1977
DOI: 10.1016/0375-9474(77)90234-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Precision determination of Q-values relevant to superallowed nuclear β-decay

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
50
4

Year Published

1980
1980
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
50
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The result differed significantly from the previously accepted result -a longstanding reaction-based Q EC value published in 1977 [3] -and shifted the 46 V f t value two standard deviations out of agreement with other well-known superal- * hpark@comp.tamu.edu † hardy@comp.tamu.edu lowed transitions. This apparent deviation from the conserved vector current (CVC) expectation raised several concerns, among them the possibility of systematic differences between reaction and Penning-trap measurements of Q values.…”
contrasting
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The result differed significantly from the previously accepted result -a longstanding reaction-based Q EC value published in 1977 [3] -and shifted the 46 V f t value two standard deviations out of agreement with other well-known superal- * hpark@comp.tamu.edu † hardy@comp.tamu.edu lowed transitions. This apparent deviation from the conserved vector current (CVC) expectation raised several concerns, among them the possibility of systematic differences between reaction and Penning-trap measurements of Q values.…”
contrasting
confidence: 56%
“…At the same time though, the Q EC -value results for 26 Al m and 42 Sc were consistent with previous reaction-based values, thus demonstrating that there were no widespread systematic effects afflicting all reaction-based measurements. Evidently, the problem with the 46 V Q EC value arose from some flaw specific to one particular set of reaction measurements [3]. This conclusion was further strengthened by a subsequent Q-value measurement in 2009 [5], which used the same ( 3 He, t) reaction and some of the same equipment as had been used 32 years earlier in the flawed measurement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 78%
“…If, as seems likely, the problem with the 46 V measurement in Ref. [48] is not limited to that measurement alone, then doubt is certainly cast on the 50 Mn and 54 Co Q ECvalue results quoted in that reference as well. New Penningtrap measurements of both Q EC values are currently in progress [50], and the question should be settled shortly.…”
Section: F T Values V Ud and Ckm Unitaritymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather than being a negative result, however, this possible discrepancy offers us the opportunity to use the cases of 50 Mn and 54 Co as a valuable test of our improved calculations. The Q EC value for each of them has been measured only twice with (claimed) high precision [48,49], and one of these references [48] also included a measurement of the Q EC value for 46 V, which Penning-trap measurements have recently shown [6,7] to be low by 2 keV-more than three times its originally quoted standard deviation. If, as seems likely, the problem with the 46 V measurement in Ref.…”
Section: F T Values V Ud and Ckm Unitaritymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our decision to do so deserves a more detailed explanation. In 1977, Vonach et al published in a single paper [162] the Q EC values for seven superallowed emitters ( 14 O, 26 Al m , 34 Cl, 42 Sc, 46 V, 50 Mn, and 54 Co), which they had determined from the Q values for ( 3 He,t) reactions on their stable daughters. They had used a "precision time-of-flight measuring system" with the Q3D spectrograph of the Munich Tandem Laboratory to produce uncertainties of 0.4-0.6 keV.…”
Section: A Evaluation Principlesmentioning
confidence: 99%