en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elastic_recoil_detection&diff=prev&oldid=1372...

Historical sources do not support 1974 as the start of elastic recoil detection analysis.

• A 2026 historical review says “The year 2025 celebrates the 50 years of the development” of ERD, which places its development in 1975, not 1974.
• The original paper commonly cited as the first detailed description of the method is L’Ecuyer and coauthors’ 1976 paper, “An accurate and sensitive method for the determination of the depth distribution of light elements in heavy materials.”
• A standard reference work likewise states that in 1976 a Canadian group described the method in detail for the first time.

So the statement that ERDA “has been used since 1974” is inconsistent with the documented historical record.

The sentence is wrong about RBS detector placement.

Rutherford backscattering spectrometry detects backscattered ions. In a standard RBS setup, the detector is positioned at a large scattering angle (for example around 165°), i.e. on the same side as the incident beam so it can collect ions scattered back out of the sample. It is not placed “in the back of the sample” as though it were behind the target in transmission geometry.

Authoritative descriptions of RBS geometry say exactly this:

• The University of Minnesota’s ion beam analysis facility lists a “Fixed ion detector at 165° for Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS)”.
• ANSTO explains that “In RBS, only backscattered ions are detected.”
• Aalto University’s RBS description says the scattered ion beam hits the detector, which is positioned at the wanted angle.

So the article’s description of RBS detector placement is incorrect.

The numerical value and the unit in this sentence are incorrect.

For an electron, the cyclotron angular frequency is

[
\omega = \frac{|q|B}{m_e} = \frac{e}{m_e}B
]

The accepted value of electron cyclotron frequency per magnetic field is about 1.7588×10^11 rad s^-1 T^-1. Equivalently, at 1 tesla, the ordinary cyclotron frequency is about 28 GHz, which corresponds to an angular frequency of 2π × 28 GHz ≈ 1.76×10^11 rad/s.

So the article’s 1.76×10^7 value is off by about four orders of magnitude, and the unit “Brad/second” is also wrong here. Standard references give the quantity in rad s^-1 T^-1 (or Hz/T for ordinary frequency).

This sentence misidentifies the particles involved.

Recoil spectroscopy in this context refers to elastic recoil detection analysis (ERDA) and closely related Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS). These are ion beam analysis methods. They use energetic ions (commonly He⁺, H⁺, or heavier ions), and the measured signal comes from scattered or recoiled ions/atoms, not from electron backscattering.

Authoritative sources define RBS accordingly:

• IUPAC defines RBS as a method in which monoenergetic, singly charged probe ions scattered from the surface are detected.
• Aalto University’s RBS overview says the method is based on ion beam scattering and explicitly notes that the ion beams interact mainly with nuclei.

So describing the fundamental process here as electron back scattering is incorrect.

This sentence mixes up the nature and composition of the BKBO film.

The surrounding text is discussing BaBiKO/BKBO, i.e. barium potassium bismuth oxide superconducting thin films. Authoritative materials references identify BKBO as an oxide superconductor with formula Ba1−xKxBiO3 (for example Ba0.6K0.4BiO3), not a polymer film.

The sentence is also wrong to list Mg as if it were a constituent of the BKBO film itself. A BKBO thin-film paper from TUM describes the films as Ba1−xKxBiO3 and separately notes growth on MgO substrates. That means magnesium can belong to the substrate, not the BKBO compound formula.

So this sentence is incorrect in two ways:

1. it calls the BKBO sample a polymer film even though BKBO is an oxide superconductor; and
2. it presents Mg as a film constituent even though the BKBO composition is Ba–K–Bi–O.