Aluminium fast neutron leakage spectrum validation

Adam Gre\v{s}; Alena Krechlerov\'a; Bohumil J\'ansk\'y; Ev\v{z}en Nov\'ak; Jan \v{S}imon; Ji\v{r}\'i Rejchrt; Martin Schulc; Michal Ko\v{s}\v{t}\'al; Tom\'a\v{s} Czakoj; Zden\v{e}k Mat\v{e}j

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Aluminium fast neutron leakage spectrum validation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read With a $^{252}$Cf source in an aluminum block, this paper validates ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, and JENDL-5 fast neutron transport within two sigma except in narrow bands; gold capture is overpredicted at every depth.

desk verdict A useful new aluminum benchmark that needs a fix: the gold capture anomaly is probably a self-shielding artifact and the data aren't public. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19861 v1 pith:FXJR53QE submitted 2025-06-10 physics.app-ph nucl-ex

Martin Schulc , Tomáš Czakoj , Evžen Novák , Alena Krechlerová , Adam Greš , Jan Šimon , Bohumil Jánský , Jiří Rejchrt

show 2 more authors

Michal Košťál Zdeněk Matěj

This is my paper

classification physics.app-phnucl-ex

keywords neutronleakagespectrum252Cfsourcealuminumcross-sectionvalidationactivationfoilsMCNP6.2simulationENDF/B-VIII.0JEFF-3.3JENDL-5

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper works to establish that three evaluated neutron transport libraries — ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, and JENDL-5 — reproduce how fast neutrons from a $^{252}$Cf source leak through and activate a large aluminum block. Leakage spectra from 0.1 to 13 MeV and the reaction rates of seven activation reactions at depths up to about 21 cm were measured and compared with MCNP6.2 simulations. All libraries agree with experiment within two $\sigma$ over most of the energy range; the stated exceptions are JENDL-5 in 1.8–3.4 MeV and ENDF/B-VIII.0, together with JEFF-3.3, in 1.06–1.3 MeV. The one systematic failure is the $^{197}$Au$(n,\gamma)^{198}$Au capture reaction, whose calculated rate overshoots the measurement by roughly 15 to 33 percent and grows with depth for every library. Aluminum is a principal structural material in nuclear installations, so mapping exactly where the evaluated data are dependable and where they are not matters for design and safety calculations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing apparatus is a 50.18 cm × 50.12 cm × 54.42 cm aluminum block assembled from eleven plates, with a $^{252}$Cf spontaneous-fission source — emission around $2\times10^8$ neutrons per second, calibrated by a manganese-sulfate bath — at its geometric center, activation foils between plates at depths from 1.18 to 20.95 cm, and two proton-recoil spectrometers outside: a hydrogen-filled proportional detector covering 0.1–1.3 MeV and a stilbene scintillator covering 0.9–13 MeV, with a shielded-cone measurement subtracted as background. The argument-carrying comparison is MCNP6.2 with only the aluminum transport cross sections swapped between ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, and JENDL-5, while all activation cross sections come from the IRDFF-II dosimetry file; the simulated fluxes are Gaussian-broadened to the measured detector resolution, and every conclusion rests on the $\mathrm{C/E}-1$ ratios inside a two-$\sigma$ uncertainty budget that covers source emission, geometry, detector efficiency and calibration, and counting statistics.

