Você está na página 1de 33

Physics 334

Advanced Experimental Physics

Angular Correlation of Gamma


Rays

Author:
Mohamed Abdelhafez

April 28, 2015

Abstract
We study the angular correlation of gamma rays produced by 22 Na
and 60 Co using two NaI photomultiplier tubes and a coincidence circuit. The decay of both include the emission of two gamma rays that
are correlated in angles. Theoretical analysis predicts that two gamma
rays of the same energy are simultaneously produced back to back (at
an angle of 180 of each other) in the case of 22 Na. As for 60 Co, the
two gamma rays have different energies but they are almost simultaneous, and the angular correlation between them is dominated by
the 4-2-0 quadropole-quadropole transitions of Ni60 which 60 Co decays
prominently to. Our measurements confirm the back to back emission
of Na gamma rays while the experimental fit for the Cobalt source
gives the expected correlation function within the fit errors.

Introduction

Decay of radioactive sources often include the emission of gamma rays by


several mechanisms. The directions and energies of emitted photons depend
on the energy, momentum and spin of the source atoms and hence can be
analyzed to extract information about the source. Here we investigate the
decay processes of both 22 Na and 60 Co and the angular correlation of their
emitted gamma rays.

1.1

22

Na decay and angular correlation

Our first source is 22 Na which has the decay scheme shown in Figure 1 [1]. It
mainly decays through either positron emission (90% of the time) or electron
capture (10% of the time) to the 2+ excited state of Ne22 which eventually decays to the ground state of Ne through the emission of a 1.27 MeV
gamma ray. There is also a small chance (around 0.05%) of a direct decay
from Na to the ground state of Ne. The positron emitted 90% of the time
combines with an electron in the source to form a positronuim atom that has
a binding energy of 6.8 eV and a lifetime that is dependent on the spins of
its constituents. If the positron is captured by an electron having the same
spin of it, the resulting positronium has a total spin of 1 and is called the
ortho-positronium, the triplet state denoted by 3 S1 . This state has a mean
lifetime of about 107 s and its decay is a pair annihilation process that
produces an odd number of photons to conserve spin. It can not decay to a
1

single photon since that will never conserve momentum, which we assume to
be close to zero since the positronium is almost at rest. So, the major decay
of the ortho-positronium is into 3 photons.
On the other hand, if the spin of the positron is anti-paralel to the spin of the
electron, the atom has a total spin of zero and is called the para-positronium,
the singlet state denoted by 1 S0 . The singlet state is much more short lived
than the triplet state, with a mean life time of 1012 s. To conserve spin, it
only decays to an even number of photons, and it mainly does decay to two
back to back photons assuming the positronium is at rest.

Figure 1: The nuclear decay scheme for

22

Na

The singlet state has a total spin angular momentum of 0. So the photons
must have a total spin of 0 to conserve spin angular momentum. This can
only happen if an even number of photons is produced since each carries a
spin of 1. However, the triplet state has S=1, so only odd number of photons
can match that condition. It can not decay to a single photon because of
momentum conservation.
It is not possible for any of the two states to produce just one photon. One
photon can not have a linear momentum of zero while both para and ortho
positronium is almost at rest so the momentum should be zero. Even if it
werent at rest, a single photon can not conserve both energy and momentum
conservation of a two particle atom. So, there must be more than one photon
to conserve both momentum and energy.
2

Although the creation of para and ortho positronium states should have the
same probability, the process of spin flipping ensures that we only observe
the decay of the para positronium. Spin flipping happens because one photon
can invert the spin of the electron in the positronium and this process has
a lifetime of around 109 s. This means that spin flipping can rarely turn
a singlet into a triplet since the singlet has a shorter lifetime, so it decays
before it flips. However, the lifetime of the triplet state is long enough for
spin flipping to occur and hence we can only see the para positronium decay.
So, the main observation coming from a 22 Na should be a simultaneous emission of two photons which have to produced back to back to conserve momentum. Each photon has an energy of almost 511 keV to conserve energy.
2Ephoton = 2me c2 + Ebinding

(1)

Ephoton = 511keV 6.8/2eV

(2)

Ephoton 511keV

(3)

The two photons must be back to back so that their momenta cancel each
other because the positronium is almost at rest. The angle between them
must be 180 .
To sum up, the angles of gamma rays of a 22 Na decay are correlated. If
we define w() to be the angular correlation function of a photon emitted at
an angle , then for a 22 Na source, it is given by
w() = ( )

(4)

Of course, in reality, due to finite detector widths and accidental simultaneous


emission of gamma rays at angles other than pi, the behavior will not be
exactly a delta function. Hence, this model should be modified to account
for these effects.

