Advertisement

Hyperfine Interactions

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 59–63 | Cite as

Recoil implantation of100Pd(3.6 d) activity in different host matrices following heavy ion reactions

  • L. Hermans
  • G. N. Rao
  • M. Huyse
  • J. Verplancke
  • M. Rots
  • R. Coussement
Article

Abstract

The large recoil energies offered by the heavy ion nuclear reactions were used to implant the100Pd(3.6 d) activity into different host matrices. The sources thus prepared were found to have good strengths and small background activities. The yields were quite high ∼3μCi/1μAh beam current of12C4+ and the efficiencies of implantation were in the range 60–70%. The difference in the recoil energies of the target and the catcher may be used to reduce activities due to unwanted nuclear reactions in the catcher foil. Using this method, we were able to prepare excellent sources of100Pd in Be, Mg, Ti, Zr and Re hosts. The quality of these sources is comparable to that of the100PdBe ion implanted sources for which data are available in the literature.

Keywords

Thin Film Nuclear Reaction Background Activity Excellent Source Good Strength 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    E. Hagn, P. Kienle and G. Eska, Int. Conf. on hyperfine interactions studied in nuclear reactions and decay (1974), contributed papers p. 122.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Andreeff, H.J. Hunger and S. Unterricker, Int. Conf. on hyperfine interactions studied in nuclear reactions and decay (1974), contributed papers p. 68.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Mennenga and L. Niesen, J. de Phys. C1 41 (1980) 439.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Spanhoff, M.J. Canty, H. Postma and G. Mennenga, Phys. Rev. C21 (1980) 361.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Vianden, private communication.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Vanneste, private communication.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    E. Matthias and D.A. Shirley, Nucl. Instr. 45 (1966) 309.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Vianden, E.N. Kaufmann, R.A. Naumann and G. Schmidt, Hyperfine Interactions 7 (1979) 247.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.S. Evans and R. Naumann, Phys. Rev. 138 (1965) B1017.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Blann and F. Plasil, Phys. Rev. C11 (1975) 508.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    K. Krien, J.C. Soares, K. Freitag, R. Tischler, G.N. Rao, H.G. Muller, E.N. Kaufmann, A. Hauser and B. Feurer, Phys. Rev. B14 (1976) 4782.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© North-Holland 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Hermans
    • 1
  • G. N. Rao
    • 1
  • M. Huyse
    • 1
  • J. Verplancke
    • 1
  • M. Rots
    • 1
  • R. Coussement
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituut voor Kern- en StralingsfysikaK.U. LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations