Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Meaurement of spin vs. TKE of $^{144}$Ba produced in spontaneous fission of $^{252}$Cf

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read First measurement of a fission fragment's spin versus TKE finds spin nearly constant across a 45 MeV range, challenging thermal spin-generation models.

desk verdict First spin-TKE measurement for 144Ba is a real advance, but the flat-spin conclusion rests on an unquantified assumption about statistical-γ spin removal. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15898 v1 pith:C66CKERW submitted 2024-12-20 nucl-ex

N.P. Giha , S. Marin , I.A. Tolstukhin , M.B. Oberling , R.A. Knaack , C. Mueller-Gatermann , A. Korichi , K. Bhatt
show 16 more authors
M.P. Carpenter C. Fougères V. Karayonchev B.P. Kay T. Lauritsen D. Seweryniak N. Watwood D.L. Duke S. Mosby K.B. Montoya D.S. Connolly W. Loveland I.E. Hernandez S.D. Clarke S.A. Pozzi F. Tovesson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex
keywords fissionfragmentspintotalkineticenergy144Ba252Cfspontaneousgamma-rayspectroscopyGammaspheretwinFrisch-griddedionizationchamberstatisticalgeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first measurement of a fission fragment's average spin as a function of the total kinetic energy (TKE) of the fragments. For $^{144}$Ba produced in spontaneous fission of $^{252}$Cf, the average spin changes by only about $0.5\hbar$ across a TKE range of 158–203 MeV, even though the corresponding excitation energy varies by roughly a factor of five. Statistical models of spin generation predict a change of about 50 percent over this range, so the near-flat result indicates that spin is not generated solely by thermal excitation of rotational modes. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a direct, previously missing observable that can discriminate among proposed mechanisms of fission-fragment spin generation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reconstructed post-statistical spin probability distribution $P(I)$ of $^{144}$Ba, obtained by intensity balance: for each low-lying level $i$, the side-feeding $S_i$ equals the sum of incoming discrete $\gamma$-ray intensities minus the sum of outgoing intensities, with electron-conversion corrections applied. Weighting each level's spin by $S_i$ gives the average spin $\langle I\rangle$. The experimental chain is: the twin Frisch-gridded ionization chamber provides TKE, pre-neutron mass, and fission-axis polar angle; Gammasphere provides Doppler-corrected $\gamma$-ray energies, efficiencies, and angular distributions; and the known $^{144}$Ba level scheme from ENSDF gives the spins and transition energies. This is the first time this spin reconstruction has been performed as a function of TKE.

