2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2008.05.110
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

LISE++: Radioactive beam production with in-flight separators

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

13
306
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 437 publications
(321 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
13
306
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Two of them passed through the chamber and were stopped outside the active volume, so that their decays could not be observed. This finding is consistent with an estimate, based on the LISE simulation program [22], that the thickness of the gaseous active volume of the chamber was equal to about 80% of the range distribution of 48 Ni ions. In each of the remaining eight events, the 48 Ni ion was stopped within the OTPC detector.…”
supporting
confidence: 91%
“…Two of them passed through the chamber and were stopped outside the active volume, so that their decays could not be observed. This finding is consistent with an estimate, based on the LISE simulation program [22], that the thickness of the gaseous active volume of the chamber was equal to about 80% of the range distribution of 48 Ni ions. In each of the remaining eight events, the 48 Ni ion was stopped within the OTPC detector.…”
supporting
confidence: 91%
“…Beam energies for the excitation function measurements were varied using Al degraders of 0 (no degrader) 1.2, 2.25, 2.85, 3.45, 4.5, 5.1, and 6.29 μm thickness. All energy loss calculations were performed using the SRIM Stopping and Range Tables [25,26] as implemented in LISE++ [27]. The desired reaction products were tuned through MARS by estimating the most probable charge state in LISE++ using the method of Schiwietz and Grande [28].…”
Section: Experimental Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data are selected by requiring a coincidence with either a high-energy 3 H or 4 He particle for panels (a) and (b), respectively. The kinetic-energy spectra are not corrected for energy loss in the target; assuming that the reaction takes place in the center of the target, a 10 MeV 3 He particle loses approximately 480 keV, while a 5 MeV 3 H loses approximately 200 keV in the (CD 2 ) n with energy losses calculated according to the method described in [46] used in the codes SRIM [47] and LISE++ [48]. The peaks near E( 3 He)=10 MeV and E( 3 H)=5 MeV correspond to the ground states of 5 H and 5 He, respectively.…”
Section: Data Reductionmentioning
confidence: 99%