What would settle it

Irradiate paired bare and cadmium-covered (thermal-neutron-blocking) gold foils at the same depths, 1.18 to 16.01 cm, in a replicate block. If the covered foils match simulation while the bare foils keep the growing 15–33 percent overprediction, the bias lies in the predicted thermal and epithermal flux; if both stay discrepant, the $^{197}$Au$(n,\gamma)^{198}$Au cross section in IRDFF-II is the likely cause — either outcome sharpens or overturns the paper's attribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the measured fast neutron leakage spectrum of the $^{252}$Cf-driven aluminum block is matched by MCNP6.2 simulations with all three libraries within two $\sigma$ across most of the 0.1–13 MeV range, the exceptions being JENDL-5 over 1.8–3.4 MeV and ENDF/B-VIII.0, with JEFF-3.3 behaving nearly identically, over 1.06–1.3 MeV. The activation set corroborates the libraries: the threshold reactions $^{58}$Ni$(n,p)^{58}$Co, $^{92}$Mo$(n,p)^{92m}$Nb, natTi$(n,X)^{46}$Sc, natTi$(n,X)^{47}$Sc, and $^{115}$In$(n,n')^{115m}$In, together with the capture reactions $^{63}$Cu$(n,\gamma)^{64}$Cu and $^{181}$Ta$(n,\gamma)^{182}$Ta, fall within two $\sigma$ of experiment, with JENDL-5 slightly closest overall and the indium comparison worsening with aluminum thickness for every library. The single systematic discrepancy is gold capture: the calculated rate exceeds the measured one by about 15 to 33 percent in $\mathrm{C/E}-1$ units, growing with depth and independent of the transport library — a result the paper classifies as unsatisfactory and leaves for further refinement.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the IRDFF-II activation cross sections are accurate; if the $^{197}$Au$(n,\gamma)^{198}$Au cross section in that dosimetry file is biased, the paper's conclusion that the transport libraries mispredict the gold reaction rate would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Aluminum transport calculations in reactor and shielding applications can treat ENDF/B-VIII.0 and JEFF-3.3 as nearly interchangeable for fast fluxes, with a shared caveat in the 1.06–1.3 MeV band where both deviate by more than one sigma.
JENDL-5 gives the closest activation-rate predictions in this benchmark, but its 1.8–3.4 MeV flux deviation marks an aluminum evaluation feature that a future revision would need to correct.
The gold capture overprediction, growing from about 15 to 33 percent with depth, becomes a quantitative constraint on the next round of gold dosimetry and aluminum transport evaluations alike.
The measured spectra and reaction rates in this simple slab geometry form a benchmark that future aluminum evaluations can be checked against without a new experiment, and the same plate-stack design carries over to other structural materials.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the depth trend in the gold discrepancy — $\mathrm{C/E}-1$ climbing from about 14.7 percent at 1.18 cm to about 33 percent at 16.01 cm — is the sharpest clue the paper leaves unanalyzed; a bias that grows with depth points to the accumulated thermal and epithermal flux rather than a single resonance, and paired bare and cadmium-covered gold foils would separate those contribut
Editorial inference: because every library shares the same IRDFF-II dosimetry file, the paper's verdict on aluminum transport is conditional on that file's gold evaluation; recomputing the same measured rates with an updated $^{197}$Au$(n,\gamma)$ cross section would settle whether the transport libraries or the dosimetry standard carries the bias.
Editorial inference: the indium agreement tends to worsen with thickness (JENDL-5 moves from $\mathrm{C/E}-1$ of $-2.3\%$ at 1.18 cm to $-10.2\%$ at 20.95 cm), hinting that the fast-neutron population at depth is slightly underpredicted; adding reactions tied to the $^{27}$Al$(n,\alpha)$ or $^{27}$Al$(n,2n)$ channels at the deepest foils would localize a possible inelastic-source error.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a straightforward validation study: new leakage and activation data for a 252Cf-driven aluminum block, compared against three transport libraries. The measurement program is established by the group; the new piece is the aluminum dataset itself, not a new method. That is fine—integral benchmarks of this kind are exactly what nuclear data evaluators need. The uncertainty budget is detailed, the C/E comparisons are honest, and the use of an externally calibrated source and IRDFF-II cross sections gives the experiment credibility. Credit where due: this is a clean, useful measurement.

The soft spots are real but fixable. The gold capture discrepancy is the load-bearing one. The paper computes reaction rates as the average F4 flux in the foil multiplied by the IRDFF-II cross section, with no explicit foil self-shielding or flux perturbation treatment. For a strong resonant absorber like gold, that is not a negligible correction. The systematic rise in C/E with depth—14.4% to 33.7% as the spectrum softens—looks like a self-shielding bias growing with thermal/epithermal fraction, not a uniform cross-section error. The paper reports the gold failure without diagnosing it, and the conclusion that only gold fails may be wrong. They need to either model the foil explicitly (e.g., with an FM card and proper geometry) or soften the gold claim. The absence of raw data and MCNP inputs makes this impossible to check from the outside, which is a second real weakness for a benchmark paper.

