1986
DOI: 10.1007/bf01125768
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Activation of zirconium, niobium, and tantalum in a cyclotron

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…15, the calculated integral yield of the 93 Nb(p,pn) 92m Nb reaction is shown compared with the earlier results of other authors. It is obviously shown that our data is in good agreement with the results of Konstantinov [38], but strongly differs from those of Konstantinov et al [40] and Dmitriev [37]. σ (mb) Michel 1997 [31] This work ALICE-IPPE In Fig.…”
Section: Integral Yieldssupporting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…15, the calculated integral yield of the 93 Nb(p,pn) 92m Nb reaction is shown compared with the earlier results of other authors. It is obviously shown that our data is in good agreement with the results of Konstantinov [38], but strongly differs from those of Konstantinov et al [40] and Dmitriev [37]. σ (mb) Michel 1997 [31] This work ALICE-IPPE In Fig.…”
Section: Integral Yieldssupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The calculated yields also serve for validation of the measured cross-section data by comparing them with the experimental/calculated thick target yields published in the literature [37][38][39][40]. The intercomparison of the yield values is important also to monitor calculation errors on published yield values deduced from cross-sections.…”
Section: Integral Yieldsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The yields calculated from these earlier excitation functions completed with our new results are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 in comparison with the earlier measured experimental yields of Dmitriev et al [21] and Konstantinov et al [22]. Only those literature values are displayed on the figures, which are not overlapping.…”
Section: Integral Yieldssupporting
confidence: 55%
“…The decay data were taken from the online database NuDat2 [9] and the Q-values of the contributing reactions from the Q-value calculator [10], both are presented in Table 1. Effective beam energy and the energy scale were determined initially by a stopping calculation [11] based on estimated incident energy and target thickness and finally corrected [12] on the basis of the excitation functions of the 24 Al(d,x) 22,24 Na monitor reactions [13] simultaneously re-measured over the whole energy range. For estimation of the uncertainty of the median energy in the target samples and in the monitor foils, the cumulative errors influencing the calculated energy (incident proton energy, thickness of the foils, beam straggling) were taken into account.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thick target yields (integrated yield for a given incident energy down to the reaction threshold) were calcu- Nb-91m Konstantinov 1986 Nb-92m Konstantinov 1986 Nb-95g Konstantinov 1986 Nb-91m Roughton 1991 Nb96 Roughton 1991 Figure 16: Integral yields for production of 96 Nb, 95 Nb, 95g Nb, 92m Nb, 91m Nb, 90 Nb deduced from the excitation functions lated from fitted curves to our experimental cross section data. The results for physical yields (production rates) (Bonardi, 1987) are presented in Figs.…”
Section: Integral Yieldsmentioning
confidence: 99%