What would settle it

A measurement of the angular distribution of the statistical $\gamma$ rays (or of the spin carried away by neutrons) as a function of TKE that showed a significant TKE dependence would break the core assumption, because those emissions could then be removing spin in a TKE-dependent way and could hide a strong intrinsic correlation between spin and excitation energy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a twin Frisch-gridded ionization chamber placed inside the Gammasphere array, the authors simultaneously measure fragment total kinetic energy, approximate mass, fission-axis angle, and prompt $\gamma$-ray spectra for events containing $^{144}$Ba. They reconstruct the post-statistical side-feeding distribution of the low-lying ground-state and octupole bands from the measured discrete $\gamma$-ray intensities, and from it the average spin $\langle I\rangle$ in seven TKE bins covering 158–203 MeV. The result is that $\langle I\rangle$ changes by only about $0.5\hbar$ over this range, with a TKE-integrated value $6.96\pm0.21\hbar$ consistent with earlier measurements. The paper interprets this near-independence of spin on TKE as evidence that fragment spin is not solely produced by statistical excitation of rotational modes tied to the fragment temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that neutron and statistical $\gamma$-ray emission, which occur before the measured discrete transitions, do not remove fragment spin in a way that depends on TKE, so that the measured post-emission spin distribution reflects the initial fragment spin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thermal statistical models that predict a roughly 50 percent rise in average spin over this TKE range would be ruled out as the sole spin-generating mechanism for $^{144}$Ba.
  • De-excitation codes that populate fragment spins from a temperature-dependent level density would need revision, or incorporation of other mechanisms such as fragment deformation, Coulomb torque, or microscopic orientation effects.
  • The combined ionization-chamber plus $\gamma$-ray-spectrometer method can be applied to other fragments, yielding a two-dimensional map of average spin versus both mass and TKE.
  • Fission $\gamma$-ray multiplicities and energy-release distributions relevant to reactor and safeguards simulations would be expected to depend more weakly on excitation energy than current models assume.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to apply the same analysis to fragments of different ground-state deformation; if strongly deformed fragments all show flat spin-TKE behavior while spherical ones do not, that would point to a deformation-based mechanism.
  • The near-constancy of $\langle I\rangle$ suggests that the spin carried by the statistical cascade is itself nearly TKE-independent; this could be checked in the same dataset by comparing the relative intensity of quasicontinuum $\gamma$ rays across TKE bins.
  • If the flatness persists across mass splits, the observed TKE dependence of total $\gamma$-ray multiplicity in previous experiments might be driven mostly by light fragments or by scission geometry rather than by the temperature of the heavy fragment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first measurement of the average spin of the fission fragment 144Ba as a function of the total kinetic energy (TKE) of the fission fragments, using a twin Frisch-gridded ionization chamber coupled to Gammasphere. The authors reconstruct the post-statistical spin distribution from the intensities of discrete γ-ray transitions and side-feeding, and find that the average spin changes by only about 0.5 ħ over the TKE range 158–203 MeV, corresponding to a total excitation energy range of roughly 12–58 MeV. They interpret this near-independence as evidence that fragment spin is not generated solely by statistical excitation of rotational modes. The analysis includes a detailed discussion of potential biases, Monte Carlo propagation of statistical and efficiency uncertainties, and a benchmark of the TKE-integrated spin against the value of Wilson et al. (2021).

Significance. If the result is correct, it is an important new constraint on fission fragment spin-generation mechanisms. The experimental combination of a twin Frisch-gridded ionization chamber with Gammasphere is novel, and the data set is large. The paper is careful in many respects: it discusses numerous bias sources in Section III F, propagates uncertainties via Monte Carlo, and validates the absolute scale of the measurement against an external result. The central physics conclusion, however, is conditional on the assumption that neutron and statistical γ-ray emission do not significantly alter the spin distribution before the measured discrete transitions. That assumption is transparently stated, but its quantitative support is not established. The result is therefore best viewed as a measurement of the post-statistical spin as a function of TKE, with the interpretation in terms of the primary fission-fragment spin requiring additional justification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V] The load-bearing assumption that neutron and statistical γ-ray emission do not significantly alter the spin distribution is not quantitatively supported. The cited isotropy of neutron emission (Göök et al. [32]) and statistical γ rays (Hoffman [53], Marin et al. [33], Val'ski et al. [54]) shows only the absence of a strong directional correlation with the fission axis; it does not bound the angular momentum removed, because an isotropic E1 photon still carries one unit of angular momentum in a random direction, and a cascade of n such photons changes the spin vector by a random walk of typical size √n ℏ. Since the number of statistical γ rays increases with excitation energy, the amount of spin removed before the discrete transitions could be TKE-dependent and could mask an initial spin that varies with TKE. Please add a quantitative estimate or a sensitivity study, for example using measured neutron and statistical-γ multiplicities or a de-excitation simulation with and without spin removal, to justify the assumption, or explicitly restrict the conclusion to the measured post-statistical spin.
  2. [Section III E] The ground-state feeding extrapolation assumes a statistical spin distribution from Bethe [52] to estimate the unmeasured feeding to the 0+ ground state, and Section III F assigns a large relative uncertainty to this modeling choice. However, the paper does not show how this uncertainty propagates to the ⟨I⟩(TKE) result, nor does it demonstrate that the extrapolated ground-state feeding is TKE-independent. If the shape or magnitude of the unobserved low-spin feeding varies across the 158–203 MeV TKE range, the extracted slope (or flatness) of ⟨I⟩ could be biased. Please quantify the effect of this modeling choice on each TKE bin, for example by varying the assumed spin distribution or using an alternative extrapolation procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: "Meaurement" should be "Measurement".
  2. [Section III F] In the paragraph on ground-state feeding estimation, "abscribe" should be "ascribe".
  3. [Section II] The sentence describing event merging contains a duplicated article: "the the Gammasphere DAQ" should be "the Gammasphere DAQ".
  4. [References] Reference [26] is cited as "Accepted in Phys. Rev. C 1" with a volume number of 1; please update it to the published volume, page, and year if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-vs-TKE measurement is self-contained and benchmarked against external data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain proceeds from measured gamma-ray intensities and known ENSDF level properties to side-feedings, then to a reconstructed post-statistical spin distribution and its average as a function of TKE. None of these steps is equivalent to the final claim that the spin is nearly TKE-independent. The only fitted model input is the small ground-state feeding correction, obtained by extrapolating the ground-state-band feeding with Bethe's statistical spin distribution; the paper assigns a large relative uncertainty to this correction and it is a few percent, so it cannot by construction produce the observed flatness. The comparison target, the (E*)^(1/4) statistical-model prediction, is an external expectation derived from stated assumptions about rotational energy and nuclear temperature, and the data disagree with it. The benchmark against Wilson et al. (Nature 2021) is an independent absolute calibration. The assumption in Section V that neutron and statistical-gamma emission do not significantly alter the spin distribution is a physical caveat supported by external experimental citations (Gook et al., Marin et al., Hoffman, Val'ski et al.), not by the present measurement; even if that assumption is questioned on physics grounds, questioning it is a correctness risk, not circularity. Some cited works share authors with the present paper (e.g., Marin et al. 2022), but they are independent experimental results and are not invoked to define the measured quantity or to force the TKE dependence. The central claim therefore stands on the data themselves rather than reducing to the paper's inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement depends on standard detector calibration and on a few modeling choices. The ground-state feeding extrapolation and the assumption of negligible spin removal by neutrons and statistical gammas are the main model dependencies; neither is a free parameter tuned to force the TKE-flatness result.

free parameters (2)
  • Ground-state feeding extrapolation parameter = not reported
    Used to estimate unmeasurable direct feeding to the 0+ ground state by fitting the ground-state band feeding to a Bethe statistical spin distribution and extrapolating to I=0 (Sec. III E). The paper assigns a large relative uncertainty to this model-dependent point.
  • Angular distribution coefficients C0, C1, C2 = not tabulated
    Peak areas for each transition are fit to C0P0 + C1P1 + C2P2 in cos θL (Sec. III C); these fitted coefficients define the transition intensities and their uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Bethe statistical spin distribution shape is the correct model for extrapolating ground-state feeding to I=0.
    Used in Sec. III E to estimate unmeasurable direct feeding; the paper acknowledges a large model-dependent uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Neutron and statistical gamma-ray emission remove negligible spin on average.
    Assumed in Sec. I and V based on observed isotropic emission (Refs. [32,33,53,54]); a recent theory (Ref. [19]) questions this.
  • domain assumption The ENSDF level scheme for 144Ba is complete enough for intensity balance.
    Sec. III D uses known levels; unobserved transitions are assigned uncertainties, and completeness is argued from identified peaks.
  • domain assumption The 2E method calibrations based on previously measured fragment kinetic energy distributions are valid.
    Sec. II A describes calibration to prior data; mass reconstruction relies on average neutron multiplicity ν̄(A,TKE) from Ref. [32].
  • domain assumption Gating on the 199-keV transition and partner-fragment gating reconstructs the 2+ to 0+ intensity.
    Sec. III C describes indirect reconstruction of the 199-keV intensity via a 104Mo gate; possible biases are discussed in Sec. III F.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Meaurement of spin vs. TKE of $^{144}$Ba produced in spontaneous fission of $^{252}$Cf." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C66CKERW

