The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
1964
DOI: 10.1007/bf01116074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probability of delayed neutron emission from halogens

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

1966
1966
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For 87Br and 88Br our results agree within limits of error with published /',-values. For 89Br we find a P,-value about twice the value reported by Aron et al [12]. It agrees well with more recent determinations, however.…”
Section: Bromine Precursorssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…For 87Br and 88Br our results agree within limits of error with published /',-values. For 89Br we find a P,-value about twice the value reported by Aron et al [12]. It agrees well with more recent determinations, however.…”
Section: Bromine Precursorssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…In each case, the results agree well with the values recommended by the IAEA which are an evaluated world average of the previous measurements. The results for 138 I are of particular interest as the most recent measurements [18,21] indicated the P n is a factor of two larger than the results obtained from earlier measurements [22,23]. As a result, the IAEA evaluation had been based solely on the two most recent results, leading them to warn this standard should be used with caution.…”
Section: Discussion Of the Pn Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For the decay of 138 I, however, the most recent measurements yielded branching ratios of 5.56( 22)% [18] and 5.32(20)% [21], respectively, which are a factor of two larger than the measurements performed prior to 1978 [22,23]. Additional results, especially from a measurement technique with a different set of systematic effects, were therefore desired to shed light on this discrepancy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The P.-values obtained are presented in Table 1 and compared to values reported in the literature [5][6][7][8] (P,-values based on estimated fission yields are omitted). The relative importance of systematic errors is also given and includes the uncertainty in the /3efficiency (5 ~), the uncertainty in the neutron counting efficiency arising from the error of the calibration procedure (3 %), and from that of the average neutron energy.…”
Section: I[ Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%