Comparison of Mainframe and Minicomputer Spectral Analysis Codes in the Activation Analysis of Geological Samples

  • James R. Vogt
  • Christopher Graham


In recent years, small laboratory computers for the acquisition and reduction of gamma-ray spectra have increased in capacity, speed and versatility to the point that they are comparable in many capabilities to the main frame computers of a few years ago. Several computer-based gamma-ray spectrometer systems using computers having memories of 256 kilobytes and hard disk bulk storage devices are now available. Generally supplied with these systems are applications software packages for gamma-ray spectra peak location and peak area determination. There has been a question among gamma-ray spectroscopists as to whether or not any of these codes are as accurate as the vintage main frame computer codes which have been the mainstay of gamma-ray spectroscopy for the past ten to fifteen years. This paper presents a comparison study of one of the most widely used main frame codes, GAMANL, and the applications software supplied with the Nuclear Data 6620 gamma-ray spectroscopy system.


Hand Calculation Application Software Package Peak Area Determination Clean Clean Lower Percent Deviation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Harper, T., Inouye, T. and Rasmussen, N., “GAMANL, A Computer Program Applying Fourier Transforms to the Analysis of Gamma Spectral Data”, Report No. MIT-3944-2, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1968).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, W.W., Nucl. Instrum. Methods, 71 318 (1969) and 82, 141 (1970).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kay, M.A., and Burton, C. in “Nuclear Science Group Technical Report 1970–1971”, Vogt, J.R., ed., University of Missouri (1971).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ND6620 Peak Search Program Algorithm, anon., Nuclear Data, Inc. Schaumburg, 111. (1980).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friedman, M.H. and Tanner, J.T., “An Automated Activation Analysis Data Acquisition System”, J. Radioanal. Chem 25, 269 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tanner, J.T., Personal Communications to J. Vogt (1978).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flanagan, F.J., ed., “Descriptions of Eight New USGS Rock Standards”, Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 840, p. 171 (1976).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baedecker, P.A., Personal Comminication to J. Vogt (1979).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baedecker, P.A., Proceedings of the Conference on Computers in Activation Analysis and Gamma-ray Spectroscopy, DOE Report No. CONF-780421, 373 (1979).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baedecker, P.A., SPECTRA: Computer Reduction of Gamma-ray Spectroscopic Data, in Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies, Taylor, R.E., ed., 343, Noyes Press, Park Ridge, N.J. (1976).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Vogt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher Graham
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Research ReactorUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear EngineeringUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations