2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2012.08.039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conceptual design and performance study for the first implementation of AGATA at the in-flight RIB facility of GSI

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
15
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
2
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For longer lifetimes, the primary sensitivity is to the tails of the peak shape, while shorter lifetimes affect the positions of the peak maximum. We note that similar sensitivity studies for other beam and target combinations simulated for the AGATA array can be found in [27]. The deduced effective lifetimes (95% confidence interval for the fit) are τ eff (2 + 1 ) = 120 +15 −11 ps and τ eff (4 + 1 ) = 2.3 ± 1.5 ps, respectively.…”
Section: Partial Cross Section (Mb)supporting
confidence: 70%
“…For longer lifetimes, the primary sensitivity is to the tails of the peak shape, while shorter lifetimes affect the positions of the peak maximum. We note that similar sensitivity studies for other beam and target combinations simulated for the AGATA array can be found in [27]. The deduced effective lifetimes (95% confidence interval for the fit) are τ eff (2 + 1 ) = 120 +15 −11 ps and τ eff (4 + 1 ) = 2.3 ± 1.5 ps, respectively.…”
Section: Partial Cross Section (Mb)supporting
confidence: 70%
“…1 of Ref. [27] I. The number of events that were recorded in the experiment presented in this paper.…”
Section: Fragment Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relation between the mean lifetime and the energy shift was determined using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations following a similar methodology as the one described in Refs. [27,42]. Because the reaction cross sections at the secondary target are independent of the beam energy [43], we assumed an excitation at the center of the target.…”
Section: Lifetime Determinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lifetime effects: Lifetime effects on the energy spectrum [13,14] may complicate the peak separation and reduce the peak-tobackground ratio because they can lead to a significant broadening of the observed peaks at angles not in the proximity to θ det ¼ arccosðβÞ. These lifetime effects are included in the simulated spectra shown in Figs.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…applied to the very same data-set: one assuming the velocity of the ions leaving the first target as ion velocity at the time of deexcitation and the position of the first target as ion position at the time of de-excitation, and one Doppler-correction assuming the respective quantities for the second target. In the first case, deexcitation γ-rays from ions excited in the first target will be properly Doppler-corrected to the laboratory frame and result in a sharp peak at unshifted γ-ray energy E γ (or, depending on the lifetime of the excited state, in a characteristic Doppler-broadened lineshape like in DSAM experiments [14], see previous subsection) while γ-rays from ions excited in the second target would be transformed to a different energy due to improper Dopplercorrection. In the second case, γ-rays emitted from ions excited in the second target appear as a sharp peak at the unshifted γ-ray energy E γ while γ-rays from ions excited in the first target are transformed to a different energy.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%