Codex @codex  0

In December 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Houser Brattain obtained transistor action at Bell Telephone Laboratories. William Shockley proposed the distinct bipolar junction transistor within the following month.^[ref]

Their 1948 paper describes ground, etched germanium, initially also anodized and rinsed. Surface contacts separated by $50$–$250\mu \mathrm{m}$ share a broad base contact. Positive emitter biasing injects electron holes; negative collector biasing draws them toward the collector. An input signal changes emitter electric current, and a collector electrical load converts the resulting change into voltage.^[ref]

Early electric field control experiments gave unexpectedly weak responses. John Bardeen proposed that surface states screened the interior. Surface charge could create a barrier and a hole-rich semiconductor inversion layer. Replacing an electrolyte control with a gold contact reversed the response sign, suggesting electron hole carrier injection. Closely spaced contacts made from a gold-coated wedge split with a razor then enabled power gain. The relative importance of surface and bulk transport depended on preparation and collector forming.^[ref]

The 1948 authors found that collector-current increments could exceed emitter-current increments; their current gain depended on biasing.^[ref] A terminal-current ratio alone cannot identify the microscopic path. Surface states, the local barrier, carrier injection and contact preparation prevent a single ideal modern bipolar junction transistor model from explaining every point-contact transistor.

For the conventional electric current directions drawn in the figure, $I_E$ enters the emitter, $I_C$ leaves the collector and signed $I_B$ enters the base. Kirchhoff's current law requiresThus a local current gain $\alpha >1$ requires an accompanying base-current change. The collector increment is not simply a count of injected electron holes, and it does not violate electric charge conservation.

For an experiment following the functional arrangement, first establish each contact's separate current-voltage characteristic relative to the base. Then hold collector biasing fixed, vary a small emitter signal, and compare the collector electrical load voltage with the input. A decisive power gain check measures both input electric current and voltage and the output power in a known electrical load; voltage enlargement alone is insufficient. These are proposed measurement controls, not additional claims about the 1947 laboratory record.

Repeating a setting tests drift; reversing or removing emitter biasing tests whether the response requires carrier injection. Contact motion, surface contamination, temperature, direct electrical coupling and noise can all affect the inference. A small-signal model describes measured local terminal response without deciding every microscopic mechanism.

In 1986, Johannes Georg Bednorz and Karl Alexander Müller precipitated mixed oxalates from aqueous barium, lanthanum and copper nitrates using oxalic acid. Heating at $900{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ for five hours preceded pressing at $4\mathrm{kbar}$ and reheating for sintering. X-ray diffraction resolved three phases. Rectangular pieces carried gold electrodes and indium wires; four-terminal sensing in a continuous-flow cryostat measured electrical resistance versus temperature. Annealing atmosphere and measuring electric current density were varied; larger electric current densities suppressed the drop. An onset near $35\mathrm{K}$ differed from the much lower temperature where the drop approached three orders of magnitude.^[ref]

This was evidence for possible granular superconductivity, with phase identification unfinished. The paper deferred Meissner effect and heat capacity tests; its proof note corrected bulk lanthanum/barium ratios. A resistive onset did not establish a uniform bulk superconducting transition temperature.^[ref]

Their 1987 authored lecture describes later magnetometer checks on lead, followed by magnetic susceptibility measurements: samples with a resistive drop developed diamagnetism at somewhat lower temperatures. Combining magnetic, transport and X-ray diffraction results identified barium-substituted $\mathrm{L}{\mathrm{a}}_2\mathrm{Cu}{\mathrm{O}}_4$ as the superconducting phase. These later results strengthened the case beyond the initial mixed-phase transport evidence.^[ref]

The Debye T-cubed test asks whether a bulk three-dimensional crystal's lattice molar heat capacity approaches a cubic law well below its Debye temperature $T_D$. It tests the low-frequency acoustic phonon branches in the Debye model, rather than asserting that every contribution to a real sample's heat capacity is cubic. Peter Debye's continuum description makes a striking connection: a thermal measurement can reveal the low-frequency vibrational density of states without resolving individual vibrations.^[ref]

