Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published bySydney McElroy Modified over 3 years ago

1
Status on 62,63 Ni(n, ) Claudia Lederer Goethe University Frankfurt Cristian Massimi INFN Bologna

2
Introduction 62 Ni(n, ) measurement 2009 and 2011 63 Ni(n, ) measurement 2011 Detector calibration: Weighting functions: Normalization: Background subtraction: Resonance analysis:

3
Introduction 62 Ni(n, ) measurement 2009 and 2011 63 Ni(n, ) measurement 2011 Detector calibration: DONE Weighting functions: DONE Normalization: DONE Background subtraction: EMPTY+AMBIENT (filter dips match to empty + filters) Resonance analysis: This talk

4
62 Ni(n, ) 2009 vs. 2011 Agreement at low energy side <5%

5
62 Ni(n, ) 2009 vs. 2011 Agreement at low energy side <5% Agreement individual resonances: to be investigated This talk: only data of 2011 used

6
62 Ni(n, ) known resonances

8
Resonance analysis: SAMMY Reich Moore Approximation, RPI phase I, simulated BIF Systematic uncertainties: 5.5% total (Flux, WFs, Normalization,..) propagated

9
Resonance analysis: SAMMY Reich Moore Approximation, RPI phase I, simulated BIF Systematic uncertainties: 5.5% total (Flux, WFs, Normalization,..) propagated Problems: Fit results sometimes worse than initial parameters Uncertainties given sometimes ridiculously small Choice of correct fudge factor

10
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 35±0.3 meV = 1000±10 meV E R = 8439 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n = 581±6 meV = 1014±10 meV E R = 9540 eV J=0.5 - l=1

11
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 197±2 meV = 1004±10 meV E R = 17793 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n = 265±3 meV = 1221±12 meV E R = 24625 eV J=0.5 - l=1

12
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 562±6 meV = 1088±11 meV E R = 28430 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n = 1350±13 meV = 997±10 meV E R = 29508 eV J=0.5 - l=1

13
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 544±5 meV = 1004±11 meV E R = 34484 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n = 1829±18 meV = 2000±20 meV E R = 38281 eV J=0.5 - l=1 ?

14
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 307±3 meV = 945±9 meV E R = 40550 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n = 308±3 meV = 1016±10 meV E R = 41246 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n = (3.5±0.3)e5 meV = 700±7 meV E R 43000 eV J=0.5 + l=0

15
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 1020±10 meV = 970±10 meV E R = 45139 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n = 318±3 meV = 987±10 meV E R = 53399 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n = 14699±146 meV = 281 ±3 meV E R = 57011 eV J=0.5 - l=1

16
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 345±4 meV = 1002±10 meV E R = 63449 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n =2158±21 meV = 1093±11 meV E R = 74433 eV J=0.5 - l=1

17
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 345±4 meV = 1002±10 meV E R = 63449 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n =449±4 meV = 3057±30 meV E R =77498 eV J=0.5 + l=0

18
62 Ni(n, ) fit of known resonances 8-90 keV n = 345±4 meV = 1002±10 meV E R = 63449 eV J=0.5 - l=1 n =20825±207 meV =538±53 meV E R =78505 eV J=0.5 + l=0

19
The unfittable resonance at 4.6 keV Previous data:

20
The unfittable resonance at 4.6 keV Case 1: keep n =1.822 keV constant Litvinskiy et al. Fit from 3-8 keV E R =4.641±0.003 eV =2.895±0.003 eV

21
The unfittable resonance at 4.6 keV Case 2: start with n =2.026 keV and =2.376 eV (=JENDL) and vary everything Fit from 3-8 keV E R =4.617 keV =3.037 eV n =2.042 eV

22
The unfittable resonance at 4.6 keV Case 2: start with n =2.026 keV and =2.376 eV (=JENDL) and vary everything Fit from 3-8 keV E R =4.617 keV =3.037 eV n =2.042 eV ??????

23
Problem with multiple scattering corrections? SAMMY input: Multiple, finite slab

24
Multiple Scattering for 62 Ni in 63 Ni sample

25
62 Ni in 63 Ni sample n fixed to 1.8 keV: ~2.4 eV Fitting both: n =2.2 keV: =3.2 eV Including first fit of 59 Ni and 63 Ni resonances (p wave assignment) better agreement at thermal neutron energies

26
62 Ni in 63 Ni sample n fixed to 1.8 keV: ~2.4 eV Fitting both: n =2.2 keV: =3.2 eV Thermal cross sections: 62 Ni: 15 b (prev. 13-15 b) 63 Ni: 25 b (prev. 20-26 b) Including first fit of 59 Ni and 63 Ni resonances (p wave assignment) better agreement at thermal neutron energies

27
Conclusions: good progress on 63 Ni data, sample composition known to about 1% accuracy (mass ratios 63/62, 59/62 etc...) 62 Ni sample is too thick to fit the 4.6 keV resonance since multiple scattering corrections are much larger than the 0- scattering capture yield extraction of 62 Ni RP for that resonance is problematic (powder sample, characterization...) is it worth to remeasure that resonance with a thinner sample?

Similar presentations

OK

Solving 2 step equations. Two step equations have addition or subtraction and multiply or divide 3x + 1 = 10 3x + 1 = 10 4y + 2 = 10 4y + 2 = 10 2b +

Solving 2 step equations. Two step equations have addition or subtraction and multiply or divide 3x + 1 = 10 3x + 1 = 10 4y + 2 = 10 4y + 2 = 10 2b +

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on child labour pdf Ppt on fibonacci numbers list Ppt on standing orders Ppt on business environment nature concept and significance of research Ppt on pc based industrial automation Ppt on articles of association texas Ppt on soft skills and personality development Ppt on limits and continuity in higher Ppt on rail transportation in india Ppt on how the state government works in india