1965
DOI: 10.1007/bf02734822
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Attenuation coefficients of the cosmic-ray nucleonic component in the lower atmosphere

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
1

Year Published

1965
1965
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, neutron counting rates can be corrected by accounting for fluctuations of atmospheric pressure as follows (e.g. Bachelet et al, 1965):…”
Section: Quantitative Soil Moisture Estimation By Ground Albedo Neutrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, neutron counting rates can be corrected by accounting for fluctuations of atmospheric pressure as follows (e.g. Bachelet et al, 1965):…”
Section: Quantitative Soil Moisture Estimation By Ground Albedo Neutrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the average the higher energy nucleons produce events of greater multiplicity. Indication of such a correlation has also been obtained from observations of the multiplicity distribution as a function of geomagnetic latitude by Bachelet et al [1965] and Drying and Sporre [1965,1966]. In general these authors found that the relative numbers of highmultiplicity events increased with geomagnetic cutoff rigidity, as expected from the association of higher multiplicity events with greater incident energy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…where N is the observed intensity at pressure p, Nois the intensity at some standard pres- sure po, and a is the pressure or barometric coefficient. Pressure coefficients as a function of multiplicity have been determined for the multiplicity monitor using the method of successive differences described by Lapointe and Rose [1962] and by Bachelet et al [1965]. This method also gives a realistic estimate of the probable errors based on the residuals between the actual data and the least-squares fit.…”
Section: N --Nocamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…La Pointe and Rose [1962] reported no change in the mass absorption coefficient at four Canadian high-latitude stations during 1958-1960, though there was some recovery of cosmicray intensity below 3 bey during that time [Kondo et al, 1965a]. The primary spectrum below 3 bey was quite different in 1962-1963 when Bachelet et al [1964] recomputed the mass absorption coefficient at these same Canadian stations (among 21 others) and found that the changes in mass absorption there since 1958-1960 were negligible (within the statistical accuracy of about 0.01%/mm Hg for the sea level stations, and only 0.03%/mm Hg at Sulphur Mountain). This evidence corroborates the constancy of the mass absorption coefficient at Chicago and Climax, but disagrees with the results of Kamphouse [1963], who, from calculations of the mass absorption coefficent at College, Alaska, on a total of 34 days from 1956 to 1962, reports an 11-year variation of 0.07%/mm Itg.…”
Section: Discussion Of Results the Increase In Thementioning
confidence: 99%