submitted to preevaluation committee

This commit is contained in:
nam
2014-10-31 17:23:14 +09:00
parent 6cfbcc9ac9
commit befa19706a
6 changed files with 113 additions and 61 deletions

View File

@@ -475,21 +475,22 @@ The yields of protons from \SIrange{4}{8}{\MeV} are:
\end{align}
The number of emitted protons is taken as average of the two yields:
\begin{equation}
N_{\textrm{p unfold}} = (169.3 \pm 2.9) \times 10^3
N_{\textrm{p unfold}} = (169.3 \pm 1.9) \times 10^3
\end{equation}
\subsection{Number of nuclear captures}
\label{sub:number_of_nuclear_captures}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figs/al100_ge_spec}
\caption{X-ray spectrum from the aluminium target, the characteristic
$(2p-1s)$ line shows up at 346.67~keV}
\label{fig:al100_ge_spec}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[!htb]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figs/al100_ge_spec}
%\caption{X-ray spectrum from the aluminium target, the characteristic
%$(2p-1s)$ line shows up at 346.67~keV}
%\label{fig:al100_ge_spec}
%\end{figure}
The X-ray spectrum on the germanium detector is shown on
\cref{fig:al100_ge_spec}. Fitting the double peaks on top of a first-order
%The X-ray spectrum on the germanium detector is shown on
%\cref{fig:al100_ge_spec}.
Fitting the double peaks on top of a first-order
polynomial gives the X-ray peak area of $5903.5 \pm 109.2$. With the same
procedure as in the case of the active target, the number stopped muons and
the number of nuclear captures are:
@@ -508,7 +509,15 @@ The proton emission rate in the range from \SIrange{4}{8}{\MeV} is therefore:
\end{equation}
The total proton emission rate can be estimated by assuming a spectrum shape
with the same parameterisation as in \eqref{eqn:EH_pdf}. The fit parameters
with the same parameterisation as in \eqref{eqn:EH_pdf}. The
\eqref{eqn:EH_pdf} function has a power rising edge, and a exponential decay
falling edge. The falling edge has only one decay component and is suitable to
describe the proton spectrum with the equilibrium emission only assumption.
The pre-equilibrium emission contribution should be small for low-$Z$ material,
for aluminium the contribution of this component is 2.2\% according to
Lifshitz and Singer~\cite{LifshitzSinger.1980}.
The fitted results
are shown in \cref{fig:al100_parameterisation} and \cref{tab:al100_fit_pars}.
The average spectrum is obtained by taking the average of the two unfolded
spectra from the left and right arms. The fitted parameters are compatible
@@ -534,7 +543,7 @@ protons. The total proton emission rate is therefore estimated to be $3.5\times
$A \times 10^{-5}$ & 2.0 \pm 0.7 & 1.3 \pm 0.1 & 1.5 \pm 0.3\\
$T_{th}$ (\si{\keV}) & 1301 \pm 490 & 1966 \pm 68 & 1573 \pm 132\\
$\alpha$ & 3.2 \pm 0.7 & 1.2 \pm 0.1 & 2.0 \pm 1.2\\
$T_{th}$ (\si{\keV}) & 2469 \pm 203 & 2641 \pm 106 & 2601 \pm 186\\
$T_{0}$ (\si{\keV}) & 2469 \pm 203 & 2641 \pm 106 & 2601 \pm 186\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
@@ -597,7 +606,7 @@ presented in \cref{tab:al100_uncertainties_all}.
\textbf{Item}& \textbf{Value} \\
\midrule
Number of muons & 3.2\% \\
Statistical from measured spectra & 1.6\% \\
Statistical from measured spectra & 1.1\% \\
Systematic from unfolding & 5.0\% \\
Systematic from PID & \textless0.5\% \\
\midrule
@@ -638,7 +647,7 @@ validated:
\subsection{Proton emission rates and spectrum}
\label{sub:proton_emission_rates_and_spectrum}
The proton emission spectrum in \cref{sub:proton_emission_rate} peaks around
\SI{4}{\MeV} which is comparable to the Coulomb barrier for proton of
\SI{3.7}{\MeV} which is a little below the Coulomb barrier for proton of
\SI{3.9}{\MeV} calculated using \eqref{eqn:classical_coulomb_barrier}. The
spectrum has a decay constant of \SI{2.6}{\MeV} in higher energy region,
makes the emission probability drop more quickly than silicon charged
@@ -661,29 +670,48 @@ all energy is:
R_{p \textrm{ total}} = (3.5 \pm 0.2)\%.
\label{eqn:meas_total_rate}
\end{equation}
No direct comparison of this result to existing experimental or
theoretical work is available. Indirectly, it is compatible with the figures
calculated by Lifshitz and
\subsubsection{Comparison to theoretical and other experimental results}
\label{ssub:comparison_to_theoretical_and_other_experimental_results}
There is no existing experimental or theoretical work that could be directly
compared with the obtained proton emission rate. Indirectly, it is compatible
with the figures calculated by Lifshitz and
Singer~\cite{LifshitzSinger.1978, LifshitzSinger.1980} listed in
\cref{tab:lifshitzsinger_cal_proton_rate}. It is significantly larger than
the rate of 0.97\% for the $(\mu,\nu p)$ channel, and does not
exceed the inclusion rate for all channels $\Sigma(\mu,\nu p(xn))$ at 4\%,
leaving some room for other modes such as $(\mu,\nu d)$ or $(\mu,\nu p2n)$.
Certainly, if the rate of deuterons can be extracted then the combined
emission rate of protons and deuterons could be compared directly with the
inclusive rate.
leaving some room for other modes such as emission of deuterons or tritons.
Certainly, when the full analysis is available, deuterons and tritons emission
rates could be extracted and the combined emission rate could be compared
directly with the inclusive rate.
The result \eqref{eqn:meas_total_rate} is greater than the
probability of the reaction $(\mu,\nu pn)$ measured by Wyttenbach et
al.~\cite{WyttenbachBaertschi.etal.1978} at 2.8\%. It is expectable because
the contribution from the $(\mu,\nu d)$ channel should be small since it
needs to form a deuteron from a proton and a neutron.
The rate of 3.5\% was estimated with an assumption that all protons are
emitted in equilibrium. With the exponential constant of \SI{2.6}{\MeV}, the
proton yield in the range from \SIrange{40}{70}{\MeV} is negligibly small
($\sim\num{E-8}$). However, Krane and colleagues reported a significant yield
of 0.1\% in that region~\cite{KraneSharma.etal.1979}. The energetic proton
spectrum shape also has a different exponential constant of \SI{7.5}{\MeV}. One
explanation for these protons is that they are emitted by other mechanisms,
such as capture on two-nucleon cluster suggested by Singer~\cite{Singer.1961}
(see \cref{sub:theoretical_models} and
\cref{tab:lifshitzsinger_cal_proton_rate_1988}). Despite being sizeable, the
yield of high energy protons is still small (3\%) in compared with the result
in \eqref{eqn:meas_total_rate}.
%The $(\mu^-,\nu p):(\mu^-,\nu pn)$ ratio is then roughly 1:1, not 1:6 as in
%\eqref{eqn:wyttenbach_ratio}.
Compared with emission rate from silicon, the result
\eqref{eqn:meas_total_rate} is indeed much smaller. It is even lower than
the rate of the no-neutron reaction $(\mu,\nu p)$. This can be explained as
\subsubsection{Comparison to the silicon result}
\label{ssub:comparison_to_the_silicon_result}
The probability of proton emission per nuclear capture of 3.5\% is indeed much
smaller than that of silicon. It is even lower than the rate of the no-neutron
reaction $(\mu,\nu p)$. This can be explained as
the resulted nucleus from muon capture on silicon, $^{28}$Al, is an odd-odd
nucleus and less stable than that from aluminium, $^{27}$Mg. The proton
separation energy for $^{28}$Al is \SI{9.6}{\MeV}, which is significantly