Paper detail

Erich Regener and the maximum in ionisation of the atmosphere

In the 1930s the German physicist Erich Regener (1881-1955) did important work on the measurement of the rate of production of ionisation deep under-water and in the atmosphere. He discovered, along with one of his students, Georg Pfotzer, the altitude at which the production of ionisation in the atmosphere reaches a maximum, often, but misleadingly, called the Pfotzer maximum. Regener was one of the first to estimate the energy density of cosmic rays, an estimate that was used by Baade and Zwicky to bolster their postulate that supernovae might be their source. Yet Regener's name is less recognised by present-day cosmic ray physicists than it should be largely because in 1937 he was forced to take early retirement by the National Socialists as his wife had Jewish ancestors. In this paper we briefly review his work on cosmic rays and recommend an alternative naming of the ionisation maximum. The influence that Regener had on the field through his son, his son-in-law, his grandsons and his students and through his links with Rutherford's group in Cambridge is discussed in an appendix. Regener was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics by Schroedinger in 1938. He died in 1955 at the age of 73.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.