A third, smaller issue: the phrase "all other results are reasonable" hides some large outliers. The indium C/E at 20.95 cm is -18% with 2.8% uncertainty; nickel at 16.01 cm is -12% with 2.6%. Those are outside two sigma. The abstract's two-sigma statement is specifically about the neutron spectrum, so it is technically accurate, but the activation section needs a more careful reading of what "reasonable" means.

Who is this for? Nuclear data evaluators and people maintaining transport libraries. It deserves a serious referee, because the measurement itself is valuable and the problems are addressable. My recommendation: send to peer review, but require the authors to address the gold self-shielding issue and release the data or input files as supplementary material.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports integral validation measurements for aluminum neutron transport libraries. A 252Cf source was placed at the center of an aluminum block, and the authors measured the fast neutron leakage spectrum with hydrogen-filled proportional and stilbene detectors (0.1–1.3 MeV and 0.9–13 MeV, respectively) and activation reaction rates for 115In(n,n'), 197Au(n,γ), 63Cu(n,γ), 181Ta(n,γ), 58Ni(n,p), 92Mo(n,p), and natTi(n,x) at depths from 1.18 to 25.91 cm. MCNP6.2 simulations with ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, and JENDL-5 transport data, using IRDFF-II activation cross sections, are compared with measurements via C/E ratios. The main claims are that all libraries agree with the measured fast leakage spectrum within two sigma except JENDL-5 in 1.8–3.4 MeV and ENDF/B-VIII.0/JEFF-3.3 in 1.06–1.3 MeV, and that activation results are reasonable except for the 197Au(n,γ) reaction, which is discrepant for all libraries and depths.

Significance. The experiment is a useful integral benchmark: the geometry is simple, the 252Cf source emission was calibrated at NPL, multiple activation reactions cover both threshold and capture responses, and three modern evaluated libraries are compared. The paper reports forward calculations with no fitted parameters, and the C/E presentation is honest, including regions that exceed one sigma. The unresolved gold discrepancy and the modeling question around it limit the current strength of the validation claim, but the dataset itself is valuable for nuclear data validation. The manuscript would be substantially strengthened by including the raw spectra, input files, and a quantitative uncertainty budget for the leakage spectrum.

major comments (3)

