Cross section measurements and uncertainties of

A program has been undertaken to simultaneously measure integral and differential cross sections in order to establish the degree of consistency between integral and differentially derived spectra. An assessment is then made concerning cross section limitations in deriving high energy neutron spectra by the foil-activation spectral-unfolding technique.

Similar records in OSTI. GOV collections:. GOV Conference: Comparison of differential and integral cross section measurements.

Title: Comparison of differential and integral cross section measurements. Full Record Other Related Research. Abstract A program has been undertaken to simultaneously measure integral and differential cross sections in order to establish the degree of consistency between integral and differentially derived spectra. Comparison of differential and integral cross section measurements. United States: N. Copy to clipboard. United States. Other availability. Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document.

Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding. LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr. Similar Records.Observational error or measurement error is the difference between a measured value of a quantity and its true value. Variability is an inherent part of the results of measurements and of the measurement process.

Measurement errors can be divided into two components: random error and systematic error. Random errors are errors in measurement that lead to measurable values being inconsistent when repeated measurements of a constant attribute or quantity are taken. Systematic errors are errors that are not determined by chance but are introduced by an inaccuracy involving either the observation or measurement process inherent to the system.

When either randomness or uncertainty modeled by probability theory is attributed to such errors, they are "errors" in the sense in which that term is used in statistics ; see errors and residuals in statistics.

Every time we repeat a measurement with a sensitive instrument, we obtain slightly different results. The common statistical model used is that the error has two additive parts:. Systematic error is sometimes called statistical bias. It may often be reduced with standardized procedures. Part of the learning process in the various sciences is learning how to use standard instruments and protocols so as to minimize systematic error.

Random error or random variation is due to factors which cannot or will not be controlled.

cross section measurements and uncertainties of

Some possible reason to forgo controlling for these random errors is because it may be too expensive to control them each time the experiment is conducted or the measurements are made. Other reasons may be that whatever we are trying to measure is changing in time see dynamic modelsor is fundamentally probabilistic as is the case in quantum mechanics — see Measurement in quantum mechanics. Random error often occurs when instruments are pushed to the extremes of their operating limits.

For example, it is common for digital balances to exhibit random error in their least significant digit. Three measurements of a single object might read something like 0. Random error is always present in a measurement. It is caused by inherently unpredictable fluctuations in the readings of a measurement apparatus or in the experimenter's interpretation of the instrumental reading.

Random errors show up as different results for ostensibly the same repeated measurement. They can be estimated by comparing multiple measurements, and reduced by averaging multiple measurements. Systematic error is predictable and typically constant or proportional to the true value.

If the cause of the systematic error can be identified, then it usually can be eliminated. Systematic errors are caused by imperfect calibration of measurement instruments or imperfect methods of observationor interference of the environment with the measurement process, and always affect the results of an experiment in a predictable direction. Incorrect zeroing of an instrument leading to a zero error is an example of systematic error in instrumentation.

In fact, it conceptualizes its basic uncertainty categories in these terms.

Radar Cross Section Calibration Errors and Uncertainties

Random error can be caused by unpredictable fluctuations in the readings of a measurement apparatus, or in the experimenter's interpretation of the instrumental reading; these fluctuations may be in part due to interference of the environment with the measurement process.These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts. The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.

Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Elevated values of ground-level ozone damage health, vegetation, and building materials and are the subject of air quality regulations. Levels are monitored by networks using mostly ultraviolet UV absorption instruments, with traceability to standard reference photometers, relying on the UV absorption of ozone at the We have redetermined the ozone cross-section at this wavelength based on gas phase titration GPT measurements.

This is a well-known chemical method using the reaction of ozone O 3 with nitrogen monoxide NO resulting in nitrogen dioxide NO 2 and oxygen O 2. Accurate measurements of NO, NO 2and O 3 mole fractions allow the calculation of ozone absorption cross section values at The excellent agreement between these values and recently published absorption cross-section measurements directly on pure ozone provide strong evidence for revising the conventionally accepted value of ozone cross section at View Author Information.

Cite this: Anal. Article Views Altmetric. Citations 3. Cited By. This article is cited by 3 publications. Recommendation of a consensus value of the ozone absorption cross-section at Metrologia56 3 Galbally, Owen R.

Cooper, Martin G. Thompson, Samuel J.Historical Version s - view previous versions of standard. More E The availability of these excellent evaluations makes possible standardized usage, thereby allowing easy referencing and intercomparisons of calculations.

This file was made available worldwide. In response to the need for a dosimetry-specific library, the International Atomic Energy Agency convened a Coordinated Research Project CRP that drew upon the set of international experts to provide a recommended set of dosimetry cross sections and to compile a set of validation evidence that supported the use of this recommended dataset.

This file, the International Reactor Dosimetry and Fusion File IRDFF 1920draws upon other national nuclear evaluations and supplements these evaluations with a set of reactions evaluated by expert international groups. The IRDFF library was developed to support the LWR dosimetry application as well as other dosimetry applications that go beyond the scope of this standard and, as part of its development process, it incorporates validation data acquired in reference and standard benchmark neutron fields.

The supplemental IRDFF evaluations only include the specific reactions of interest to the dosimetry community and not a full material evaluation.

cross section measurements and uncertainties of

This file shall be maintained in a form designed for easy application by users minimal processing. The file shall continue to incorporate the following types of information or indicate the sources of the following type of data that should be used to supplement the file contents:.

Damage cross sections for materials such as iron have been added in order to promote standardization of reported dpa measurements within the dosimetry community. Integral measurements from benchmark fields and reactor test regions have been considered in order to ensure self-consistency The total dosimetry file is intended to be as self-consistent as possible with respect to both differential and integral measurements as applied in LWR environments.

This self-consistency of the data file is mandatory for LWR-pressure vessel surveillance applications, where only very limited dosimetry data are available. Where modifications to an existing evaluated cross section have been made to obtain this self-consistence in LWR environments, the modifications shall be detailed in the associated documentation see 19 These fields include in- and ex-vessel surveillance positions in operating power reactors, benchmark fields, and reactor test regions.

A further requirement for components of the ASTM-recommended cross section file is their internal consistency when combined with sensor measurements and used to determine a neutron spectrum. However, the availability of this data set does not preclude the use of other validated data, either proprietary or nonproprietary.

When alternate cross section files that deviate from the requirements laid out in this standard are used, the deviations should be noted to the customer of the dosimetry application. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

Referenced Documents purchase separately The documents listed below are referenced within the subject standard but are not provided as part of the standard. The file shall continue to incorporate the following types of information or indicate the sources of the following type of data that should be used to supplement the file contents: 4.

Scope 1. Link to Active This link will always route to the current Active version of the standard.The Au n,2n Au monitor reaction was used for the estimation of neutron flux. The covariance analysis for the uncertainties of the cross sections has been carried out by considering the partial uncertainties of different attributes. The present data have been compared with the literature data, evaluated data and theoretically calculated values from TALYS This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Rent this article via DeepDyve. Nucl Sci Eng J Nucl Sci Technol 19 10 — J Revue Roumaine de Phys Sonzogni A NuDat 2. Geraldo LP, Smith DL Covariance analysis and fitting of germanium gamma-ray detector efficiency calibration data. Indian J Pure Appl Phys — Google Scholar. Millsap DW, Landsberger S Self-attenuation as a function of gamma ray energy in naturally occurring radioactive material in the oil and gas industry.

cross section measurements and uncertainties of

Appl Radiat Isotopes — NuDat 2. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 1 — Internal Report No. Nucl Data Sheets — J Korean Phys Soc — Nucl Sci Techol — J Korean Phys Soc 59 2 Kanda Y The excitation functions and isomeric ratios for neutron induced reactions on Mo 92 and Zr Nucl Phys A Euratom Report, No.

Prog: Inst. Badan Jadr. At Energy 49 3 — Phys Scr Zeitschrift fuer Physik A Hadrons Nuclei Rept: Ges. IAEA Nucl. Can J Phys Nucl Phys Chandigarhvol 2, p Phys Rev Bari A Thesis: Bari.Remember that you can have multiple versions of a model concurrently deployed on the service.

Uncertainties in Dynamic Sphere Radar Cross Section Data

That means you can have multiple revisions of your model in testing at once if you need to. It also makes it easy to have a production version of the model deployed while testing the next revision.

As with so much of developing machine learning applications, the availability of fresh data is often a limiting factor. You should develop strategies to split the data you have and collect new data to use for testing. Infer values from new data instances with online prediction. Infer values from new data instances with batch prediction. Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3. For details, see our Site Policies.

Note: This document describes both batch prediction and online prediction.

Observational error

Online prediction is a Beta feature of Cloud ML Engine. It might be changed in backward-incompatible ways and is not subject to any SLA or deprecation policy. How it works The Cloud ML Engine prediction service manages computing resources in the cloud to run your models.

Here is the process to get set up to make predictions in the cloud: You export your model using SavedModel as part of your training application. Note: You can use batch prediction to get inferences for a SavedModel that isn't deployed to Cloud ML Engine. You format your input data for prediction and request either online prediction or batch prediction When you use online prediction, the service runs your saved model and returns the requested predictions as the response message for the call.

Precision, Accuracy and Uncertainty in measurement in chemistry

Your model version is deployed in the region you specified when you created the model. Although it is not guaranteed, a model version that you use regularly is generally kept ready to run. When you use batch prediction, the process is a little more involved: The prediction service allocates resources to run your job.

The service restores your TensorFlow graph on each allocated node. The prediction service distributes your input data across the allocated nodes. Model deployment Cloud ML Engine can host your models so that you can get predictions from them in the cloud. About models and versions Cloud ML Engine organizes your trained models using resources called models and versions.

What's in a version. Naming models and versions Model and version names must: Contain only (case-sensitive) mixed-case letters, numbers, and underscores. Begin with a letter. Contain 128 or fewer characters. Be unique within a given project (for models) or model (for versions).

There are no rules for names beyond those technical requirements, but here are some best-practices: Model names should be descriptive and distinctiveyou may need to pick them out of lists of many names in logs or reports.We booked this trip through Nordic Visitor and were very happy we did.

They arranged everything nicely and we had very good time in Iceland. We got to see a lot of Iceland by the Super Jeep excursions. Also we were flown to Akureyri in North of Iceland to see the Northern Lights. Was by far the best organised trip we have been on, Iceland is such a beautiful place, and Nordic Visitor made it all so easy and pointed out all the best places to see. Our Contact Erla was excellent, very helpful. Loved the champagne and chocolates on arrival at first hotel, a really lovely touch.

We have fallen in love with Iceland. It was reassuring to know that help, if needed, was available from the very friendly Nordic Visitor office. The mobile phone which was provided was a nice touch. Food was of a very high standard. Icelanders are extremely friendly. Yes, the rather shy Northern Lights did make an appearance. A real "WOW" holiday!!. Last minute changes to the hotel bookings were dealt with extremely efficiently.

Nordic Visitor were very helpful during the duration of the whole tour. I would like to say that Thordis was particularly helpful when I experienced difficulties after being caught in a snow blizzard and became trapped in my vehicle. The back up service an support was excellent and helped me greatly during a difficult time. I really enjoyed it. It gave me a great taste of Iceland and took away all the hassle of searching for tours and accommodation which is important for me because I have limited free time since I work 80-100 hour weeks.

It took me to places in Iceland I may not have considered if I booked on my own. Even though we travel to Europe at least a couple of times a year and do it indepently (find our own accomodation, etc. Iceland's reputation of being very expensive concerned us too. We pinpointed the potential travel time as early September (2012), during the summer, we started to search more intensely.

Replies to “Cross section measurements and uncertainties of”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *