[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Co-57 Gamma Constant



I'm not sure if you got the answer to your question or not.  Here's what I

know from the Engineering Compendium.  The compendium portion you cited is

actually an article by O. Suschny.  There are some 5.5 pages of nuclides,

half-lives, types of decay and gamma energies listed in that table.  His

citation for the gamma constants in that table states: "Most gamma values

have been taken from 'The Radiochemical Manual' published by the

Radiochemical Centre Amersham."  To get to the actual data to answer your

question, you would have to lay your hands on - The Radiochemical Manual,

2nd Ed, from The Radiochemical Centre, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, 1966 which

I do not have access to.



As an educated guess, I would say that the value in that table was obtained

by Amersham in their labs using available dosimetry and measurement

equipment. Similar values were obtained in that manner such as for other

sources used to study Mossbauer effects (e.g. sn-113). 



Good Luck.



The opinions expressed are mine, all mine...

I'm with the government, I'm here to help

Daren Perrero

perrero@iema.state.il.us









-----Original Message-----

From: Roy A. Parker [mailto:royaparker@COMPUSERVE.COM]

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:02 PM

To: RADSAFE

Subject: Co-57 Gamma Constant





There seems to be two prevailing Gamma Constants in the literature for

Co-57: 0.15 RHM/Ci and 0.09 RHM/Ci.  The first Gamma Constant, 0.15 RHM/Ci,

seems to be derived from ORNL/RSIC-45/R1 Specific Gamma-Ray Dose Constants

for Nuclides Important to Dosimetry and Radiological Assessment.  The

second,

0.09 RHM/Ci, seems to go back to Jaeger, R. G., et al., Engineering

Compendium on Radiation Shielding, Vol. 1, (New York: Springer-Verlag,

1968), pp. 21-30.  I am trying to understand the difference between the two

values.  The ORNL/RSIC value of 0.15 RHM/Ci is strictly computational.  I do

not have a copy of Jaeger.  Is his value based on actual measurement and is

it a lower value because of source size (self absorption) and/or attenuation

because of encapsulation or covering on the source?



Roy A. Parker, Ph.D.

roy@royparker.org

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/