recoil

Information about recoil

Published on December 4, 2007

Author: Spencer

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Recoil Separator Techniques J.C. Blackmon, Physics Division, ORNL:  Recoil Separator Techniques J.C. Blackmon, Physics Division, ORNL WF WF Target D QT QT QT FP DRS ORNL Recoil separator basics How do recoil separators compete? Why underground? What is a recoil separator?:  Combination of magnetic and and electrostatic elements that spatially disperse charged reaction products by m/q What is a recoil separator? An alternate approach:  An alternate approach Dipole magnet Some recoil separator properties:  Some recoil separator properties High selectivity Good energy acceptance Modest angular acceptance Well-suited for inverse kinematics *apertures only Capture in Inverse Kinematics:  Capture in Inverse Kinematics 50 (10-15 eV)cm2 - this measurement 74.3 (10-15 eV)cm2 - SRIM2003 Length = 20 cm  1019 atoms/cm2 What might be studied underground?:  What might be studied underground? 14N(a,g) 18O(a,g) 22Ne(a,g) AGB stars ~ s process 14N(p,g) 17O(p,g) 17O(p,a) Red giants ~ CNO cycle (p,g) reactions:  (p,g) reactions 17O(p,g)18F Oxygen ratios in presolar grains Galactic production of 17O Oxygen ratios in red giant atmostpheres Gamma rays from 18F decay in novae wgpg < 6 meV Dominate uncertainty for 1x108 K < T < 3x108 K Measure in inverse kinematics with a recoil separator? 17O(p,g)18F in inverse kinematics:  17O H2 17O(p,g)18F in inverse kinematics Daresbury Recoil Separator DE DE+E wg = 0.8 eV 680-keV resonance clean identification of reaction products much more difficult as beam energy decreases Beam rejection at low energies:  Beam rejection at low energies 10-8 * 1 pmA  60 kHz 21Na(p,g) @ 220 keV/u (Bishop et al.) recoil-gamma coincidence  High selectivity without Z identification (p,g) vs. inverse kinematics:  (p,g) vs. inverse kinematics Energies < 200 keV/u gamma detection required in both cases no Z identification of heavy ion separator TOF can tag events of interest large recoil angle - transmission difficult poor beam suppression  high FP count rate mA of HI beam vs. mA of protons It is difficult for inverse kinematics to compete with a high current proton accelerator underground. 12C(a,g)16O:  12C(a,g)16O Kunz et al. (01) Plaga et al. (87) Azuma et al. (94) SE1(300 keV) ~ SE2(300 keV) ~ 80 keVb limited by gamma backgrounds mA 4He  4 fusions/month Need s(300 keV) ~ 0.1 fb 4He(12C,g)16O with a recoil separator:  4He(12C,g)16O with a recoil separator 3x10-10 Ecm = 3.2 MeV How low in Ecm can this technique be pushed? 12C(a,g)16O vs. inverse kinematics:  Ecm > 1.4 MeV  recoil provides clear 16O tag Ecm < 1.4 MeV DE-E identification of recoil Z is lost Increasing recoil cone must be accepted Beam suppression is more difficult If 10-10 beam suppression & 1000 cosmics/day 10 recoil-gamma background events/day 12C(a,g) fusion rate underground probably 10 times > inverse kin. 12C(a,g)16O vs. inverse kinematics 12C(a,g)16O - My perspective:  12C(a,g)16O - My perspective Unique astrophysical importance Measurements in inverse kinematics will clearly improve our understanding Measurements in inverse kinematics will not measure the cross section near the Gamow window anytime soon (a,g) measurements above ground are limited by ambient backgrounds Measurements underground would clearly be a substantial improvement Issues: Level of beam induced background Robustness of solid carbon targets Would measuring 4He(12C,g)16O underground be more sensitive than 12C(a,g)16O? More robust/stable target, less background (13C) (a,g) on N=Z nuclei:  (a,g) on N=Z nuclei Important for understanding supernova nucleosynthesis a-rich freeze-out, g-ray production (44Ti, 56Ni) Sparse experimental information, especially for heavier nuclei Statistical model calculations somewhat more uncertain due to low energy aN optical potentials. Rauscher et al. (00) Some of these reactions have significant target issues (stability under high beam currents) Measurement with a heavy ion beam on an alpha target could be easier and cleaner Conclusions:  Conclusions It is difficult for recoil separator measurements of (p,g) reactions to compete with high-intensity proton beams for stable targets due to the very low energies. A compelling case can clearly be made for measuring these reactions underground. LUNA and other facilities have the capability to measure these reactions, but the list of interesting measurements is extensive, and the pace of measurements is slow. Improvements in our understanding of 12C(a,g)16O will be made through measurements in inverse kinematics above ground. However, these measurements are exponentially more difficult at low energies. Measurements at an underground facility are compelling and should be vigorously pursued. The capability to measure such (a,g) reactions at low energies currently does not exist anywhere. A strong case can be made for a new underground accelerator facility to address this important physics. mA beam of 4He High intensity heavy (A<40) ion beam & He jet target?