[Monte Carlo transport simulations / Table 4] The conclusion that 197Au(n,γ) is the only inconsistent reaction is not supported because the simulation method as described may bias the gold capture rate. The paper states: 'The reaction rates were calculated using the neutron flux in the activation detector multiplied by the activation cross section of the dosimeter.' That is, an F4 track-length flux tally in the foil region was multiplied by the IRDFF-II cross section, without an explicit transport-based reaction-rate estimator that accounts for the foil's self-shielding and flux depression. Gold has a large thermal and epithermal capture cross section, and the foils (0.05–0.06 mm thick) are not infinitesimally thin. The systematic increase of C/E from 14.4% at 1.18 cm to 33.7% at 16.01 cm is qualitatively consistent with a growing self-shielding/flux-perturbation bias as the spectrum softens. The authors should demonstrate, e.g., by comparing with an explicit FM4 reaction-rate tally or a detailed foil model with correct geometry and material, that the F4-flux-times-cross-section approach is unbiased for gold. Without this, the gold discrepancy cannot be attributed to the transport libraries or to IRDFF-II.
[Results / Figure 8] The headline two-sigma statement is not quantitatively supported. The paper presents a one-sigma uncertainty band in Figure 8, but it does not itemize the components (detector efficiency, energy calibration, source emission, positioning, statistics) or state how the band was propagated from the measurements. Since the central validation claim depends on whether C/E departs by more than two sigma, the authors should report the numerical uncertainty budget for the spectrum, or at least reference the specific equations or tables in reference [8] that define it. Without this, the deviation of JENDL-5 in the 1.8–3.4 MeV region cannot be distinguished from an underestimated systematic uncertainty.
[Conclusions / Table 4] The manuscript does not attempt to diagnose the gold discrepancy, yet the conclusion states that all libraries generally offer good agreement except for 197Au(n,γ). This is too strong given that the origin is undetermined. At minimum, the authors should compare the C/E for gold with the C/E for the other capture reactions (63Cu and 181Ta) at the same depths, and decompose the gold response into thermal, epithermal, and resonance contributions using the calculated flux spectra and the IRDFF-II group cross sections. A decomposition would clarify whether the issue is the gold resonance integral, the thermal component, or a fluence/self-shielding effect. The paper's own text acknowledges that the gold result is 'unsatisfactory' regardless of library, but it stops short of the diagnostic analysis needed to support a library-validation claim.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and general text] There are several typographical errors, including 'achived' in the abstract, 'worser' in the Results section, and a broken cross-reference 'Eq. Chyba! Nenalezen zdroj odkazů.' immediately before Eq. (1). These should be corrected in a revised manuscript.
[Monte Carlo transport simulations] The description of the resolution broadening is incomplete: the text mentions 'Gaussian broadening' but does not specify the kernel parameters or whether the same broadening was applied to both the HPD and stilbene calculations. Please state the energy-resolution function used for each detector.
[Table 4] The reaction label '92Mo(n,p)92*Nb' should be corrected to '92Mo(n,p)92mNb' or the asterisk notation should be defined, since the text and Table 2 use '92Mo(n,p)92mNb'.
[Figure 7 and Figure 8] The captions and legends should be more explicit: Figure 7 should state what the curves and bands represent (e.g., Gaussian-broadened calculations, measured points, one-sigma uncertainty), and Figure 8 should identify the energy regions where the C/E exceeds the plotted one-sigma band rather than leaving the reader to estimate them from the graph.
[Data availability] The paper does not state whether the raw experimental spectra, activation data, or MCNP input files are available. Given that the paper's validation claims rest on reproducibility, an explicit data availability statement would be valuable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: forward transport validation with independent libraries and no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper performs forward MCNP6.2 calculations using independently evaluated transport libraries (ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, JENDL-5), the standard IRDFF-II 252Cf source spectrum, and IRDFF-II activation cross sections. No parameters are fitted to the measured reaction rates or leakage spectra, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the measured data. Activation reaction rates are computed as the F4 track-length flux in the foil region multiplied by the IRDFF-II cross section, while the experimental rate q from Eq. (1) is obtained independently from gamma spectrometry. The conclusions are C/E comparisons, so the derivation chain is input libraries to transport to predicted rates and spectra to comparison. The self-citations [1,3,8] describe measurement and unfolding methodology, but the validation conclusion does not rest on an unverified uniqueness theorem, a fitted parameter, or an ansatz smuggled in by citation. The 197Au(n,γ)198Au disagreement is reported as an anomaly, not as a prediction forced by construction; whether it originates in foil self-shielding or cross-section bias is a correctness concern, not circularity. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-load-bearing step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the standard 252Cf spectrum, the IRDFF-II dosimetry cross sections, the fidelity of the MCNP model, and the HPGe efficiency calibration. None of these are fitted in this paper; they are inputs from prior literature. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 252Cf(sf) neutron spectrum from IRDFF-II is accurate.
Used as the source term in all MCNP simulations; any error directly shifts calculated fluxes and reaction rates. The paper cites the IRDFF-II standard spectrum without independent verification beyond the NPL Mn-bath intensity calibration.
domain assumption The IRDFF-II activation cross sections for the seven dosimetry reactions are accurate.
Reaction rates are converted from calculated fluxes using these cross sections. A bias, particularly for 197Au(n,γ)198Au, would appear as an apparent transport-library discrepancy. The paper invokes this in the Monte Carlo section, stating 'Activation cross sections were taken from IRDFF-II library.'
domain assumption The MCNP6.2 geometry model matches the experimental arrangement.
The paper states 'The calculation model incorporated all available data into the MCNP model' but does not provide the input file, so the fidelity of the geometry and material composition cannot be independently checked.
domain assumption The HPGe detector efficiency calibration via MCNP is correct.
Measured activities depend on the absolute efficiency; the detector is described as well-characterized in reference [5], but no validation data are shown in this paper.
domain assumption The aluminum composition from XRF is correct within stated uncertainties.
The small Fe and V impurities affect neutron transport; the Fe mass fraction carries 9% relative uncertainty, which propagates into calculated fluxes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aluminium fast neutron leakage spectrum validation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXJR53QE

@misc{pith2026250619861,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aluminium fast neutron leakage spectrum validation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXJR53QE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19861}
}

read the original abstract

Aluminum is a crucial material in the nuclear industry, valued for its ability to perform reliably over time. The manuscript focuses on validating aluminum neutron transport libraries. The validation was conducted by activating samples in different positions, and measuring the fast neutron spectrum in the energy range of 0.1 MeV to 1.3 MeV by means of a proportional detector filled with hydrogen and, in the energy range of 1-12 MeV using a scintillation stilbene detector. Validation experiments were performed on the aluminium block with a central hole which was assembled from smaller aluminum plates. The dosimetric reactions studied for validation purposes were 58Ni(n,p)58Co, 197Au(n,g)198Au, 63Cu(n,g)64Cu, 181Ta(n,g)182Ta, 92Mo(n,p)92mNb, natTi(n,X)46Sc, and natTi(n,X)47Sc. All experimental data were compared to MCNP6.2 simulations using the ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, and JENDL-5 neutron transport libraries. Activation cross sections were taken from IRDFF-II library. Concerning activation reactions results, unsatisfactory results are achieved for 197Au(n,g)198Au reaction regardless of thickness and library. All other results are reasonable regardless on library. JEFF-3.3 and ENDF/B-VIII.0 fast neutron flux calculations are similar.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19861 by the authors.

**Figure 6.** Aluminium block with shielding cones (iron and borated polyethylene cylinders) and HPD detector, dimensions in cm. The relevant uncertainties which were taken into account were: uncertainty in the positions and dimensions of the samples and detector, aluminium density, total neutron emission of 252Cf the source, energy and efficiency calibration uncertainty of the detectors, and statistical uncertainty in the energy… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[8]

Schulc, M

M. Schulc, M. Košťal, E.Novak, R. Kubin, J. Šimon, Application of 252Cf neutron source for precise nuclear data experiments, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 151, (2019), pp. 187– 195

work page 2019
[1]

Schulc, M

M. Schulc, M. Košťál, E Novák, V. Rypar, Measuring neutron leakage spectra using spherical benchmarks with 252Cf source in its centers, Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, A 914 (2019), pp. 53–56

work page 2019
[2]

Schulc, M

M. Schulc, M. Košťál, E. Novák, J. Šimon, Copper neutron transport libraries validation by means of a 252Cf standard neutron source, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.04.029

work page doi:10.1016/j.net.2021.04.029 2021
[3]

J ánský, E

B. J ánský, E. Novák, Z. Turzík, J. Kyncl, F. Cvachovec, L.A. Trykov and V.S. Volkov, Neutron and gamma spectra measurements and calculations in benchmark spherical iron assemblies with 252Cf neutron source in the centre, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment , Volume...

work page 2002
[4]

IRDFF-II: An Updated Neutron Metrology Library,

A. Trkov, P.J. Griffin, S.P. Simakov, L.R. Greenwood, K.I. Zolotarev, R. Capote et al., “IRDFF-II: An Updated Neutron Metrology Library,” Nuclear Data Sheets 163, 1-108, (2020)

work page 2020
[5]

Košťál, M

M. Košťál, M. Schulc et al., Validation of zirconium isotopes (n,g) and (n,2n) cross sections in a comprehensive LR-0 reactor operative parameters set, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 128, pp. 92-100, (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Matěj, Digitalization of Spectrometric System for Mixed Field of Radiation, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2014)

Z. Matěj, Digitalization of Spectrometric System for Mixed Field of Radiation, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

Matěj, F

Z. Matěj, F. Mravec, A. Jančar, M. Kostal, F. Kucera, F. Cvachovec, V. Prenosil, Z. Kopecky, J. Culen, O. Pecak , Comparison of neutron -Gamma separation qualities of various organic scintillation materials and liquid scintillator LSB-200, J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci., 7 (2) (2021), p. 24502

work page 2021

Show all 14 references

[9]