@misc{pith2026241215898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Meaurement of spin vs. TKE of $^144$Ba produced in spontaneous fission of $^252$Cf},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C66CKERW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15898}
}
abstract

We measure the average spin of $^{144}$Ba, a common fragment produced in $^{252}$Cf(sf), as a function of the total kinetic energy (TKE). We combined for the first time a twin Frisch-gridded ionization chamber with a world-class $\gamma$-ray spectrometer that was designed to measure high-multiplicity $\gamma$-ray events, Gammasphere. The chamber, loaded with a $^{252}$Cf(sf) source, provides a fission trigger, the TKE of the fragments, the approximate fragment masses, and the polar angle of the fission axis. Gammasphere provides the total $\gamma$-ray yield, fragment identification through the tagging of decay $\gamma$ rays, and the feeding of rotational bands in the fragments. We determine the dependence of the average spin of $^{144}$Ba on the fragments' TKE by correlating the fragment properties with the distribution of discrete levels that are fed. We find that the average spin only changes by about $0.5$ $\hbar$ across the TKE range of 158-203 MeV. The virtual independence of the spin on TKE suggests that spin is not solely generated through the statistical excitation of rotational modes, and more complex mechanisms are required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. De-excitation of a fission fragment by emission of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Rendering of the twin Frisch-gridded ionization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. 2-D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Level scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Reconstructed spin feeding distribution for a TKE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    G¨ o¨ ok, F.-J

    A. G¨ o¨ ok, F.-J. Hambsch, and M. Vidali, Physical Review C 90, 064611 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [53]

    M. M. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. 133, B714 (1964)

    work page 1964

  3. [33]

    Marin, E

    S. Marin, E. P. Sansevero, M. S. Okar, I. E. Hernandez, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, S. D. Clarke, V. A. Protopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054609 (2022)

    2022

  4. [54]

    Aleksandrov, I

    Val’ski, G.V., B. Aleksandrov, I. Baranov, A. Kri- vokatskii, G. Petrov, and Y. S. Pleva, Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics 10, 137 (1969)

    work page 1969

  5. [52]

    H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 50, 332 (1936)

    work page 1936

  6. [1]

    Hahn and F

    O. Hahn and F. Strassmann, Naturwissenschaften 27, 11 (1939)

    work page 1939

  7. [2]

    Meitner and O

    L. Meitner and O. R. Frisch, Nature 143, 471 (1939)

    work page 1939

  8. [3]

    Goriely, The European Physical Journal A 51, 22 (2015)

    S. Goriely, The European Physical Journal A 51, 22 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 57 references
  1. [4]

    Vassh, R

    N. Vassh, R. Vogt, R. Surman, J. Randrup, T. M. Sprouse, M. R. Mumpower, P. Jaffke, D. Shaw, E. M. Holmbeck, Y. Zhu, and G. C. McLaughlin, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 46, 065202 (2019)

    2019

  2. [5]

    M. R. Mumpower, P. Jaffke, M. Verriere, and J. Ran- drup, Phys. Rev. C 101, 054607 (2020)

    2020

  3. [6]

    Vassh, M

    N. Vassh, M. R. Mumpower, G. C. McLaughlin, T. M. Sprouse, and R. Surman, The Astrophysical Journal 896, 28 (2020)

    2020

  4. [7]

    X. Wang, N. Vassh, T. Sprouse, M. Mumpower, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, and R. Surman, The Astrophysical Journal 903, L3 (2020)

    2020

  5. [8]