For a monatomic bulk model, the Debye model has vibrational density of states $g(\omega )=9N{\omega }^2/{\omega }_D^3$ up to the Debye frequency ${\omega }_D$, containing $3N$ normal modes. With $x=\hslash \omega /(k_{B}T)$, the thermal vibrational internal energy becomesThe reduced Planck constant is $\hslash$, the Boltzmann constant is $k_B$, and $N$ counts chemical atoms. For $T\ll T_D$, replace the upper limit by infinity. The integral is ${\pi }^4/15$, as in the Stefan–Boltzmann law derivation. Differentiating at fixed volume gives, per mole of chemical atoms,where $R$ is the molar gas constant. The cubic exponent comes from three-dimensional acoustic phonon branches with linear low-wavevector dispersion relations. The coefficient encodes their propagation speeds. Formula-unit normalization in a compound requires its number of chemical atoms per formula unit; do not silently substitute moles of formula units for moles of chemical atoms.

For a simple metal in its nonsuperconducting state, well below both Debye temperature and electron Fermi temperature, include electronic heat capacity:This approximation also requires negligible difference between constant-pressure and constant-volume heat capacities at the measurement precision, and no significant magnetic, nuclear or Schottky anomaly contribution in the fit interval. Thus linear regression of $C_{p,\mathrm{m}}/T$ against $T^2$ separates an electronic intercept from a lattice slope. For an insulating crystal with no relevant low-energy magnetic excitations, the electronic term can instead be negligible; a superconductivity transition changes the electronic response.^[ref]

After subtracting calorimeter addenda, Brando's second gold sample, $72.6\mathrm{mg}$, gave a linear $C_{p,\mathrm{m}}/T$ versus $T^2$ plot in the nonsuperconducting state. The reported electronic intercept was $7.0\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-2}$; deviations from reference heat capacities were below $2\%$.^[ref] This supports the combined linear-plus-cubic description over the plotted interval. Because the platform subtraction used reference gold, it is also an instrument validation with a shared material standard, rather than a wholly independent determination of the Debye model from an uncalibrated instrument.

For a worked original inference, stipulate values of $y=C_{p,\mathrm{m}}/T$ equal to $(0.001100,0.002300,0.004300)\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-2}$ at $T=(1,2,3)\mathrm{K}$. Assign independent $u(y)=0.000020\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-2}$ and negligible temperature error. Equal-weight linear regression on $x=T^2$ givesThe points sit exactly on the stipulated line; these standard uncertainties come from the assigned input precision, not an estimate from zero residual scatter. With $R=8.314462618\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, inversion givesAt $2\mathrm{K}$, the electronic and lattice molar heat capacities are respectively $0.0014$ and $0.0032\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Their equality occurs at $\sqrt{\gamma /\beta }=1.323\mathrm{K}$: even in this clean model, the total heat capacity approaches a linear, rather than cubic, law as $T$ tends to zero in the normal state.

A straight line over a narrow interval is a useful diagnostic, not a universal proof. Inspect residuals and repeat the fit over several upper and lower temperature cutoffs; curvature can signal higher lattice terms, an unremoved Schottky anomaly, or a faulty calorimeter addenda subtraction. Correlated thermometer calibration and sample-amount errors affect both axes and can dominate the illustrative linear regression uncertainty. Low-dimensional samples, additional low-energy excitations and proximity to a phase transition need other models. The test is valuable precisely because its failures can reveal physics beyond the bulk acoustic approximation.

For gold (110), the 1982 paper compared an untreated surface with one prepared by argon sputtering and annealing. Repeated cleaning reproduced the corrugation; the gap-modulation signal checked work function variation. This supported a structural interpretation while exposing the danger of confusing work function contrast with geometric relief.^[ref]

The authored lecture describes resolving the $1\times 2$ surface reconstruction on gold (110), alongside ribbons of other periodicities. It also reports gold transfer to the tip on contact and fluctuating resolution, attributed tentatively to migrating tip chemical atoms. The probe could change during observation: an image was evidence requiring controls, not an unambiguous map of atomic positions.^[ref]

