Evaluated 12C(4He,4He)12C cross-section and its uncertainty

Gai, E.V.; Gurbich, A.F.

doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2012.12.006

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But Gai & Gurbich [44] point out that Mayer's method is invalid in principle, instead constructing the covariance matrix: however, their calculated uncertainties near resonances are certainly overestimated.…”

Section: Elastic (Non-rutherford) Backscattering (Ebs) Cross-sectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the traceably accurate voltage calibration of electrostatic accelerators

Colaux

Terwagne

Jeynes

2015

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Elastic (Non-rutherford) Backscattering (Ebs) Cross-sectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the traceably accurate voltage calibration of electrostatic accelerators

Colaux

Terwagne

Jeynes

2015

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Following the work of Paneta et al 81 82 who used the standard method of deriving the covariance matrix: however, they also showed that there existed quite large systematic errors that are unquantifiable in detail, commenting that in such cases these standard statistical methods are not strictly valid. They also commented that Mayer's earlier (2012 83 ) approach to assessing EBS scattering cross-section uncertainties cannot be correct in principle, although pragmatically it seems very helpful (provided a nuclear model is available to allow direct comparability of data for different scattering angles).…”

Section: Benchmarking Ebs Scattering Cross-sectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the accuracy of Total-IBA

Jeynes

Palitsin

Kokkoris

et al. 2020

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Total-IBA" implies the synergistic use of multiple IBA techniques. It has been claimed that Total-IBA inherits the accuracy of the most accurate IBA technique used. A specific example is now given of this where (in vacuo) EBS/PIXE of a glass sample uniform in depth is validated against absolutely calibrated EPMA of the same sample. The EPMA results had a mass closure gap of 2.0±0.6 wt%; the full PIXE analysis determined the composition of this missing 2 wt%. The PIXE calibration was against a single certified glass sample, with uncertainties per line ~10 %. Benchmarking also demonstrates ~10% underestimation of the Si scattering cross-section at proton energies ~3 MeV. But the Total-IBA determination of the silica content had a low standard uncertainty of about 2 %. This is due to the strong constraints of both the chemical prior and also the mass closure properties of the EBS. Irradiation-induced sodium migration in this soda-lime glass is explored.

show abstract

“…The simulated spectra were along these lines produced taking into account a very small energy step for the incoming and outgoing particles, the effect of multiple scattering, the beam ripple, ZBL stopping power data [8], and Chu and Yang's straggling model [9,10] as implemented in the codes used. It should be noted here that for the moment all popular analytical codes do not take the uncertainties in the experimental differential cross-section datasets into account, while the assessment of the uncertainties in the evaluated datasets has been the subject of recent studies [11,12].…”

Section: Benchmarking Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The benchmarking procedure: Implementation in the case of proton backscattering

Paneta

Colaux

Gurbich

et al. 2019

hnps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The benchmarking procedure in IBA regards the validation of charged-particle differential cross- section data via the acquisition of EBS spectra from uniform thick target of known composition followed by their detailed simulation. In the present work such benchmarking measurements have been performed for the elastic scattering of protons on 23Na, 31P and natS in the energy range of 1– 3.5 MeV in steps of 250 keV at three backward angles, at 120.6°, 148.8° and 173.5° in order to validate the corresponding existing evaluated cross-section datasets from SigmaCalc and to facilitate their extension at higher energies. The measurements were performed using the 2 MV Tandetron Accelerator of the Ion Beam Center of the University of Surrey. The EBS spectra acquired were compared with simulated ones using the DataFurnace code, along with an a posteriori treatment of the surface roughness. All the experimental parameters were thoroughly investigated and the results obtained and the discrepancies found are discussed and analyzed. Moreover, the benchmarking procedure in complicated cases, such as the natB(p,p) studied at NCSR “Demokritos”, where background contributions exist, is also discussed.

show abstract

Evaluated 12C(4He,4He)12C cross-section and its uncertainty

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

On the traceably accurate voltage calibration of electrostatic accelerators

On the traceably accurate voltage calibration of electrostatic accelerators

On the accuracy of Total-IBA

The benchmarking procedure: Implementation in the case of proton backscattering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About