The deuteron binding energy and the neutron mass

Kessler, E. G.; Dewey, M. S.; Deslattes, Richard D.; Henins, Albert; Börner, H. G.; Jentschel, M.; Doll, C.; Lehmann, H.

doi:10.1016/s0375-9601(99)00078-x

Cited by 71 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The stability of the amplifiers was quite remarkable and the TABLE I. γ -ray and muonic x-ray energies taken from Measday [1], Helmer and van der Leun [20], Kessler et al [21], Raman [22], Revay [23], and Fricke et al [24]. gain changed by less than 1 channel in 1000 over several days.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

γ rays from muon capture in natural Ca, Fe, and Ni

Measday

Stocki

2006

Phys. Rev. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A significant improvement has been made in the identification of γ rays from muon capture in natural Ca, and to a lesser extent for Fe and Ni. For calcium, capture was observed in 44 Ca and even 42 Ca, as well as the dominant 40 Ca. The (µ − , ν) reaction was clearly observed in 40 Ca, but, as in the past, no clear identification was made in Fe and Ni. The (µ − , νn) reaction was clearly observed in all nuclei, and the γ rays observed correspond better to the (γ, p) reaction than to spectroscopic factors from the (d, 3 He) or (t, α) reactions. Some (µ − , ν2n) and other reactions have been observed at a lower yield.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

γ rays from muon capture in natural Ca, Fe, and Ni

Measday

Stocki

2006

Phys. Rev. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The χ 2 are calculated from the parameters from this work. The value used for t is the deuteron binding energy from [45], t = 2.224 566 14 (41) MeV. The physical constants used are from [46].…”

Section: Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Neutron-proton effective range parameters and zero-energy shape dependence

Hackenburg

2006

Phys. Rev. C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The low-energy np elastic-scattering parameters, including the zero-energy free-proton cross section σ 0 , are determined with a substantially improved precision over previous values, using available np-scattering data below 3 MeV. The method includes a careful handling of a correlation between the singlet and triplet effective ranges which does not seem to have been previously treated. This correlation is responsible for a large systematic error in the singlet effective range and spoils a model-independent determination of the zero-energy triplet effective range. It is shown that improved cross section measurements between 20 and 600 keV (laboratory neutron energy) are needed to overcome the degrading effect of this correlation. The values obtained for the zero-energy cross section and the scattering lengths and effective ranges for the singlet and triplet are: σ 0 = 20.4278(78) b, a t = 5.4112(15) fm, a s = −23.7148(43) fm, r t = 1.7436(19) fm, r s = 2.750(18) fm (systematic error: −0.059 fm). The widely used measurement of the zero-energy free-proton elastic cross section from W. Dilg, Phys. Rev. C 11, 103 (1975), appears to be in error.This article presents a model-independent method for determining the zero-energy cross section σ 0 and effectiverange theory (ERT) parameters for np elastic scattering from low-energy data. The method is similar to that presented in Ref.[1] but contains some improvements that permit the zero-energy triplet effective range to be obtained from data. It is demonstrated that there is a range of energy most sensitive to a determination of this quantity and that better measurements are needed in that range, if it is to be obtained with sufficient precision to be of any use in comparing predictions from NN potential models.NN potential models [2][3][4][5] can determine the ERT parameters, but small errors are introduced if low-energy data are not included (or are inaccurate) in the partial-wave analyses used to fit the model parameters [3]. Because NN potential models are often used in low-energy applications [6][7][8], it is important that they incorporate accurate low-energy data. Some NN potential models [5,9,10] use the Dilg measurement of σ 0 , some models [2][3][4]8,11,12] use an average of the Dilg and Houk values, but none seem to use the more precise Koester et al. value (Table I).The Dilg determination of σ 0 is the only one that required molecular corrections but did not obtain them as part of the experiment. That experiment performed measurements on water and three hydrocarbons at a single energy, 132 eV, where the molecular corrections are small but not negligible. There was, therefore, no way of determining the molecular corrections, which require measurements at two or more energies for each target. The corrections used were asymptotic extrapolations to 132 eV from values taken from the literature, which described scattering on water and benzene at energies from about 1 to 15 eV. Prior to the Koester et al. σ 0 , the Dilg σ 0 was not quite significantly deviant from th...

show abstract

“…At NIST, the ILL sample was compared to the MO*, NR3, and W17 samples in July 1998, and the lattice spacing differences were published in Ref. [38]. Values for all six lattice comparisons are included in Table 5.…”

Section: Other Crystals For the Gamma-ray Spectrometermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In two earlier publications, numerical values for the ILL lattice parameter were presented. One of these values was based on less accurate absolute lattice spacing values from PTB, INRIM, and NMIJ [38]. The other one was based on an unpublished lattice spacing value from the "CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 1998" [39,40].…”

Section: Other Crystals For the Gamma-ray Spectrometermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Lattice Spacing Variability of Intrinsic Float-Zone Silicon

Kessler¹,

Szabo²,

Cline³

et al. 2017

J. RES. NATL. INST. STAN.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Precision lattice spacing comparison measurements at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provide traceability of X-ray wavelength and powder diffraction standards to the international system of units (SI). Here, we both summarize and document key measurements from the last two decades on six lots of intrinsic float-zone silicon, including unpublished results and recent internal-consistency checks. The comparison measurements link the unknown lattice spacing of a test crystal to a standard crystal for which the lattice spacing has been accurately determined by X-ray/optical interferometry in units traceable to the definition of the meter. The crystal that serves as the standard in all the comparisons is WASO 04, for which the lattice spacing is known with a relative uncertainty of 5 × 10 ; taking material variability into account, measurements yield relative uncertainties for the test materials of a few tens of nanometers. It is observed that in the case of nearly perfect modern intrinsic float-zone silicon, the variability of the lattice spacing is sufficiently small that for most diffraction applications, a recommended reference value may be used.

show abstract

The deuteron binding energy and the neutron mass

Cited by 71 publications

References 22 publications

γ rays from muon capture in natural Ca, Fe, and Ni

γ rays from muon capture in natural Ca, Fe, and Ni

Neutron-proton effective range parameters and zero-energy shape dependence

The Lattice Spacing Variability of Intrinsic Float-Zone Silicon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About