testing, data collection in CUTE, calibration via measured 71Ge electron-capture peaks, and direct resolution measurements (including at 356 keV). No equations, fitted parameters relabeled as predictions, uniqueness theorems, or self-citation chains appear. Claims rest on observed spectra and statistics rather than any derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. This is the normal case for a detector characterization paper and receives the default non-finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Performance claims rest on the domain assumption that 71Ge electron-capture peaks serve as reliable absolute energy references and that CUTE conditions adequately represent the final SNOLAB environment; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Electron capture peaks from 71Ge decay provide accurate energy calibration points in the keV to sub-keV range.
    Explicitly invoked for low-energy calibration as described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6465 in / 1128 out tokens · 34918 ms · 2026-06-26T00:42:09.445393+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Abusaidiet al.(CDMS Collaboration), Phys

    R. Abusaidiet al.(CDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 5699 (2000)

    2000

  2. [2]

    The CDMS II Collaboration, Science327, 1619 (2010)

    2010

  3. [4]

    Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS collaboration), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 041302 (2014). SuperCDMS Collaboration, M.F. Albakry et. al:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 15 of 16 Calibration and Performance of Germanium High Voltage Detectors for SuperCDMS SNOLAB

    2014

  4. [5]

    Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 071301 (2016)

    2016

  5. [6]

    Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D99, 062001 (2019)

    2019

  6. [7]

    Camuset al., Frontiers in Physics11, 1319879 (2024)

    P. Camuset al., Frontiers in Physics11, 1319879 (2024)

    2024

  7. [8]

    Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 061802 (2018)

    2018

  8. [9]

    Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 241302 (2014)

    2014

  9. [10]

    Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D97, 022002 (2018)

    2018

  10. [11]

    B. S. Neganov and V. N. Trofimov, Otkryt. Izobret.146, 215 (1985), USSR Patent No. 1037771

    1985

  11. [12]

    P. Luke, J. Appl. Phys.64, 6858 (1988)

    1988

  12. [13]

    R. Pehl, F. Goulding, D. Landis, and M. Lenzlinger, Nucl. Instrum. Methods59, 45 (1968)

    1968

  13. [14]

    Kurinsky, P

    N. Kurinsky, P. Brink, B. Cabrera, R. Partridge, and M. Pyle, PoS ICHEP2016, 1116 (2017)

    2017

  14. [15]

    thesis, Stanford University (2018)

    N.A.Kurinsky,TheLow-MassLimit:DarkMatterDetectorswitheV- Scale Energy Resolution, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (2018)

    2018

  15. [16]

    Irwin, S

    K. Irwin, S. Nam, B. Cabrera, B. Chugg, and B. Young, Rev. Sci. Instrum.66, 5322 (1995)

    1995

  16. [17]

    T. Saab, R. Clarke, B. Cabrera, R. Abusaidi, and R. Gaitskell, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A444, 300 (2000)

    2000

  17. [18]

    A. E. Szymkowiak, R. L. Kelley, S. H. Moseley, and C. K. Stahle, J. Low Temp. Phys.93, 281 (1993)

    1993

  18. [19]

    Wilsonet al., J

    J. Wilsonet al., J. Instrum.17, P07010 (2022)

    2022

  19. [20]

    Hansen, F

    S. Hansen, F. DeJongh, J. Hall, B. Hines, M. Huber, T. Kiper, V.Mandic,W.Rau,T.Saab,D.Seitz,andK.Sundqvist,IEEENuclear ScienceSymposium&MedicalImagingConference,Knoxville,TN, USA, 2010 , 1392 (2010)

    2010

  20. [21]

    J. I. Collar and S. G. Yoon, Phys. Rev. C108, L021602 (2023)

    2023

  21. [22]

    E. B. Normanet al., Phys. Rev. C109, 055501 (2024)

    2024

  22. [23]

    Caiet al., Phys

    J. Caiet al., Phys. Rev. C113, 014331 (2026)

    2026

  23. [24]

    R. D. Deslatteset al., Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 35 (2003)

    2003

  24. [25]

    Bearden and A

    J. Bearden and A. Burr, Rev. Mod. Phys.39, 125 (1967)

    1967

  25. [26]

    Manduchi and G

    C. Manduchi and G. Zannoni, Nucl. Phys.36, 497 (1962)

    1962

  26. [27]

    Helmer and C

    R. Helmer and C. van der Leun, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A450, 35 (2000)

    2000

  27. [28]

    Khazov, A

    Y. Khazov, A. Rodionov, and F. Kondev, Nucl. Data Sheets112, 855 (2011)

    2011

  28. [29]

    Gatti and P

    E. Gatti and P. F. Manfredi, Riv. Nuovo Cim.9N1, 1 (1986)

    1986

  29. [30]

    Kelseyet al., Nucl

    M. Kelseyet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A1055, 168473 (2023)

    2023

  30. [31]

    Agostinelliet al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  31. [32]

    Allisonet al., Nucl

    J. Allisonet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  32. [33]

    Allisonet al., IEEE Trans

    J. Allisonet al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.53, 270 (2006)

    2006

  33. [34]

    Moffatt, R

    R.Romani,P.Brink,B.Cabrera,M.Cherry,T.Howarth,N.Kurinsky, R. Moffatt, R. Partridge, F. Ponce, M. Pyle, A. Tomada, S. Yellin, J. Yen, and B. Young, Appl. Phys. Lett.112, 043501 (2018)

    2018

  34. [35]

    Renet al., Phys

    R. Renet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 032010 (2021)

    2021

  35. [36]

    M. F. Albakryet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D112, 092014 (2025)

    2025

  36. [37]

    Kenyardet al., Nucl

    K. Kenyardet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods1091, 171753 (2026)

    2026

  37. [38]

    M. Albakryet al.(SuperCDMS Collaboration), A Strategy for Low- Mass Dark Matter searches with Cryogenic Detectors in the Super- CDMS SNOLAB Facility, Proceedings of the US Community Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2021) (2023), available from:https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08463

    arXiv 2021

  38. [39]

    Bilger, Phys

    H. Bilger, Phys. Rev.163, 238 (1967)

    1967

  39. [40]

    R. Alig, S. Bloom, and C. Struck, Phys. Rev. B22, 5565 (1980)

    1980

  40. [41]

    Sher and W

    A. Sher and W. Keery, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.17, 39 (1970). SuperCDMS Collaboration, M.F. Albakry et. al:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 16 of 16

    1970