OMC rates in Sm and Kr for 2 -decay V.G. Egorov, A.V. Klinskih, R.V. Vasiliev, M.V.Shirchenko, D.R. Zinatulina MEDEX’07 MEDEX’07
(n,p)-likecharge--exchangereactions
2β-decay 2β-experiments μ - captureStatus 76 Ge Gerda Majorana 76 Se Ca TGV, NEMO3 48 Ti CdTGV 106 Cd Se NEMO3, SuperNEMO 82 Kr MoNEMO3 100 Ru − 116 CdNEMO3 116 Sn NdSuperNEMO 150 Sm 2002, 2006
PSI 2006: 150 Sm 2 O 3 (solid target) 150 Sm 2 O 3 (solid target) nat Sm 2 O 3 (solid target) nat Sm 2 O 3 (solid target) nat Kr (gas target) nat Kr (gas target) 82 Kr (gas target) 82 Kr (gas target) 12 C 4 H 10 (gas target) 12 C 4 H 10 (gas target) 232 Th (calibration purpose) 232 Th (calibration purpose) 197 Au (calibration purpose) 197 Au (calibration purpose)
Setup (solid target)
PSI,2006 Try to find a physicist! An answer
To deal with enriched 82 Kr: Keep noble gas (expensive! penetrating!) without loosing Ensure μ-stops in gas ( ⇒ thickness of the entrance window be comparable with the “thickness” of gas ) Ensure detection of low-energy γ-rays without absorption in the target walls ⇒ Special construction was developed.
Setup (gas target) Entrance window C1 & C2 Vessel walls plastic scintillator C3
PSI,2006PMT(C1) PMC(C2) Gas inlet Beam entrance PMT(C3) Gas vessel (C3) covered with black paper
PSI,2006 physicist
What do we observe?: (Background) radiation not connected directly to muons (uncorrelated spectrum) Cascade of muonic X-rays (prompt spectrum) Nuclear -rays following -capture (delayed spectrum)
Energy [keV] Time [ns]
Spectra with 82 Kr target Spectra with 82 Kr target
Time evolution (method) The fragment number (each fragment corresponds to 10 ns time period)
Muon life-time in Kr isotopes
Our results for Kr and Sm: IsotopeE γ, keVLife-time, nsλ c, 1/μs 82 Kr (isotopic- enriched) ± ± ± ± ± ± Kr (57%) ± ± Kr (17.3%) ± ± Sm (isotopic- enriched) ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.14
Dependence of λ capt. on (Z,A): Total capture rate reflects the collective properties of the nucleus Primakoff’s rule : λ c =(Z eff ) 4 ∙ X 1 · {1 - X 2 ∙(A-Z)/2A} X 1 = X 2 ≈ 3.0
Effective Z-values and Huff factors taken from NP 35(1962)295
Primakoff’s rule for different isotopes:
Conclusions: Some of our results contradict to theory Wrong measurement? Wrong interpretation? Wrong Primakoff rule? Wrong Z eff ? What can we do with this? Any ideas? In any case, our -values are necessary (and really are used) in extraction of partial capture rates – next talk.
Thanks for your attention! Thanks for your attention!