MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066086726 · doi:10.1063/1.1429776

A very large Paul trap ion gun for delivering bunched low energy ion beams

2002· article· en· W2066086726 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. Ghalambor-Dezfuli, Robert B. Moore, Stefan Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonAtomic physicsIon beamIon trapRange (aeronautics)Beam (structure)PhysicsPulse durationTrap (plumbing)Ion beam depositionMaterials scienceOpticsLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ions extracted from mass separators normally have energies in the range of tens of kilovolts and poor emittances, and are thereby not suited for soft landing, especially in ion deposition applications. In this article a system is described that has been developed for in-flight capture of continuous 60 keV ion beams and delivering them as low energy beam pulses of less than 1 μs duration and energies of less than 5 keV. They are also cooled so that their emittances and energy spreads are considerably reduced from those of the original beam. The basis of the system is a very large Paul trap as a collection system, together with a pulse-down cavity for modifying the energy of the delivered beam. The performance of the system has been analyzed using time-of-flight of the extracted ions. Experimental results are presented, together with numerical simulations of the results that lead to an understanding of the spatial and momentum properties of the ion collection in the trap. The results show how such collection systems can be designed for specific purposes, such as high-current implantation or precise implantation of smaller collections. Such a system can also be used where the ultimate destination is storage in an electromagnetic trap at ground potential.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207