2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2013.07.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A critical overview of recent stopping power programs for positive ions in solid elements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…8(c), where the Bragg peak is just exiting the active area, the saturation effects are less evident due to the sharp decrease of the deposited dose. Other causes of uncertainties in the quantification of the quenching effect can be attributed to the stopping power libraries used by SRIM which show uncertainties of the order of 10% at energies in the proximity of the Bragg peak [16][17][18]. This source of uncertainty is also well known in other general purpose Monte Carlo codes such as PENH [19] and GEANT4 [20].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8(c), where the Bragg peak is just exiting the active area, the saturation effects are less evident due to the sharp decrease of the deposited dose. Other causes of uncertainties in the quantification of the quenching effect can be attributed to the stopping power libraries used by SRIM which show uncertainties of the order of 10% at energies in the proximity of the Bragg peak [16][17][18]. This source of uncertainty is also well known in other general purpose Monte Carlo codes such as PENH [19] and GEANT4 [20].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For RBS and EBS analysis, the major systematic uncertainties are related to the (particle*∆Ω) product [39] as obtained by fitting the signal of the substrate, due to two different causes: possible inaccuracies in the stopping power and residual channeling effects. Recent energy loss studies have demonstrated that either fully theoretical or semi-empirical stopping power models are expected to agree to experimental data within ≈ 1 % for H + and He + projectiles at energies ≥ 1.0 MeV [40,41]. Nevertheless, in some particular cases, even the most recent tabulated stopping power values for light projectiles, as well as SRIM predictions, are found to be problematic, especially for reactive transition metals (such as vanadium) [42].…”
Section: Budget Of Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This energy transfer causes a drop in kT (t) as the plasma expands in time, which can be estimated by calculating the stopping powers with a Monte Carlo simulation code, SRIM [32,33]. In laser-clusterfusion experiments where the overall density is that of a gas (average atomic number density of 10 18 −10 19 cm −3 ), these energy losses are usually small (∼5% in Ref.…”
Section: Disassembly Time Of the Plasmamentioning
confidence: 99%