[Isotope-prod] Updated draft narrative
Pavel Degtiarenko
pavel at jlab.org
Mon Jun 27 10:09:28 EDT 2016
Dear Hari,
We will see some indirect activation by neutrons from the
Be-9(gamma,n)Be-8 reaction, where the threshold is low (1.665 MeV). Be-8
decays to 2 alphas.
There will be no Be-7 production up to ~20 MeV.
B-10(gamma,n)B-9 threshold is 8.437 MeV; B-9 decays immediately to Be-9
- no long lived isotopes.
N-14(gamma,n)N-13 threshold is just above 10 MeV, so no production
there. But at higher energy that will produce a lot of short-lived
activity (~10 min half lifetime).
If we limit the beam energy at 6 MeV the only source of activation will
be indirect neutrons from the Be-9(gamma,n)Be-8 reaction. I do not
expect a problem here, but it should be evaluated before planning the
tests.
Best regards,
Pavel
On 06/27/2016 08:35 AM, Hari Areti wrote:
> Dear Pavel,
> Thanks for the input.
>
> You are absolutely right abouth hBN, I will add to the narrative,
> we do not know what radiation does to hBN's integrity and its
> properties (thermal conductivity). That is another piece of data
> that will result from this R&D. If hBN fails, we have a fall back
> in ceramic insert.
>
> Two more things that you can shed light on.
>
> We claim that low energy tests at LERF will eliminate or reduce
> local activity. Keeping to around 6 MeV will help with tungsten
> and copper. Is this true for Be and BN?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -H
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Pavel Degtiarenko" <pavel at jlab.org>
> *To: *"isotope-prod" <isotope-prod at jlab.org>
> *Sent: *Sunday, June 26, 2016 6:50:08 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [Isotope-prod] Updated draft narrative
>
> Dear Hari,
>
> Several remarks:
> 1. On pages 3 and 4 the subtitle " /Photo-production Principles" /is
> repeated twice. The second one should probably be " /Photo-production
> Process"/
>
> 2. On page 5 the typos are is in the reaction description (67 should
> be superscript, and the reaction should be "gamma,alpha"):
>
> "Similarly, 67Cu can be produced via the ^71 Ga (g, p) ^67 Cu
> reaction, as in this proposal."
>
>
> 3. Page 8, last line needs the dot at the end:
>
> "including studies of targeted hybrid probes"
>
> 4. Page 16, discussion of the parasitic test at 10 MeV, the statement
>
> "This is not a surprising result because the energy threshold for
> production is higher."
>
> should be "This is not a surprising result because while the beam
> energy is above the production threshold, the cross section for the
> alpha particle emission is suppressed by the nuclear Coulomb barrier."
>
> 5. Page 17, correct "stay below the ^69 Ga(g, 2n)^67 Ga because " to
> " stay below the ^69 Ga(g, 2n)^67 Ga reaction threshold because "
>
>
> 6. I think that at present we don't really have a proof that hBN
> target holder will perform as we say it will. One of the questions to
> be answered by the tests is how well this material will withstand the
> radiation damage. We know that chemical structure of hBN is close to
> graphite. There are studies on the rad. damage to graphite, causing
> displacements in the crystal structure and loss of thermal
> conductivity. I think we should mention somewhere that we know about
> the issue, will do dedicated testing, and will consider alternatives
> if hBN won't work.
>
> Best regards,
> Pavel
>
> On 6/26/2016 4:28 PM, Hari Areti wrote:
>
> I have updated two sections at the end of the narrative.
> It is in the dropbox folder 24June2016 and later. The name
> is 26June2016 draft narrative.
>
> Section on objectives - rearranged the items.
>
> Elaborated the summary to ensure that the elements mentioned in
> the FOA
> are addressed. You may want to elaborate.
>
> -H
>
> The elements are:
>
>
> * clearly describe how the outcome would support and enhance
> the production of isotopes used for research and applications
> in medicine, homeland security, the physical sciences,
> biological and geological sciences, energy, industry, etc.
> * incorporate effective ways to train personnel with essential
> knowledge and skills related to the production, processing,
> purification, and distribution of enriched stable and
> radioactive isotopes
> * Novel or improved capabilities for inducing transmutation of
> atoms in targets to create radioisotopes;
> * Optimum selection of the materials and effective design of
> targets for the production of radioisotopes;
> * Innovative approaches to model and predict behavior of targets
> undergoing irradiation in order to optimize yield and minimize
> target failures during routine isotope production;
> * Chemical and physical processes to recover and purify
> radioisotopes from activated targets, legacy materials, or
> facility components;
> * Automation of production and processing techniques to enhance
> efficiency and safety of the production of radioisotopes; and
> * Mass-separation for enriched stable isotopes and high specific
> activity radioactive isotopes
>
> Merit Review Criteria
>
> ` Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project;
>
> * What is the scientific innovation of proposed research?
> * What is the likelihood of achieving valuable results?
> * How might the results of the proposed work impact the
> direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific
> fields of research?
> * How does the proposed work compare with other efforts in its
> field, both in terms of scientific and/or technical merit and
> originality?
> * Is the Data Management Plan suitable for the proposed research
> and to what extent does it support the validation of research
> results?
>
> Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach;
>
> * How logical and feasible are the research approaches?
> * Does the proposed research employ innovative concepts or methods?
> * Are the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses well
> justified, adequately developed, and likely to lead to
> scientifically valid conclusions?
> * Does the applicant recognize significant potential problems
> and consider alternative strategies?
>
> Competency of Applicant’s Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources
>
> * What is the past performance and potential of the Principal
> Investigator (PI)?
> * How well qualified is the research team to carry out the
> proposed research?
> * Are the research environment and facilities adequate for
> performing the research?
> * Does the proposed work take advantage of unique facilities and
> capabilities?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isotope-prod mailing list
> Isotope-prod at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/isotope-prod
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isotope-prod mailing list
> Isotope-prod at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/isotope-prod
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/isotope-prod/attachments/20160627/5fc1bd2d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Isotope-prod
mailing list