1.2

60

Co decay and angular correlation

Co decays mainly to a 2.507 MeV 4+ excited state of Ni60 through decay with a lifetime of 5.26 years. It has been observed that the quadropolequadropole or 4-2-0 mode is the most dominant mode of decay where the
Ni60 4+ emits a 1.173 MeV photon to reach an intermediate state 2+. This
intermediate state decays quickly to the ground state emitting another 1.333
60

MeV photon. Hence the decay diagram of

60

Co should look like Fig 2 [1].

Figure 2: The nuclear decay scheme for

60

Co

The intermediate 2+ state is extremely short lived (lifetime around 8x1013


s), hence both gamma rays can be considered to be simultaneous for most
detectors within their resolving time (usually longer than 1 ns). Figure 2
shows that we expect to see two peaks in the spectrum around 1.17 and 1.33
MeV.
Since the decay includes a cascade of photons between different spin
states, we must carefully account for their spins to study the angular correlation. A general formula for w() is given by
w() = 1 +

l
X

ai cos2i ()

(5)

i=1

where 2l is the order of the lowest multipole in the photons cascade [2]. Hence,
the quadropole-quadropole 4-2-0 transition will be having 2 terms in the
summation. The coefficients for the 4-2-0 mode are theoretically calculated
[2]. They are given by
1
1
w() = 1 + cos2 () + cos4 ()
8
24
4

(6)

Our task is to experimentally probe both 22 Na and 60 Co decays and compare their experimental angular correlation functions to equations (4) and
(6) respectively, within the limitation of having finite detector size. To do
so, we are using the coincidence experimental setup discussed in Sec 2.

Experimental Setup

Our experimental setup can be divided into three parts: the source, the
detector and the signal processing (coincidence) modules.

2.1
1.

The radioactive source


22

Na:
The 22 Na source used has an activity of 300 Ci. The active sodium
material is sealed in the tip of a rod and is centered between the two
detectors. The diameter of the rod is 12.75 mm and the distance between it and each detector is 19.5 0.5 cm.
To get a rough idea of how much total counts will happen at a detector
using that source, lets assume each sodium decay results in the emission of two photons, so we have 300 3.7 104 photon pairs emitted
per second. Since the diameter is much smaller than the distance to
the source, we can approximate the source as a point source. This total number of photon pairs are emitted each second and the portion
of them hitting the detector is the area intersection of the detector
area and the sphere centered at the source with radius at the detector
divided by the total area of the sphere. So, if we approximate the intersection area to be the circular area of the detector, which we have
to be 24.63 104 m2 , then we expect to see number two photons at
the detector after time t given by
t=

surface area of sphere of photons


= 17.5s.
Activity detector area

(7)

This translates into a rate of 57215 counts/sec. However, our source is


dated May 2002, so it has been decaying for 13 years. With a lifetime of
2.6 years, we see that the activity actually drops to 215 of its value, which
gives an expected rate of 1787.97 counts/sec. This is actually close to
the experimental rate we got at one detector which had an average of
5

1386.82 counts/sec. Of course, the experimental rate is smaller since


not each decay corresponds to a pair of photons and the detectors do
not have 100% efficiency.
2.

60

Co:

We used a source of 60 Co with activity of 250Ci, lifetime of 5.26 years


and dated May 2003. It has a similar shape but its rod diameter is
15.9 mm. The source is placed at the same position centered between
the detectors. Repeating the same calculation for the expected count
rate, we get an expected count rate of 9807.72 counts/s compared to
the experimental value of 6434.73 counts/s.

2.2

The Detectors, NaI-PMT:

We use a NaI scintillator as our main detector followed by a photomultiplier


tube (PMT) which amplifies the signal to be ready for processing. We use
two of this NaI-PMT detectors, one of them is fixed at some angle, and the
other is movable in a carriage around a circular track as shown in Fig 3.
2.2.1

NaI(Tl)

NaI(Tl), doped with Thallium, is the most commonly used scintillator material in gamma ray sepctroscopy. Its job is to convert incident photons on it
to a larger light signal. Gamma rays incident on it interact with the atoms in
the NaI crystal and produce more photons. The intensity of produced light
must go linearly with the incident gamma ray energy to reflect it for later
analysis. NaI(Tl) is preferred mainly because it gives a larger light yield than
the other scintilators for gamma rays at room temperature [3].
The detectors have a circular area with a diameter of 5.6 0.1 cm.

Figure 3: The source mounted between two NaI-PMT detectors, one fixed
and one movable.
2.2.2

PMT

The PMT is used to turn light produced by the NaI(Tl) detector into an
amplified electric signal. The basic PMT components are shown in Fig 4 [3].

Figure 4: Photomultiplier Tube (PMT)


First a photocathode interacts with the photons and produces electrons
of a proportional energy. These electrons can be emitted by three main different mechanisms: the photoelectric effect, which is dominant in low gamma
energies up to several hundereds KeVs, Compton scattering and pair production which requires energies in the range of few MeVs.
The photoelectric effect is usually the one with the best reflection of the
incident peak since in the photoelectric effect, the total energy of the incident
photon transfers to the ejected electron. Meanwhile, Compton scattering will
cause the ejected electron to have a wide range of energies based on the angle
8

of the incident photon and its energy. Thats why the typical spectra of PMTs
show a wide plateau at lower energies corresponding to Compton scattering
[4]. The Compton scattering for a gamma ray with a certain energy has to
end at a certain maximum energy delivered to the electron, known as the
Compton edge which is less than the energy of the incident photon E [4].
Compton Edge =

2E2
me c2 + 2E

(8)

Also, some of the gamma rays will backscatter with any material around
the detector, and hence will be detected with much less energy. Therefore, a
typical gamma ray spectrum will first have a backscattering peak, followed
by a Compton plateau that ends at the Compton edge, then the photopeak
produced by the photoelectric effect, which is usually a gaussian centered at
the energy of the photon, as shown in Fig 5 [4].

Figure 5: A typical gamma ray spectrum


After the photocathode emits electrons, they get amplified through a series of dynodes in an electron multiplier module. A final amplified electric
signal is generated in both the final dynode (positive signal) and anode (negative signal) as in Fig 4. The output gets spread as a gaussian because of
statistical path differences between electrons and the FWHM of the pulse
represents the resolution time of the device [3].
The detector is powered by a high voltage supply that provides negative
voltage in the range of -2 to -2.5 KV.

2.3

Coincidence Circuit

It is a series of modules designed to count events happening in the two detector only if they are simultaneous. The anode signal from each detector is
connected to a separate CF discriminator which filters the events from the
PMT to only events within a specified range of energies. This is how we can
limit the counts to the events around the relevant peaks in our radioactive
sources spectra.
The output of the CF discriminator, which is pulses with uniform shape, is
connected to a scaler, to count the total number of events within the specified
range without the coincidence limitation. More importantly, the output of
the CF discriminator is also connected to the rest of the coincidence circuit.
A Time to Amplitude Converter (TAC) is used to make sure the two signals
happen at the same time. This is done by delaying one of the CF discriminator outputs using an analog delay module (up to 63 ns of delay) and the
other is not delayed. The delayed signal goes into the stop input of the TAC
while the other CF signal goes into the start input. The TAC then produces
a signal at an amplitude proportional to the specified delay only if the two
signals arrive simultaneously. Note that adding a delay is necessary since
otherwise with time difference of 0, simultaneous events will appear as a zero
amplitude TAC output signal.
The output of the TAC is then integrated using a Pulse Height Analyzer
(PHA) and displayed on a computer.
An oscilloscope is also used to have a look at the different signals at intermediate stages.
The coincidence circuit schematic is shown in Fig 6.

Figure 6: A schematic of the coincidence circuit


More information about the models of equipment used is presented in
10

Appendix A.

3
3.1

Procedure
The dynode and anode signals

Using first the 22 Na source, we adjust the high voltages applied to each PMT
to generate almost equal amplitude anode signals. The values used were 2 and
2.08 KV. Analyzing using the scope, the anodes produce a negative signal
whenever a photon is detected. The dynode signal is similar but positive
and with lower amplitude since it is the signal before the final acceleration to
reach the final anode. The dynode signal had a peak of 0.96 V and a width
of 282.3 ns while the anode signal had a peak of 1.66 V and a time width of
325.6 ns as shown in Figs 7 and 8. Both peaks of the two anodes have been
made equal by adjusting the power supply.

Figure 7: The anode signal capturing one event

11

Figure 8: The dynode signal capturing one event

3.2

Generating the spectrum

Using the PHA unit, we get the following experimental spectrum of 22 Na


using the amplified dynode signal of one of the detectors. The spectrum
with elapsed time of 20 minutes is shown in Fig 9.

12

Figure 9: The spectrum of the Na source


The curve shows the Compton plateau followed by the two expected photopeaks at 511 keV and 1275 keV. Calibrating the values of the curve on
the 511 keV gives that the 2nd peak is at 1195 KeV which is close to the
expected value, so we are sure that the first peak is the peak we are after
producing the two simultaneous gamma rays.

3.3

Selecting the relevant peak

The next step is to use the CF discriminator to limit our signals to the ones
which are around the 511 keV peak. This is done by using the SCA (Single
Channel Analyzer) output of the CF discriminator as an indicator of having a
signal that is within the limits set by the two knobs in the CF discriminator.
The SCA output looked like a rectangle pulse of width 2 s and height of
6 V which happen simultaneous to the detection of a filtered event by the
CF. We used the fact that we have two simultaneous signals from the same
detector, the anode and dynode signals to use one of them as a timing clock
controlling the other one. The SCA output of one CF discriminator whose
input is the anode signal of a PMT is connected as the gate input to the
PHA. The gate input controls which events are counted by the PHA, only
inputs within the signal of the gate input will be counted in the PHA. The
dynode signal of the same PMT is amplified and then connected to the direct
input of the PHA so that we can select the relevant peak of it by adjusting

13

the min and max knobs of the CF. This process is shown in block diagram
in Fig 10.

Figure 10: Block diagram of the circuit used to bracket the relevant photopeak using the CF discriminator
The SCA output is approximated as a square wave as shown in Fig 11.
As the figure shows, the dynode signal indeed occurs within the time of the
SCA pulse.

Figure 11: The SCA output of and the associated dynode signal (with no
amplification)
Then this section is completed by performing the process in Fig 10 for
the two PMTS for the 22 Na source with adjusting the low and high threshold
of the two CF discriminators to only accept the relevant peak events.

14

3.4

Time calibration of the TAC

After selecting events of the wanted peaks, the outputs of the two CF discriminators need to be correlated using the TAC as highlighted by Fig 6. To
do so, the TAC needs to be time calibrated with the PHA on the computer.
So, we connect one CF output signal directly to the start of the TAC, and
connect a delayed version of some known delay time to the stop signal as
illustrated in Fig 12.

Figure 12: A block diagram of the circuit used to calibrate the TAC output
Then we can calibrate the TAC output using the known delay. We used
delay times of 16, 32 and 40 ns to calibrate the output.
We also note that the CF outputs used to operate the TAC have standardized shape for all events. Any event captured within the CF thresholds
has the same width and height, which increases the timing precision for the
TAC. The uniform CF output shape observed is shown in Fig 13. They have
a width of around 10 ns and an amplitude of 0.75 V.

15

Figure 13:
event

The uniform output of the CF discriminator for any counted

After the calibration, the TAC becomes ready to collect coincidence data.
The same procedure is used with the 60 Co source. The spectrum of it
is found to be as shown in Fig 14. The two photopeaks occurring after the
Compton plateau have calibrated energies of 1.17 and 1.3 MeV, matching
the theoretical decay scheme in Fig 2.

Figure 14: The obtained spectrum for

16

60

Co

4
4.1

Data and analysis


Na source

A delay of 63 ns is used for the coincidence circuit and coincidence counts


are collected for angles around 180 .
Since the data will follow a Poisson
distribution, the error of N counts is N . So, to obtain 1% statistics, we
need to collect at least 10000 counts for each angle. The counts for angles
between 165 and 180 along with our accidental data at 90 using a 63 ns
delay and counting for 200s is shown in Fig 15. Each graph is fitted to a
Gaussian and then the FWHM is calculated for each. The net counts and
FWHM of each angle is tabulated in Table 1.
Angle( )
180
177.5
175
172.5
170
167.5
165
162.5
90

Delay (ns)
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63

Net counts
Time (s) 1s
66091 257.08
200
62255 249.51
200
45842 214.11
200
29231 170.97
200
13992 118.29
200
3701 60.84
200
814 28.53
200
686 26.19
200
397 19.92
200

FWHM (ns)
2.6959 0.01049
2.7834 0.01116
2.7269 0.01274
2.8358 0.01659
2.8211 0.02385
3.2474 0.05338
5.2355 0.18350
5.4246 0.20711
7.62 0.38244

Table 1: Counts and FWHM for different angles for the Na source

17

(a) 180

(b) 177.5

(c) 175

(d) 172.5

(e) 170

(f) 167.5

(g) 165

(h) 90 , accidental coincidence

Figure 15: Counts vs delay time for different angles for the Na source using
63 ns delay

18

Using the values we got for the width of each peak, the weighted average
value for the FWHM is 2.995 ns with a standard deviation of 0.105 ns. This
is our approximate value for the resolving time of the experiment. Any two
events within that time are considered simultaneous. This of course causes
accidental events to be counted as simultaneous. To get a theoretical estimate
of that accidental rate, we use the equation
Naccidental = 2 N1 N2

(9)

where = 2.995 0.105 ns is the resolving time and N1 and N2 are the
singles rates for the two PMTS [5]. Using our data for the singles rates,
N1 =1184.92 10.31 Hz and N2 =1386.82 12.21 Hz, we get an accidental
rate of 0.0098 0.0004 Hz.
However, the measured accidental rate is 1.985 0.1 Hz. This big discrepancy might be caused by other processes than the 511 keV emission which
we limit our scaler counts to.
So, we take the experimental data at the 90 angle to be our accidental data.
Subtracting them from each data point gives us the corrected counts.
To compare our results to the theoretical result of equation (4), we must
modify it to account for the fact that our detectors have finite dimensions.
We will account for that first by making a 2D analysis of our detectors. Given
our measurements of the detector sizes and approximating the source to be
of negligible thickness, our analysis in Fig 16 shows that we should expect
to get no coincidence counts after an angle deviation of 16.34 0.46 . This
agrees with our data since our count rate significantly drops at angles further
than 163.66 .

19

Figure 16: 2D analysis of our detectors to predict the limiting angles of the
actual correlation function
In order to predict the actual angular behavior with the finite detector
size, we performed a Monte Carlo simulation with the dimensions of the
apparatus. The experimental angular correlation function is compared to
the Monte Carlo predictions in Fig 17. The errors have been propagated
using the standard formula.

Figure 17: The corrected experimental angular correlation function of


sodium-22 vs Monte Carlo simulation results to account for detector sizes
we see that our data is consistent with the Monte Carlo simulation and
hence the theoretical prediction of equation (4) within our modifications.

20

The Monte Carlo prediction is higher at lower angles because the efficiency
of our detectors decreases for photons reaching at an angle to the detector.

4.2

Co Source

Since the correlation function is expected to have significant values at all


angles, we took data for angles between 90 and 180 degrees with 10 degrees
resolution with delay time 63 ns for 750s. The cobalt data are shown in Table
2. The graphs are shown in Fig 18 with their Poisson error bars.
Angle( ) Delay (ns)
180
63
170
63
160
63
150
63
140
63
130
63
120
63
110
63
100
63
90
63

Net counts
Time (s)
12274 110.79
750
11972 109.42
750
11846 108.84
750
11540 107.42
750
11508 107.28
750
11367 106.62
750
11073 105.23
750
11073 105.23
750
10894 104.37
750
10428 102.12
750

FWHM (ns)
1.8354 0.01657
1.7865 0.01633
1.8167 0.01669
1.8120 0.01687
1.8424 0.01717
1.8123 0.01700
1.8261 0.01735
1.8348 0.01744
1.8575 0.01780
1.842 0.01804

Table 2: Counts and FWHM for different angles for the Co source

21

(a) 180

(b) 170

(c) 160

(d) 150

(e) 140

(f) 130

(g) 120

(h) 110

22
(i) 100

(j) 90

Figure 18: Counts vs delay time for different angles for the Co source using
63 ns delay

The resolution time is then calculated to be 1.8266 0.02 ns.


So, the accidental rate is calculated using equation (9) to be 0.14
0.0016 Hz. Using that we correct our counts. In addition, a fit was made to
fit the corrected experimental data to a function 1 + a1 cos2 () + a2 cos4 ().
The fit gives values for a1 to be 0.2431 0.0548 and a2 to be -0.0884
0.0689 with 2 =0.0041 and an adjusted R squared value of 0.9996. But to
better compare theses results to the theoretical model, we have to account
for the smearing of the correlation function caused by the detector size. A
2D numerical integration convolving the theoretical w() with the effect of
rotating the finite detector was performed to calculate the effect of smearing
on the angular correlation function. The result of integration was fitted again
to the same function. The result of the fit is close the original theoretical
function, so we see that the detector sizes did not significantly affect the
correlation function. The fit gives a1 of 0.1247 compared to the original
0.125 and a2 of 0.0396 compared to the original 0.0833.
To conclude our comparison, the corrected data are drawn with its fit and
with the integrated correlation function in Fig 19.

Figure 19: W() for the cobalt source as corrected experimental data vs its
fit and the theoretical model
Although our measurements are not perfectly matching the prediction,
we see that most of the theoretical points lie within our error bars of the
fit. We also still get the predicted
shape and the value for the measured
w(180 )w(90 )
of 0.1788 0.0016 is within 7.26% error of the
anisotropy A =
w(90 )
23

theoretical value of 0.1667.


The noticeable difference between the fit parameters and the theoretical parameters may have occurred because of taking the data over different
days and the conditions for the apparatus may have changed. Noticing that
readings of angles from 120 to 180 were taken on a separate day than the
remaining data , we do a check by fitting the data from a single day only.
The fit gives a1 of 0.1796 0.055 and a2 of -0.0324 0.063 with an adjusted
R squared value of 0.9999. We see now that the parameters a1 and a2 are
closer to the theoretical values. The new curves are shown in Fig 20.

Figure 20: W() for the cobalt source for data taken in a single day as
corrected experimental data vs its fit and the theoretical model
Therefore, we confirm that the Na source matches the expected delta
angular distribution function and the cobalt data is consistent with the 4-2-0
decay scheme withing our error estimates.

Possible Sources of Error

Although our data matches theory within our estimates of error, there were
more sources of error that can be worked on for future work.

24

For both sodium and cobalt sources, a 3D solid angle approach to model
the detectors will help in decreasing the errors.Especially for the sodium
source, using smaller detectors and sources will enhance the accuracy of measuring the correlation function. Also, increasing the time of collection for each
angle to make each channel in the gaussian peak reach 1% error instead of
focusing on the net counts in the peak will decrease the statistical error.
For the cobalt source, we did not have a concrete way to measure the
experimental accidental rate since we have non-trivial counts at all angles.
One way to measure that will be by delaying one of the two PMT output
signals such that the two simultaneous signals are not counted as coincident
and then measuring the remaining counts.
One of the reasons why accidental counts happen in the Na source is that
the decaying positronium might not be at rest. It can have some kinetic energy in the range of the binding energy of it which causes the angle between
two gamma rays to be different from 180 .
In addition, one main source of error is taking data for the same source
on different days to make sure the setup did not change. Also, to increase
the precision of our data, data points can be taken with small spacing between each other. Taking data with a step of 1 will decrease the statistical
uncertainty which causes the fit to have statistical fluctuations.

Conclusion

Our measurements show that the gamma rays emitted from each of the 22 Na
and 60 Co sources are correlated in angles. Their correlation function can
be theoretically predicted as in equations (4) and (6), respectively. Our
experiment results agree to the predictions within our windows of error. To
get more accurate experimental results, more careful data collection measures
should be applied. For example, data can be taken for longer periods and
with smaller size detectors.

25

Appendix A: Coincidence Circuit Equipment


ORTEC 583B Constant Fraction Differential Discriminator, Fig 21

Figure 21: The CF discriminators


26

720 Mech-Tronics 20 MHz Scaler, Fig 22

Figure 22: The Scaler


Fluke 415B High Voltage Power Supply, Fig 23
27

Figure 23: The High voltage power supply


500 Mech-Tronics Amplifier, Fig 24

28

Figure 24: The amplifier


Delay unit, Fig 25

29

Figure 25: The delay unit


ORTEC 467 Time to Pulse Height Converter/SCA, Fig 26

30

Figure 26: The TAC


Tektronix TDS210 Digital Oscilloscope, Fig 27

31

Figure 27: The oscilloscope

References
[1] Curran D. Muhlberger. Experiment ix: Angular correlation of gamma
rays. University of Maryland, College Park, 2008.
[2] E. L. Brady and M. Deutsch. Angular correlation of successive gammarays. Phys. Rev., 78:558566, Jun 1950.
[3] Glenn F Knoll. Radiation detection and measurement. John Wiley &
Sons, 2010.
[4] Gamma-ray spectra. Department of Physics University of Toronto, 2008.
[5] Jr Fort A. Veser. Gamma-gamma angular correlation in the decay of
cobalt 60. Masters thesis, United States Naval Postgraduate School,
1960.

32

Você também pode gostar