1988
DOI: 10.1007/bf01124594
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cross sections of radionuclide production in (p, x)-reactions on aluminum and silicon

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both LiveChart [21] and NuDat [22] provide identical data, since they are both retrieval codes for data taken from the same ENSDF database [20]. However, differences outside quoted evaluated uncertainties exist between ENSDF [20] and DDEP [23] values (e.g., for 24 Na and 57 Ni half-lives, probably due to their differing evaluation dates and/or methodologies). The recommended half-lives, and γ-ray energies and emission probabilities adopted in the cross-section calculations are listed in Tables II, III, IV, and V for particular reactions with proton, deuteron, 3 He and α beams, respectively (these decay data are taken from Ref.…”
Section: Decay Data Needs For Charged-particle Monitor Reactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Both LiveChart [21] and NuDat [22] provide identical data, since they are both retrieval codes for data taken from the same ENSDF database [20]. However, differences outside quoted evaluated uncertainties exist between ENSDF [20] and DDEP [23] values (e.g., for 24 Na and 57 Ni half-lives, probably due to their differing evaluation dates and/or methodologies). The recommended half-lives, and γ-ray energies and emission probabilities adopted in the cross-section calculations are listed in Tables II, III, IV, and V for particular reactions with proton, deuteron, 3 He and α beams, respectively (these decay data are taken from Ref.…”
Section: Decay Data Needs For Charged-particle Monitor Reactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of 12 studies were rejected and not considered for further analysis, and the reasons for their removal are given in parentheses: Aleksandrov et al (1988) (data systematically too low) [57], Brun et al (1962) (no numerical values available in reference, high and scattered data) [58], Gauvin et al (1962) (data systematically shifted to higher energy) [59], Grütter (1982) (data systematically too low) [60], Hintz and Ramsey (1952) (data too high) [61], Korteling and Caretto (1970) (data too low) [62], Miyano (1973) (no numerical data available in reference) [63], Pulfer (1979) (data systematically low and scattered) [64] , Titarenko et al (2011) (unexplained wide spread of data) [65], Vukolov and Chukreev (1988) (values too high) [66], Walton et al (1976) (data systematically too low) [67], and Williams and Fulmer (1967) (no numerical data available in reference) [68].…”
Section: Monitor Reactions For Proton Beamsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations