Calibration of the De Pangher Long Counter used as secondary standard for calibration of neutron moderator detectors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X25403Abstract
In this work a De Pangher Long Counter used as a secondary standard for calibration of neutron moderador detectors was calibrated.
A 5 Ci Am-Be standard source calibrated for neutron emission rate by the manganese sulfate bath method was used as a primary standard. Due to the cylindrical shape of the standard source an anisotropy factor was determined. The scattering effects were experimentally determined using the shadow cone method and reproducibility tests were also donne.
Downloads
References
SCHUCH, L.A., Calibração de Monitores de Neutrons com Moderadores e Aplicação na Determinação de Fatores de Calibração de Dosimetros de Albedo, Tese de Mestrado, IME, Rio de Janeiro (1979).
NACHTIGALL, D., BURGER, G., Dose Equivalent Determinations in Neutron Fields by Means of Moderator Techniques, Topics in Radiation Dosimetry, Academic Press (1972).
DE PANGHER, J., NICHOLS, L.L., A Precision Long Counter for Measuring Fast Neutron Flux Density, BNWL-260, Washington (1966).
HAJNAL, F., McLAUGHLlN, J.E., OECHSLER, R., Technique for Determining Moderated Neutron Instrument Characteristics, HASL 222, New York (1970).
MIJNHEER, B.J., Standard Fluxes and Standard Moderating Counters for Neutron Fluence Measurements, Thesis, Amsterdam (1971).
HUNT, J.B., ROBERTSON, J.C., The Long Counter as a Secondary Standard for Neutron Flux Density, Proc. First Symp. on Neut. Dosim. In Biol. and Med., EUR 4896 (1972).
MASSAND, O.P., Investigation of Some Properties of the Precision Long Counter, EURATOM-Rep. (1972).
SCRAUBE, A., GRUNAUER, F., BURGER, G., Calibration Problems With Neutron Moderator Detectors, Proc. Neut. Monit. for Rad. Prot. Purposes, II, IAEA (1973).
THOMPSON, I.M.G., LAVENDER, A., Calibration of the De Pangher Long Counter, Proc. Neut. Monit. for Rad. Prot. Purposes, II, IAEA (1973).
LINDENBAUM, S.J., Conf. on Shielding of High-Energy Accelerators, TID-7545, New York (1957).
DE PANGHER, J., A Reproducible Precision Polythene Long Counter for Measuring Fast Neutron Flux, Rep. Hanford Lab., Richland, Washington (1961).
MARSHALL, T.O., Some Tests on the Consistency of the Performance of Six Precision Long Counters Intended as Secondary Standards for the Measurement of Fast Neutron Flux Density, Health Phisics, 18, (1979).
REINERT DE LIMA, C.A., PAJMQ - Programa para Ajustamento Automático por Mínimos Quadrados, IME.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