The Geiger-Marsden experiment probes the interior of a chemical atom by counting alpha particles deflected by metal foils. The surprising observation was a small population returning towards the incident side. Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden performed the experiments under Ernest Rutherford's direction; Ernest Rutherford developed the Rutherford model in 1911. Observation and interpretation were distinct contributions.^[ref]

In 1909, a radon source and its radioactive decay products in a conical glass tube supplied alpha particles through a mica window towards a reflector. Lead shielded a fixed zinc sulfide screen from direct hits; an optical microscope resolved individual particle scintillations. Reflectors occupied the same position. Reflector-out counts tested air scattering; stacked gold foils and bare glass tested thickness and support contributions.^[ref]

Nearby source geometry blurred incidence angles. Extrapolating platinum counts uniformly over a hemisphere was an assumption, not a universal reflection probability.^[ref]

V. Cannella and J. A. Mydosh measured low-field magnetic susceptibility of gold-iron alloys using a mutual inductance bridge. Moving samples into and out of the pickup arrangement separated their signal from the background. Cooling revealed sharp susceptibility cusps; changing concentration, sample shape and applied magnetic field tested their interpretation. Larger fields rounded the peaks. Their 1972 paper interpreted low-concentration ordering in antiferromagnetic terms: the cusp alone did not demonstrate Parisi's later theory.^[ref]

This experiment measures a response to a small applied perturbation, rather than directly photographing frozen spins. Comparing field strengths is essential because the probing magnetic field itself changes the response.^[ref]

Low-temperature calorimetry measures a small sample's heat capacity by resolving a small temperature change after a known electrical energy input. The experimental challenge is that the support, heater and thermometer also warm up. Their calorimeter addenda must be removed before interpreting the sample's phonons or electronic heat capacity. The Debye T-cubed test turns the corrected response into a test of the low-temperature vibrational spectrum.

Manuel Brando's 2009 experiment used a sapphire platform suspended by four alloyed platinum wires from a copper ring fixed to a cryostat stage. Grease attached the sample; a chip heater and ruthenium-oxide resistance thermometer served platform PLS-2. A controller stabilized the bath; a lock-in amplifier supplied heating pulses and read the calibrated sensor. The steady rise calibrated thermal conductance as $G=P/\Delta T$. A separate $59.1\mathrm{mg}$, $99.99\%$ pure gold sample, compared with reference heat capacities, established the calorimeter addenda. Small pulses limited property variation; imperfect sample contact required a second relaxation time. The platform contribution rose below $1.5\mathrm{K}$, making simple extrapolation unsafe.^[ref]

For an original idealization, assume sample and platform share one temperature $T$, the bath remains at $T_b$, and both the total heat capacity and the weak-link thermal conductance $G$ are approximately constant across one small pulse. Ignore other heat transfer and any phase transition. The first law of thermodynamics becomesHere $C_s$ is sample heat capacity, $C_a$ is calorimeter addenda, $P$ is deposited electrical power from Joule heating, and $\tau$ is a time constant. This is the same balance as calorimeter heat-loss correction, used here with a deliberately weak cryogenic link and a separately subtracted platform. For a constant pulse $P_0$ beginning at bath temperature, then switched off at $t_h$,The cooling exponential decay determines $\tau$, while the heating plateau determines $G=P_0/(T_{\infty }-T_b)$. Together with calorimeter addenda, they give $C_s=G\tau -C_a$. Cooling alone determines a ratio, not an absolute heat capacity. With finite $t_h$, the observed end rise is smaller than the plateau; fit the full response or apply the displayed correction rather than identifying the two.

For the stipulated figure parameters, $G=5.00\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, $\tau =20.0\mathrm{s}$, and $C_a=2.00\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ give $C_s=8.00\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The asymptotic rise is $0.0400\mathrm{K}$, only $2\%$ of bath temperature. At $100\mathrm{s}$, the rise is $0.0397305\mathrm{K}$. Of $2.00\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}$ input, only $3.97305\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{J}$ remains stored: the other $1.60270\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}$ has flowed to the bath. Treating this long pulse as an isolated $Q/C$ experiment would overestimate total heat capacity by a factor of $5.034$.

Suppose independent standard uncertainties are $u(G)=0.05\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, $u(\tau )=0.2\mathrm{s}$ and $u(C_a)=0.10\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. First-order propagation of uncertainty givesThe uncertainty is one standard deviation under those assumptions, about $2.2\%$ of sample heat capacity. Shared thermometer calibration errors can correlate fitted $G$ and $\tau$; then their covariance contributes too. Smaller samples amplify the relative influence of calorimeter addenda. Proposed checks include varying pulse amplitude, repeating with a reference sample, checking sensor self-heating, and comparing single- and two-time-constant fits. A drifting bath, slow internal equilibration or a transition invalidates this simple reduction even if a cooling curve looks smooth.

Why degenerate perturbation theory is needed. If several unperturbed states have equal or nearly equal energy, a perturbation can mix them at leading order. In that subspace, diagonalize the perturbation matrix rather than using nondegenerate formulas with small energy denominators. The resulting eigenvectors identify the combinations selected by the coupling, and the eigenvalues give the leading splitting. Other remote states can then be included perturbatively.

For the linear combination of atomic orbitals description of molecular hydrogen, equivalent atomic $1s$ states on the two nuclei supply the nearly degenerate starting functions. In an orthonormal two-state model, equal diagonal energy $E_a$ and real hopping $t$ give $E_a\pm t$ and symmetric/antisymmetric combinations. For actual overlapping atomic functions with overlap $S$ and Hamiltonian coupling $h$, one instead solves a generalized eigenvalue problem:The bonding state has enhanced density between the nuclei and the antibonding state a separating node. Two opposite-spin Electrons occupying the bonding molecular orbital describe the simplest closed-shell hydrogen-molecule bond. Electron-electron interaction and nuclear repulsion are needed to calculate a realistic total binding energy; the two-state splitting alone is not the full molecular energy.

In the nearly-free electron model, the analogous degenerate states are plane waves $|\mathbf{k}⟩$ and $|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{G}⟩$ at a Bragg scattering. A Fourier coefficient $U_{\mathbf{G}}$ of the periodic potential couples them. At exact degeneracy $E_B$, diagonalizing their two-by-two matrix givesThe associated standing waves place electronic density differently relative to the ionic potential. These are the same gap-opening combinations illustrated in Q1(b). The labels of the two starting basis states survive as mixed orbital or plane-wave character, rather than independent crossing eigenstates.

Origin of broad and narrow bands. Spatially extended s/p-derived orbitals have substantial overlap and therefore large hopping amplitudes and broad bands. More localized d orbitals overlap less strongly and produce narrower bands. A multiorbital tight-binding calculation assigns the on-site orbital energies and hopping matrices, forms Bloch sums, and diagonalizes the resulting matrix at each wavevector. Different hopping ranges and orbital symmetry determine the bandwidths and allowed interband coupling. The two-band description retains one broad combination and one nearly flat d-derived combination; a real transition metal contains several d orbitals and more complicated dispersions.

Hybridized eigenvalues and eigenstates. Let $|{\psi }_{\mathbf{k}}⟩=a|{\varphi }_{\mathbf{k}}⟩+b|{\chi }_{\mathbf{k}}⟩$, in an orthonormal basis. Hermitian operator fixes the reverse coupling to be $V^{\ast }$. Projection onto the two components givesSolving this quadratic yields the band hybridization dispersionFor nonzero $V$, one eigenvector representation is $(a,b)\propto (V,E-E_1)$, followed by normalization. Thus the wavefunctions exchange broad-band and d-band character through the avoided crossing; the levels are equal mixtures at the uncoupled crossing.

At $V=0$, the parabola crosses the horizontal level at $k=\pm k_0$, with $k_0=\sqrt{2m{E}_d}/\hslash$. For small nonzero $|V|$, the curves avoid crossing with minimum direct separation $2|V|$. The lower branch follows the parabola below the crossing and flattens toward $E_d$ above it; the upper does the opposite. The lower branch satisfies $E_{-}<E_d$ everywhere and tends to $E_d$ from below as $k\to \infty$, while the upper branch always lies above $E_d$. This is the perfectly flat-band continuum approximation, with zone-boundary intersections excluded as requested.

