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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Photons and Jets from the first year of ALICE A

Advertisements

xBSM meeting, Dan Peterson, Coded Aperture 1 1 A new Coded Aperture design In this talk, I will discuss a means to evaluated different coded.

What can be learned from previous evaluations? Mikko Heino.

Objective: Students will be able to write and solve two- step equations with one variable!

LIGO-G v2 Recovering Burst Injections in LIGO S5 Data Alex Cole Data Analysis Meeting May 6, 2014.

H  4l in Full Simulation preliminary results 2 A. Khodinov * and K. Assamagan ** * State University of New York at Stony Brook ** Brookhaven National.

THE NATURE OF LIGHT AND COLOR The Essential Reference Guide for Filmmakers.

      H-13 

1 N. Davidson E/p single hadron energy scale check with minimum bias events Jet Note 8 Meeting 15 th May 2007.

HiT – Higgs and Top (Thursday, June 22, 2000) 1.News - Boaz/Meenakshi 2.Trigger Simulator Status – who?? 3.Proposal for a HiT workshop – Meenakshi/Boaz.

EPIC Calibration Meeting, K. Dennerl Saclay/France, 2003 Sept offset map correction Spatial variation of the energy scale Energy correction for pixels.

Midterm review: Cameras Pinhole cameras Vanishing points, horizon line Perspective projection equation, weak perspective Lenses Human eye Sample question:

2015/6/23 1 How to Extrapolate a Neutrino Spectrum to a Far Detector Alfons Weber (Oxford/RAL) NF International Scoping Study, RAL 27 th April 2006.

1 Hadronic In-Situ Calibration of the ATLAS Detector N. Davidson The University of Melbourne.

RHESSI Visibilities Gordon Hurford, Ed Schmahl, Richard Schwartz 1 April 2005.

MULTIPLE MOVING OBJECTS TRACKING FOR VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.

Krypton source for the Project 8 neutrino mass experiment Arman Ballado Advisor: Mike Miller.

Compton Scattering Experiment John Klumpp And Ainsley Niemkiewicz.

ALLEGRO G Z LSC, Livingston 23 March, Calibration for the ALLEGRO resonant detector -- S2 and S4 Martin McHugh, Loyola University New Orleans.

Latest background observations in ALICE Latest background observations in ALICE A. Alici (INFN, Bologna), A. Di Mauro (CERN) LBS, 19/09/11.

Joint IAEA-ICTP Workshop on Nuclear Reaction Data for Advanced Reactor Technologies Student’s presentation Calculation of correction factors for neutron.

Background Subtraction for Urban Traffic Monitoring using Webcams Master Graduation Project Progress Presentation Supervisor: Rein van den Boomgaard Mark.

      H-13 

Image Enhancement T , Biomedical Image Analysis Seminar presentation Hannu Laaksonen Vibhor Kumar.

Status of stochastic background’s joint data analysis by Virgo and INFN resonant bars G. Cella (INFN Pisa) For Auriga-ROG-Virgo collaborations Prepared.

Solving Equations. What will happen if you add or subtract an equal amount of weight on both sides of the scales? Solving equations is like balancing.

Studies of neutron cross-sections by activation method in Nuclear Physics Institute Řež and in The Svedberg Laboratory Uppsala and experimental determination.

Examination of Corrupted Data in the Tile Calorimeter Stephanie Hamilton Michigan State University The ATLAS Experiment Supervisor: Irene Vichou (U of.

Noise Projections for GEO 600 Joshua Smith GEO Meeting

      H-13 

Walid DRIDI, CEA/Saclay n_TOF Collaboration Meeting, Paris December 4-5, 2006 DAPNIA Neutron capture cross section of 234 U Walid DRIDI CEA/Saclay for.

Equation y + 5 y + 5 = 20 Expressions

Status on 25 Mg(n,  ) and neutron flux in 2012 Bologna, 27 November 2013 C. Massimi.

1 Iterative dynamically stabilized (IDS) method of data unfolding (*) (*arXiv: ) Bogdan MALAESCU CERN PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on unfolding.

Update on Material Studies - Progress on Linearity using calib-hits (very brief) - Revisiting the material problem: - a number of alternative scenarios.

Cross-sections of Neutron Threshold Reactions Studied by Activation Method Nuclear Physics Institute, Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic Department.

Status of AIRFLY fluorescence yield measurements Paolo Privitera Università di Roma Tor Vergata, INFN Prague, May 19, 2006.

Solve equations using addition and subtraction.

1 The physics we are after: ➜ jet modifications ➜ jet-medium interactions as probes of medium properties. The primary physics observables: samples of medium-modified.

Title Authors Introduction Text, text, text, text, text, text Background Information Text, text, text, text, text, text Observations Text, text, text,

Nantes — 2008, July Analysis of results from EmCal beam test at CERN PS (and SPS) energies P. La Rocca & F. Riggi University & INFN Catania University.

Santa Tecla, 2-9 October 2005Marita Mosconi,FZK1 Re/Os cosmochronometer: measurements of relevant Os cross sections Marita Mosconi 1, Alberto Mengoni 2,

1 NCC Task Force Richard Seto NCC Task Force Meeting Jan 8, 2007 BNL.

K. Andeen, U. Wisconsin, 6mTagger Calibration, DESY Summer Student Fest, Hamburg, GermanyApril 7, Calibration of the 6m Tagger Karen Andeen, University.

Simultaneous photo-production measurement of the  and  mesons on the nucleons at the range 680 – 1500 MeV N.Rudnev, V.Nedorezov, A.Turinge for the GRAAL.

Report (2) on JPARC/MLF-12B025 Gd(n,  ) experiment TIT, Jan.13, 2014 For MLF-12B025 Collaboration (Okayama and JAEA): Outline 1.Motivation.

6.1b Adding And subtracting polynomials

How can the metric system be used to measure mass? Do Now: How do you know how much you weigh?

Time-zero evaluation using TOF, T0 and vertex detectors

Relative Spectral Response and Flat Fields with Internal Calibration Lamps Luisa M. Lara IAA-CSIC Granada (SPAIN)

n_TOF annual meeting December 2011, Lisbon

The neutron capture cross section of the s-process branch point 63Ni

the Lyman-alpha Radiometer onboard PROBA-2

Measurements of the 238U radiative capture cross section using C6D6

Compton Data Analysis Jing Feng China Atomic Institute Liping Gan

CORRELATION BETWEEN LEAKAGE CURRENT AND NOISE

1 Introduction to Algebra: Integers.

Chemical shift The relative energy of resonance of a particular nucleus resulting from its local environment is called chemical shift. NMR spectra show.

2-1 & 2-2: Solving One & Two Step Equations

Warm Up In your notes, write what you will do for each of the following in your own monologue: The approach The set-up The introduction The closing Facial.

RUBRIC FOR JAPAN POP-UP PICTURE PROJECT

PRESENTATION TITLE (capital, bold, calibri light, 32)

Transverse size and distribution of FEL x-ray radiation of the LCLS

Solving One Step Equations

Solving basic equations

Addition & Subtraction Addition & Subtraction

Status of PRT-INFN the PRT-INFN group Perugia, February 2017.

Today’s Agenda… Bellringer: What is volume? How is it different than area? Notes on Measuring Mass and Density Activity: Crazy Canisters.

Presentation transcript:

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

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

Introduction 62 Ni(n, ) measurement 2009 and 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

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

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

62 Ni(n, ) known resonances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unfittable resonance at 4.6 keV Previous data:

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

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

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 ??????

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

Multiple Scattering for 62 Ni in 63 Ni sample

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

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 b) 63 Ni: 25 b (prev b) Including first fit of 59 Ni and 63 Ni resonances (p wave assignment) better agreement at thermal neutron energies

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?