1949
DOI: 10.1103/physrev.76.314
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gamma-Radiation from Light Nuclei under Proton Bombardment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
2

Year Published

1953
1953
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
9
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Because neither previous measurements of this reaction nor the references that were used for calibration [23][24][25] provide uncertainties, it is not possible to determine the systematic uncertainty of these measurements. Although careful measurements have been made of several of the resonances [26][27][28], including some that were designed to place certain resonances on a sufficiently firm footing to use them as standards [29], no recent simultaneous measurements of multiple reaction channels have been made. As a result, a perusal of the the typical compilations reveals that there are significant discrepancies in the total and partial widths of the states [13,30].…”
Section: -4mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because neither previous measurements of this reaction nor the references that were used for calibration [23][24][25] provide uncertainties, it is not possible to determine the systematic uncertainty of these measurements. Although careful measurements have been made of several of the resonances [26][27][28], including some that were designed to place certain resonances on a sufficiently firm footing to use them as standards [29], no recent simultaneous measurements of multiple reaction channels have been made. As a result, a perusal of the the typical compilations reveals that there are significant discrepancies in the total and partial widths of the states [13,30].…”
Section: -4mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their discussion, however, does not help to clarify the situation. Of the thin-target high-resolution measurements that they claim all give r~ = 0·62-0·67 eV, Fowler and Lauritsen (1949) gave r~(1ab) = 0·63 eV corresponding to r; = 0·58 eV; Hunt and Jones (1953) did not make an absolute measurement and so gave no value of r;; Hebbard and Vogi (1960) and Vogi (1963) normalized their measurements to cr peak = 127 JLb as measured by Seagrave (1951Seagrave ( , 1952, so that the value of 130·0 JLb that Vogi gave for the cross section at a single energy should not be regarded as an independent absolute t Actually the cross section given by Langanke et al (1985), with a resonance S factor of 0·88 MeVb at Er = 0·547 MeV and a total width of ro = 40·1 keY, corresponds to ~ == 1·96 eV [from ~ = 5.55x10-5 roS(E r ) MeV-1 b-1 ]. Also Chupp et al (1985) …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The value of ro(14N; 1-) given by Ajzenberg-Selove (1981) is 30+1 keY, which comes solely from the value I1ab = 32·5±1 keY measured by Seagrave (1952). Other values of I1ab are -40 keY (Fowler et al 1948;Fowler and Lauritsen 1949), 36 keY (given by Kashy et al 1961 from analysis of the data of Milne 1954) and 37 keY (Vogl 1963). An error of ±0·6 keY may be assigned to YogI's value corresponding to the error of ± 10 keY that he ascribes to the reduced width ')'2 = 570 keY.…”
Section: Experimental Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…La conservation de l'épaisseur de la cible, soumise à l'action du faisceau, nous a amenés à concevoir L'étalonnage de ce dispositif d'évaporation a été fait en mesurant l'épaisseur des dépôts de lithium à l'aide de la résonance 'Li(p, y)'Be à 440 keV d'énergie incidente [1].…”
unclassified