1984
DOI: 10.1016/0168-583x(84)90555-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Half-life of 60Fe

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
20
2

Year Published

1992
1992
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
4
20
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Combining this work's activity measurement with the AMS measurements performed instead by Wallner et al gives a half-life value of (2.72 ± 0.16) × 10 6 years, also confirming a substantially longer half-life value than previously accepted. [11], Wallner et al [12], and this work agree on a longer half-life than the previously accepted value of Kutschera et al [10].…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 48%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Combining this work's activity measurement with the AMS measurements performed instead by Wallner et al gives a half-life value of (2.72 ± 0.16) × 10 6 years, also confirming a substantially longer half-life value than previously accepted. [11], Wallner et al [12], and this work agree on a longer half-life than the previously accepted value of Kutschera et al [10].…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 48%
“…Therefore a longer half-life value could not be ruled out. Kutschera et al measured the half-life in 1984, finding (1.49 ± 0.27) × 10 6 years by a combination of an activity and an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) measurements [10]. However, the complex AMS experiment may have resulted in a somewhat lower 60 Fe isotopic ratio in the sample material than was actually present.…”
Section: Arxiv:161200006v2 [Nucl-ex] 2 Mar 2017mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The value of T 1/2 = 2.61 ± 0.04 Ma determined by Rugel et al (2009) was confirmed recently by additional independent measurements (Wallner et al 2015; Ostdiek et al 2017). The new value is one order of magnitude higher than the first estimate of T 1/2 = 0.3 ± 0.9 Ma (Roy and Kohman 1957) and ~75% higher than the previously adopted value of T 1/2 = 1.49 ± 0.27 Ma (Kutschera et al 1984).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to the high flux requirements, very long exposure times lead to time-consuming and expensive procedures. In 2009, the consequence was that basic nuclear data of 60 Fe were either not very precise, like the half-life (only two measurements have been performed till that time [11,12]) or completely missing, like the neutron capture cross sections of 60 Fe, which could be determined using a new sample material from a source described below [13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%