Advertisement

Calculations of Neutron Detector Efficiencies

  • Bryon D. Anderson
  • Robert A. Cecil
  • Richard Madey

Abstract

Several improvements have been made during the last few years to computer calculations of efficiencies for detecting neutrons with hydrocarbon scintillators. The most recent work of Cecil et al. (1979) claims an accuracy of a few percent for a substantial range of neutron energies, detector thresholds, and counter sizes. These improvements include the adoption of new inelastic cross sections and energy and angular distributions for neutron-induced reactions on carbon, adoption of new light-response functions, use of relativistic kinematics, and proper determination of light deposited by escaping charged particles. Although the number of possible nuclear reactions for medium-energy neutrons in a scintillator is large, good agreement of calculations with many different measurements of detector efficiencies up to neutron energies of 300 MeV indicates that the efficiencies may be described adequately by grouping the different reactions into a few channels in the efficiency code.

Keywords

Angular Distribution Efficiency Measurement Neutron Energy Plastic Scintillator Relativistic Kinematic 
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. Betti, G. 1976: and A. Del Guerra, A. Giazotto, M.A. Giorgi, A. Stefanini, D.R. Botterill, D.W. Braben, D. Clarke, and P.R. Norton, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 135, 319.Google Scholar
  2. Cecil, R.A. 1979: and B.D. Anderson and R. Madey, accepted for publication in Nucl. Instr. and Meth.Google Scholar
  3. Czirr, J. 1964: and D.R. Nygren, and C.D. Zafiratos, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 31, 226.Google Scholar
  4. Del Guerra, A. 1976: Nucl Instr. and Meth. 135, 337.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edelstein, R.M. 1972: and J.S. Russ, R.C. Thatcher, M. Elfield, E.L. Miller, N.W. Reay, N.R. Stanton, M.A. Abolins, M.T. Liu, K.W. Edwards, and D.R. Gill, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 100, 355.Google Scholar
  6. Janni, J.F. 1966: AFWL-TR-65–150, September.Google Scholar
  7. Kellogg, D.A. 1953: Phys. Rev. 90, 224.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kurz, R.J. 1964: UCRL-1139, March.Google Scholar
  9. Madey, R. 1978: and F.M. Waterman, A.R. Baldwin, J. Knudson, J.D. Carlson, and J. Rapaport, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 151, 445.Google Scholar
  10. McNaughton, M.W. 1974: and F.P. Brady, W.B. Broste, A.L. Sagle, and S.W. Johnson, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 116, 25.Google Scholar
  11. McNaughton, M.W. 1975: and N.S.P. King, F.P. Brady., and J.L. Ullman, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 129, 241.Google Scholar
  12. Riddle, R.A.J. 1974: and G.H. Harrison, P.G. Roos, and M.J. Saltmarsh, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 121, 445.Google Scholar
  13. Stanton, N.R. 1971: COO-1545–92, February.Google Scholar
  14. Verbinski, V.V. 1968: and W.R. Burrus, T.A. Love, W. Zobel, N.W. Hill, and R. Testor, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 65, 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryon D. Anderson
    • 1
  • Robert A. Cecil
    • 1
  • Richard Madey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations