Advertisement

Energy Determinations in Medium and Heavy Nuclei

  • W. C. Parkinson
Conference paper

Abstract

The problem of energy determinations in nuclear reactions has been discussed in each of the three preceeding mass conferences. Perhaps the only justification for another such talk is found in the fact that the new generation of cyclotrons and their associated equipment provided a wide variety of beams at considerably higher energies and really quite good resolutions. Further, in some laboratories this good resolution is matched to the resolving power of a reaction products analysis system. The available energy permits the study of reactions having large negative Q-values and large Coulomb barriers, such as (α,t) and (α,6He), and the acceleration of heavy ions with a high energy per nucleon opens up the possibility of mass determinations far from the region of stability. New techniques of instrument calibration are required since the old standard 210Po(α) and threshold measurements are no longer suitable. Further, the available accuracy suggests that the effects of electron binding energies, thermal motions of the target nuclei, and target thickness should be re-explored. In fact it is time to ask once again what the measured Q-value determines.

Keywords

Line Shape Heavy Nucleus Target Nucleus Target Thickness Atomic Electron 
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.
    The problems of accurate Q-value determinations were discussed in detail in the paper of BROWN, A. G., SNYDER, C. W., FOWLER, W. A., and LAURITSEN, C.C., Phys. Rev. 82, 159 (1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    PARKINSON, W. C., and TICKLE, R. S., Nucl. Inst. & Meth. 18, 19, 93 (1962).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    PARKINSON, W. C., and BARDWICK, J., Nucl. Inst. & Meth. 78, 245 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    TEMMER, G., Nuclear Structure (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1968) p. 258; MARION, J. B., Rev. Mod. Phys. 38 660(1966).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    HERRING, D. F., et al., Phys. Rev. 100, 1239A (1955)Google Scholar
  6. ANDERSEN, S. L., et al., Nucl. Phys. 7, 384 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DAHL, P. F., et al., Nucl. Phys. 21, 106 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. WALTERS, W. L., et al., Phys. Rev. 125, 2012 (13-6-2)Google Scholar
  9. PURSER, K. H., et al., Phys. Letters 6, 176 1963 ).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. The first two references attribute the effect to internal motion of the protons rather than to the Coulomb energy available at the instant the electron is stripped.Google Scholar
  11. 6.
    BACH, D. R., CHILDS, W. J., HOCKNEY, R. W., HOUGH, P. V. C., and PARKINSON, W. C., Rev. Sci. Inst. 27, 516 (1956).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 7.
    BARDIN, B. M., and RICKEY, M. E., Rev. Sci. Inst. 35, 902 (1964).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 8.
    TRENTELMAN, G. F., and KASHY, E., Nucl. Inst. & Meth. 82, 304 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 9.
    TRENTELMAN, G. F., PREEDOM, B. M., and KASHY, E., Phys. Rev. 3, 2205 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 10.
    There is an extensive amount of literature on the subject, and a summary is given by MACCABEE, H. D., “Fluctuations of Energy Loss by Heavy Charged Particles in Matter”, UCRL-16931 (1966).Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    FOLDY, L. L., Phys. Rev. 83, 397 (1951).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 12.
    Proc. Third Intnl. Conf. on Atomic Masses, Winnipeg (1967), p. 499.Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    SMITH, L. G., Phys. Rev. 4C, 22 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Company Ltd 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. C. Parkinson
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations