Cross Sections for Neutron Scattering in Different Frames

  • Thread starter Thread starter vanesch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cross
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of neutron scattering cross sections found on the NNDC website, specifically whether the incident energy is measured in the lab frame or the center of mass (COM) frame. It is clarified that for a 1 MeV neutron impacting thermal hydrogen, the energy should be read as 1 MeV in the lab frame. The mention of 250 keV relates to the COM frame, where the kinetic energy is reduced due to the relative motion of the hydrogen nucleus. The participants confirm that the angular distribution is indeed provided in the COM frame, but the cross section data is applicable in the lab frame. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding frame references when analyzing neutron scattering data.
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
20
This is probably a very dumb question, but I'm stuck with it.
The cross sections one finds on http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/ as a function of incident energy, is that energy given in the lab frame or in the cog frame ?
For heavy a nuclide, this doesn't matter, but for hydrogen for instance ?
If I have a (lab frame) neutron at 1MeV impinging on (thermal) hydrogen, do I read the table at 1MeV or at 250KeV ?

Thanks,
cheers,
Patrick.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
As far as I know, one uses the lab frame, i.e. a 1 MeV neutron has incident energy of 1 MeV.

Where did the 250 keV come from? COM?
 
Astronuc said:
As far as I know, one uses the lab frame, i.e. a 1 MeV neutron has incident energy of 1 MeV.

Where did the 250 keV come from? COM?

Yes: half the speed (for hydrogen), hence 1/4 the KE...

Thanks for the answer !

In fact, this is how I wrote a Monte Carlo, and then I got worried that the energy might be given in the COM frame, because the angular distribution is, as far as I understand, given in the COM frame.
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top