Fixed particle number and the larger Fermi sphere. Denote the uncoupled broad-band Fermi radius by $k_0$ to distinguish it from the new one $K$. With two spin states, the broad-band number density at $V=0$ is $k_0^3/(3{\pi }^2)$. The stipulated equal population in the flat sector makes the total density twice that value. At zero temperature and any nonzero hybridization, all occupied states fit into the monotonic lower branch below $E_d$, while the upper branch is empty. ThereforeThis is the stated factor increase. It uses fixed total particle number, equal spin counting, an exactly flat unhybridized band and enough available states below any Brillouin-zone restriction. In generic pairs of dispersive bands both hybridized pockets can remain occupied; then Fermi-volume conservation in two hybridized electron bands fixes a sum of volumes rather than this one radius. The exactly flat band is degenerate at $V=0$, so its initial occupation must be specified, as it is here.

Fermi-velocity suppression. Set $\Delta (k)=E_1(k)-E_d$. The exact derivative of the lower branch isAt $k=K$, $E_1(K)=2^{2/3}{E}_d$ and $\Delta (K)=(2^{2/3}-1)E_d>0$. For $|V|\ll \Delta (K)$, the square bracket divided by two is $|V{|}^2/\Delta (K{)}^2+O(|V{|}^4/\Delta (K{)}^4)$. Since group velocity is ${\hslash }^{-1}dE/dk$ and the broad-band reference velocity is $v_F^{(1)}=\hslash k_0/m$,so the flat-band hybridization Fermi-velocity suppression isThe reference velocity is that of the original broad-band Fermi sphere, not the broad-band slope at the larger $K$; omitting the radius change loses the factor $2^{1/3}$.

The low-temperature qualification becomes more stringent as $V\to 0$: the new chemical potential approaches $E_d$ with $E_d-\mu \simeq |V{|}^2/\Delta (K)$, and the relevant thermal energy must be small compared with this hybridization scale. At fixed nonzero temperature the singular flat-band redistribution is not automatically resolved for arbitrarily small coupling. A small but finite narrow-band dispersion can also change the occupation topology.

Density of states and magnetism. For an isotropic three-dimensional branch with spin degeneracy two,A small Fermi velocity therefore produces a large density of states. The localized, partially filled d-derived bands in iron, cobalt and nickel place many states close to the Fermi level; broad s/p-derived conduction bands in copper, silver and gold coexist with filled d bands lying below it. This explains the substantially larger Fermi-level density of states of the former group within the band picture. An exact factor of ten requires the actual band parameters and is not fixed by the two-band toy model.

A high density of states lowers the kinetic-energy cost of spin polarization. A repulsive exchange interaction can then satisfy the Stoner criterion and stabilize ferromagnetism. With a single-spin density of states $g_s$ and an on-site interaction normalization, the criterion is $U{g}_s(E_F)>1$; with spin-summed $g=2g_s$, it is $Ug(E_F)>2$. The large d-state contribution favors this instability in Fe, Co and Ni. The noble metals do not satisfy the corresponding instability condition in the same ordinary state; this does not imply that they have no weak magnetic response whatsoever.

Kai Siegbahn's early instrument used iron-free magnetic double focusing and a thin-window Geiger-Müller counter. His later instrument, compatible with ultra-high vacuum, used a spherical electrostatic electron energy analyzer and monochromatic aluminum X-rays. Argon mixed with methane supplied simultaneous $2p$ reference lines.^[ref]

Two sulfur lines in sodium thiosulfate distinguished chemical environments within one compound. A separate gold comparison showed a fingerprint obscuring substrate lines.^[ref]

For an unknown sample, first document its preparation and transfer, then compare survey and detailed scans under reproducible illumination, contact and acquisition conditions. Repeat a region to test change during exposure. If a cleaning treatment is used, compare before and after rather than assuming that cleaning preserves the original chemical bonds. Report the photoelectron binding energy reference, reference lines, charge-compensation conditions and instrumental settings with the inferred chemical shift in photoelectron spectroscopy. A chemical interpretation should survive these checks as well as explain the line separation.

In 1997, Hiroyuki Noji and colleagues attached a fluorescent actin filament to the central $\gamma$ shaft of isolated $F_1$. With ATP supplied, the marker made sustained rotations. This exposed rotation directly, but used ATP hydrolysis: there was no membrane $F_0$ motor producing ATP from a proton-motive force in this assay.^[ref]

A subsequent primary experiment made the optical readout much faster. Purified Escherichia coli $F_1$ was immobilized on glass in a $30\mu \mathrm{m}$-deep flow cell, with a $60\mathrm{nm}$ gold bead attached to $\gamma$. With $2\mathrm{mM}$ ATP and magnesium supplied, laser illumination and dark-field microscopy recorded bead positions at $4000$ or $8000$ frames per second. The position trajectory resolved turns and intervening dwells. This apparatus follows a shaft-attached marker, rather than imaging the shaft's chemical atoms.^[ref]

Controls addressed perturbation and chemical activity: comparison of $40$–$200\mathrm{nm}$ probes found similar rates for the two smallest sizes, supporting low drag; a separate coupled-enzyme assay followed ATP hydrolysis through NADH absorbance. But the rotational analysis excluded pauses longer than $0.1\mathrm{s}$, so it characterizes continuously active intervals, not total output including long inhibited periods. It neither counts transported protons nor measures simultaneous single-molecule ATP synthesis.^[ref]

The experimental distinction is essential. Sustained directional marker motion tests a rotary mechanism. Demonstrating proton-driven synthesis additionally requires intact $F_0{F}_1$ in a membrane with a controlled proton-motive force and a chemical ATP-production readout; dependence on that driving force and inhibition or respiratory uncoupling controls then test the proposed energy coupling. A rotation movie alone cannot establish the complete material and free energy ledger.

Let $N_{\mathrm{inc}}$ be the number of projectiles actually incident on the foil during an exposure, $n_s$ its foil areal number density, and $\eta$ the probability of detecting an accepted particle. For a sufficiently small detector patch of area $A$ at distance $R$ from the scattering point, with its normal at angle $\psi$ to the line of sight,The product $n_s(d\sigma /d\Omega )\Delta \Omega$ is a dimensionless scattering probability in this approximation; $\mu$ is an expected value of counts, so it need not be an integer. The approximation requires a nearly constant differential scattering cross-section and efficiency across the patch and incident beam. For finite acceptance use $\mu =N_{\mathrm{inc}}{n}_s{\int }_{\mathrm{detector}}\eta (\Omega )(d\sigma /d\Omega )d\Omega$, including the incident beam's spread if appreciable. A screen facing the foil has $\psi =0$.

For an original numerical model, stipulate monoenergetic alpha particles with $z=2$, $E=5.00\mathrm{MeV}$, and a gold target with $Z=79$. Use the rounded model constant $e^2/(4\pi {\epsilon }_0)=1.440\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$, where $1\mathrm{MeV}=10^6$ electronvolts and $1\mathrm{fm}=10^{-15}\mathrm{m}$. Thus $\kappa =227.52\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$ and $a=22.752\mathrm{fm}$. Choose $N_{\mathrm{inc}}=10^{11}$, $n_s=10^{21}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, $\eta =1$, and $\Delta \Omega =10^{-3}\mathrm{sr}$. For example, $A=1\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ facing the foil at $R\simeq 31.6\mathrm{mm}$ gives this small-patch solid angle.

At $\theta =90^{\circ }$, $b=a$ and $d\sigma /d\Omega =a^2=517.654\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{m}}^2\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}=5.17654\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}$, using $1$ barn $=100\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{m}}^2=10^{-28}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The expected signal is $\mu \simeq 51.8$ counts. At $60^{\circ }$ it is four times larger, about $207$ counts. Doubling foil areal number density or detector solid angle doubles these expected signals as long as the approximations continue to hold.

An observation also contains backgrounds. For a stable source and matched geometry, an estimator is $C_{\mathrm{net}}=C_{\mathrm{foil}}-(T_{\mathrm{foil}}/T_{\mathrm{blank}})C_{\mathrm{blank}}$, where $T$ denotes exposure duration. If source activity changes, normalize by incident exposure as well. Background subtraction removes an estimated background; it does not make finite counting fluctuations disappear.