How Is Proper Calibration Achieved for SCAs Using Cesium-137?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nomy-the wanderer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Instruments
AI Thread Summary
Proper calibration of SCAs using Cesium-137 involves establishing a relationship between the voltage settings and the energy of detected photons. This is achieved by creating a region of interest (ROI) around the 612 keV to 712 keV range, where the highest count rate is identified. Calibration processes focus on the SCA and MCA rather than the probes themselves, such as the NaI detector. The quantum efficiency of the PMT is crucial and can be determined using a weak light source with variable wavelengths. Overall, effective calibration ensures accurate detection and measurement of gamma radiation.
Nomy-the wanderer
Messages
172
Reaction score
1
What can be defined as a proper calibration process for such an instrument?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The PMT itself ? Or integrated in an instrument ?

In pulse mode, what would give you the "calibration" of a PMT is the quantum efficiency as a function of wavelength. That can be done by having a weak light source of variable wavelength, and calibrating the count rate against the count rate of a PMT with known quantum efficiency for instance.
 
How about a PMT connected to an NaI detector, and a nim with an amplifier and a SCA + counter...
 
Calibrations are performed on SCAs and MCAs, not the probes (ie. the NaI probe)themselves. Since this is an SCA, you want to create a relationship between the knob that increases voltage and the energy of the photons being detected. This is done by creating a region of interest (ROI) and finding which setting of the knob creates the highest count rate in that ROI. Typically its performed with cesium-137 and an ROI of 612keV to 712 keV.
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Back
Top