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Spencer

AI
30. 04. 2008
0 views

AI

entrepreneurial finance
01. 10. 2007
0 views

entrepreneurial finance

Chapter11
07. 10. 2007
0 views

Chapter11

China as exporter
12. 10. 2007
0 views

China as exporter

UML Tool Tutorial
24. 10. 2007
0 views

UML Tool Tutorial

Differences that Bind Us
15. 10. 2007
0 views

Differences that Bind Us

Int comparisons
19. 10. 2007
0 views

Int comparisons

TheHarlemRenaissance
21. 10. 2007
0 views

TheHarlemRenaissance

AFDEC China RoHS
10. 10. 2007
0 views

AFDEC China RoHS

ArtTemps PhyPsy
24. 10. 2007
0 views

ArtTemps PhyPsy

Generalidades
24. 10. 2007
0 views

Generalidades

Chap17
16. 11. 2007
0 views

Chap17

filtering for smrc dsc
10. 12. 2007
0 views

filtering for smrc dsc

Owens
17. 10. 2007
0 views

Owens

MYP Jan 2002
23. 10. 2007
0 views

MYP Jan 2002

Lecture Three
23. 12. 2007
0 views

Lecture Three

9 5 06 Trigger
05. 10. 2007
0 views

9 5 06 Trigger

K2 WG4 Sum
07. 01. 2008
0 views

K2 WG4 Sum

20063201311221191
10. 10. 2007
0 views

20063201311221191

Editorial Peer Review
15. 10. 2007
0 views

Editorial Peer Review

Forecast Verification
05. 10. 2007
0 views

Forecast Verification

ZP584PP M
20. 11. 2007
0 views

ZP584PP M

21 news
29. 09. 2007
0 views

21 news

Gina MacD
15. 10. 2007
0 views

Gina MacD

Tussauds
13. 03. 2008
0 views

Tussauds

144
04. 10. 2007
0 views

144

ch09 lecture light
27. 03. 2008
0 views

ch09 lecture light

145 14
10. 04. 2008
0 views

145 14

chap001 002 MRM
13. 04. 2008
0 views

chap001 002 MRM

WHI Review I
24. 03. 2008
0 views

WHI Review I

EAU launch presentation
14. 04. 2008
0 views

EAU launch presentation

Wine Pres 008
18. 04. 2008
0 views

Wine Pres 008

Stane Citrix slo
22. 04. 2008
0 views

Stane Citrix slo

AALL2007
28. 04. 2008
0 views

AALL2007

sec train mod
07. 05. 2008
0 views

sec train mod

3971intro1
19. 11. 2007
0 views

3971intro1

Eating Disorders
02. 05. 2008
0 views

Eating Disorders

NS presentation DPE Oct 07
11. 03. 2008
0 views

NS presentation DPE Oct 07

kobes hilltop 03
19. 10. 2007
0 views

kobes hilltop 03

panhelpulse oct 1
07. 11. 2007
0 views

panhelpulse oct 1

2006 05 31 Citigroup Boston
24. 02. 2008
0 views

2006 05 31 Citigroup Boston

38613IntroToComputing
15. 10. 2007
0 views

38613IntroToComputing

musulmanbekov
12. 10. 2007
0 views

musulmanbekov

FortWorth
15. 10. 2007
0 views

FortWorth

Alex ERF 2005
30. 10. 2007
0 views

Alex ERF 2005

2004 07 APTLD APEET
09. 10. 2007
0 views

2004 07 APTLD APEET

Volunteer Presentation
21. 10. 2007
0 views

Volunteer Presentation

dbrown
09. 04. 2008
0 views

dbrown

Water2 0506
07. 11. 2007
0 views

Water2 0506

rossel
17. 10. 2007
0 views

rossel