    Rimpault, D

    G. Rimpault, D. Bernard, D. Blanchet, C. Vaglio- Gaudard, S. Ravaux, and A. Santamarina, Physics Pro- cedia 31, 3 (2012)

    2012

  6. [9]

    Kolos, V

    K. Kolos, V. Sobes, R. Vogt, C. E. Romano, M. S. Smith, L. A. Bernstein, D. A. Brown, M. T. Burkey, Y. Danon, M. A. Elsawi, B. L. Goldblum, L. H. Heilbronn, S. L. Hogle, J. Hutchinson, B. Loer, E. A. McCutchan, M. R. Mumpower, E. M. O’Brien, C. Percher, P. N. Peplowski, J. J. ...

    2022

  7. [10]

    Talou, I

    P. Talou, I. Stetcu, P. Jaffke, M. E. Rising, A. E. Lovell, and T. Kawano, Computer Physics Communications269 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108087

    2021

  8. [11]

    Litaize, O

    O. Litaize, O. Serot, and L. Berge, The European Phys- ical Journal A 51, 177 (2015)

    2015

  9. [12]

    Randrup and R

    J. Randrup and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C80, 024601 (2009)

    2009

  10. [13]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, S. Jin, K. Godbey, N. Schunck, and I. Stetcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 142502 (2021)

    2021

  11. [14]

    Marevi´ c, N

    P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, J. Randrup, and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C 104, L021601 (2021)

    2021

  12. [15]

    Leoni, C

    S. Leoni, C. Michelagnoli, and J. N. Wilson, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 45, 461 (2022)

    2022

  13. [16]

    G. F. Bertsch, T. Kawano, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034603 (2019)

    2019

  14. [17]

    Vogt and J

    R. Vogt and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014610 (2021)

    2021

  15. [18]

    Randrup and R

    J. Randrup and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 062502 (2021)

    2021

  16. [19]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, P. Talou, T. Kawano, S. Marin, S. A. Pozzi, and A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 222502 (2021)

    2021

  17. [20]

    Randrup, T

    J. Randrup, T. Døssing, and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014609 (2022)

    2022

  18. [21]

    Døssing, S

    T. Døssing, S. ˚Aberg, M. Albertsson, B. G. Carlsson, and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034615 (2024)

    2024

  19. [22]

    Travar, V

    M. Travar, V. Piau, A. G¨ o¨ ok, O. Litaize, J. Nikolov, A. Oberstedt, S. Oberstedt, J. Enders, M. Peck, W. Geerts, and M. Vidali, Physics Letters B 817, 136293 (2021)

    2021

  20. [23]

    J. N. Wilson, D. Thisse, M. Lebois, N. Jovanˇ cevi´ c, D. Gjestvang, R. Canavan, M. Rudigier, D. ´Etasse, R.- B. Gerst, L. Gaudefroy, E. Adamska, P. Adsley, A. Al- gora, M. Babo, K. Belvedere, J. Benito, G. Benzoni, A. Blazhev, A. Boso, S. Bottoni, M. Bunce, R. Chakma, N. Ciep...

    2021

  21. [24]

    Gjestvang, S

    D. Gjestvang, S. Siem, F. Zeiser, J. Randrup, R. Vogt, J. N. Wilson, F. Bello-Garrote, L. A. Bernstein, D. L. Bleuel, M. Guttormsen, A. G¨ orgen, A. C. Larsen, K. L. Malatji, E. F. Matthews, A. Oberstedt, S. Oberstedt, T. Tornyi, G. M. Tveten, and A. S. Voyles, Phys. Rev. C 10...

    2021

  22. [25]

    N. P. Giha, S. Marin, J. A. Baker, I. E. Hernandez, K. J. Kelly, M. Devlin, J. M. O’Donnell, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, P. Talou, I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, O. Litaize, O. Serot, A. Chebboubi, C.-Y. Wu, S. D. Clarke, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014612 (2023)

    2023

  23. [26]

    Marin, I

    S. Marin, I. A. Tolstukhin, N. P. Giha, F. Tovesson, V. Protopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Accepted in Phys. Rev. C 1, arXiv:2311.14397 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [27]

    Generation of fragment an- gular momentum in fission,

    J. Randrup and R. Vogt, “Generation of fragment an- gular momentum in fission,” (2021), arXiv:2103.14778 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [28]

    Reorientation in newly formed fission fragments,

    G. F. Bertsch, “Reorientation in newly formed fission fragments,” (2019), arXiv:1901.00928 [nucl-th]. 9

    2019 arXiv

  26. [29]

    Scamps, Phys

    G. Scamps, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054614 (2022)

    2022

  27. [30]

    Randrup, Phys

    J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064606 (2023)

    2023

  28. [31]

    J. B. Wilhelmy, E. Cheifetz, R. C. Jared, S. G. Thomp- son, H. R. Bowman, and J. O. Rasmussen, Phys. Rev. C 5, 2041 (1972)

    1972

  29. [34]

    https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/

  30. [35]

    Marin, I

    S. Marin, I. A. Tolstukhin, N. Giha, M. Oberling, R. Knaack, B. Kay, D. Duke, K. Montoya, D. Connolly, W. Loveland, A. Chemey, S. Pozzi, and F. Tovesson, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipm...

    2023

  31. [36]

    Lee, Nuclear Physics A 520, c641 (1990)

    I.-Y. Lee, Nuclear Physics A 520, c641 (1990)

    1990

  32. [37]

    https://wiki.anl.gov/gsdaq/DAQ_system

  33. [38]

    https://gitlab.phy.anl.gov/tlauritsen/gebsort

  34. [39]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 389, 81 (1997), new Computing Techniques in Physics Research V

    1997

  35. [40]

    https://www.caen.it/products/v1740d/ ()

  36. [41]

    https://www.caen.it/products/n625/ ()

  37. [42]

    D. L. Duke, F. Tovesson, A. B. Laptev, S. Mosby, F.- J. Hambsch, T. Bry´ s, and M. Vidali, Phys. Rev. C 94, 054604 (2016)

    2016

  38. [43]

    Budtz-Jørgensen, H.-H

    C. Budtz-Jørgensen, H.-H. Knitter, C. Straede, F.-J. Hambsch, and R. Vogt, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment258, 209 (1987)

    1987

  39. [44]

    https://radware.phy.ornl.gov

  40. [45]

    T. R. England and B. F. Rider, Los Alamos Report LA- UR-94-3106 , ENDF (1997)

    1997

  41. [46]

    Morh´ aˇ c, J

    M. Morh´ aˇ c, J. Kliman, V. Matouˇ sek, M. Veselsk´ y, and I. Turzo, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- tors and Associated Equipment 401, 113 (1997)

    1997

  42. [47]

    Sonzogni, Nuclear Data Sheets 93, 599 (2001)

    A. Sonzogni, Nuclear Data Sheets 93, 599 (2001)

    2001

  43. [48]

    Blachot, Nuclear Data Sheets 108, 2035 (2007)

    J. Blachot, Nuclear Data Sheets 108, 2035 (2007)

    2007

  44. [49]

    De Frenne and A

    D. De Frenne and A. Negret, Nuclear Data Sheets 109, 943 (2008)

    2008

  45. [50]

    Kib´ edi, T

    T. Kib´ edi, T. Burrows, M. Trzhaskovskaya, P. David- son, and C. Nestor, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 589, 202 (2008)

    2008

  46. [51]

    A. A. Sonzogni, Nucl. Data Sheets 93, 599 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    Schmidt, B

    K.-H. Schmidt, B. Jurado, C. Amouroux, and C. Schmitt, Nuclear Data Sheets 131, 107 (2016), special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data

    2016

  48. [56]

    Randrup and R

    J. Randrup and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C89, 044601 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Scamps and G

    G. Scamps and G. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034616 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.