2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-583x(01)00546-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measurement of lateral straggling using a microbeam

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to the relatively long working distance of the in-air test setup (30 cm), initial microbeam size was 5 µm. As expected [27],…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Due to the relatively long working distance of the in-air test setup (30 cm), initial microbeam size was 5 µm. As expected [27],…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The microbeam spatial resolution degradation was simulated as a function of exit foil material and beam path length in air by two approaches. The first conventional approach is using SRIM [26] simulation that is known to underestimate degradation of the microbeam spot size [27]. Therefore we have also used a model of small angle multiple scattering being developed by T. Tadić [12,13], on the basis of the most successful theory of small-angle multiple scattering of ions in the screened Coulomb potential, earlier proposed by P. Sigmund and K. B. Winterborn [28], as well as by A. D. Marwick and P. Sigmund [29].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was taken into account that SRIM underestimates lateral straggling for protons up to 45% for Mylar[21] which is assumed to be similar for graphite. This discrepancy still exists in the latest version of SRIM (2003.26).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%