C. J. Werner, J. S. Bull, C. J. Solomon., F. B. Brown, G. W. McKinney, M. E. Rising et al.,
[10]

ENDF/B -VIII.0: The 8th Major Release of the Nuclear Reaction Data Library with CIELO-project Cross Sections, New Standards and Thermal Scattering Data

D.A. Brown, M.B. Chadwick, R. Capote et al, "ENDF/B -VIII.0: The 8th Major Release of the Nuclear Reaction Data Library with CIELO-project Cross Sections, New Standards and Thermal Scattering Data", Nucl. Data Sheets, 148 (2018), pp. 1–142

2018
[11]

A. J. M. Plompen, O. Cabellos, C. De Saint Jean, M. Fleming, A. Algora, M. Angelone et al., The joint evaluated fission and fusion nuclear data library, JEFF-3.3. The European Physical Journal A, 56(7) (2020)

2020
[12]

Status of JENDL

O. Iwamoto, N. Iwamoto, K. Shibata, A. Ichihara, S. Kunieda, F. Minato, and S. Nakayama, "Status of JENDL", EPJ Web of Conferences, 239, 09002, 1-6 (2020)

2020
[13]

Status of the Evaluation of the Neutron Spectrum of 252Cf(sf)

W. Mannhart, “Status of the Evaluation of the Neutron Spectrum of 252Cf(sf)”, IAEA Technical Report INDC(NDS) -0540, IAEA, Vienna (2008). Presentation available at www - nds.iaea.org/standards-cm-oct-2008/6.PDF

2008
[2018]

LA -UR-18-20808)

MCNP Version 6.2 Release Notes (No. LA -UR-18-20808). Los Alamos, NM (United States). https://doi.org/10.2172/1419730

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Schulc, M

M. Schulc, M. Košťal, E.Novak, R. Kubin, J. Šimon, Application of 252Cf neutron source for precise nuclear data experiments, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 151, (2019), pp. 187– 195

work page 2019

[2] [1]

Schulc, M

M. Schulc, M. Košťál, E Novák, V. Rypar, Measuring neutron leakage spectra using spherical benchmarks with 252Cf source in its centers, Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, A 914 (2019), pp. 53–56

work page 2019

[3] [2]

Schulc, M

M. Schulc, M. Košťál, E. Novák, J. Šimon, Copper neutron transport libraries validation by means of a 252Cf standard neutron source, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.04.029

work page doi:10.1016/j.net.2021.04.029 2021

[4] [3]

J ánský, E

B. J ánský, E. Novák, Z. Turzík, J. Kyncl, F. Cvachovec, L.A. Trykov and V.S. Volkov, Neutron and gamma spectra measurements and calculations in benchmark spherical iron assemblies with 252Cf neutron source in the centre, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment , Volume...

work page 2002

[5] [4]

IRDFF-II: An Updated Neutron Metrology Library,

A. Trkov, P.J. Griffin, S.P. Simakov, L.R. Greenwood, K.I. Zolotarev, R. Capote et al., “IRDFF-II: An Updated Neutron Metrology Library,” Nuclear Data Sheets 163, 1-108, (2020)

work page 2020

[6] [5]

Košťál, M

M. Košťál, M. Schulc et al., Validation of zirconium isotopes (n,g) and (n,2n) cross sections in a comprehensive LR-0 reactor operative parameters set, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 128, pp. 92-100, (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [6]

Matěj, Digitalization of Spectrometric System for Mixed Field of Radiation, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2014)

Z. Matěj, Digitalization of Spectrometric System for Mixed Field of Radiation, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [7]

Matěj, F

Z. Matěj, F. Mravec, A. Jančar, M. Kostal, F. Kucera, F. Cvachovec, V. Prenosil, Z. Kopecky, J. Culen, O. Pecak , Comparison of neutron -Gamma separation qualities of various organic scintillation materials and liquid scintillator LSB-200, J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci., 7 (2) (2021), p. 24502

work page 2021