 All right. So I was talking about fishing product yield measurements. And the last part of the last lecture had to do with low mass resolution, high efficiency measurements. And now I'm going to switch gear and talk about the more high mass resolution, but more lower efficiency measurements that we do as sort of a complementary technique to the organization chambers. So Stefan mentioned 2E-2V types of instruments yesterday, I think. And he talked about, I know he did talk about long grain, which is a mass spectrometer for fishing fragments. And then there's the Kosi-Fan Tute spectrometer that was developed also back in the 80s that is different. It doesn't use a magnet. It was a 2E-2V method. So a few years ago, we proposed building one of these 2E-2V instruments very similar to the Kosi-Fan Tute spectrometer. And there's been several other spectrometers of the same type being built. And we tried to replicate this technique. So as I mentioned, the organization chambers have something like four or five mass unit resolution. And the 2E-2V method has been shown with Kosi-Fan Tute, for example, in the past, to achieve more like one mass unit resolution for the light fragments and somewhat worse for heavy fishing fragments. So this is the spider spectrometer, the way it's currently installed in Los Alamos. It consists of a actinide sample in the center. This is a vacuum chamber. The neutron beam goes through and induces fishing in a thin sample. So you meet both of the fishing fragments. And then there's a time of light section here. So you have fast timing pickups. You measure the velocity of fishing fragments. In this case, over about 70 centimeters or so. And then at the end, we have ionization chambers where you measure the kinetic energy of the fishing fragment. So if you combine time of light with energy measurements, then you get the mass of the fragments. So in order to get to about one mass unit resolution, there are some requirements on the time of light and energy measurements. So you need to get to about 1% or so or half a percent, both on velocity and the energy in order to achieve that. So if you look at what you need to get to the mass resolution, you have to have good energy resolution of the fragments, good timing resolution. And you also need to know your flight path length. If you do time of light measurement over 70 centimeters or so, and you have to account for the different emission angles, you need some position sensitivity if you have a large efficiency instrument so you know your flight path length on an event by event basis. So this instrument was set up for both the time of light, energy measurements, and then also position information for the fission fragments. And the instrument was also designed to measure radioactive isotopes, a plutonium 239, for example. So we had to come up with a design where we could safely handle thin samples of radioactive material. If you have a carbon backing, you want to be careful not to break it and lose the plutonium somewhere in your room. So we designed a certain mechanism that allows us to encapsulate the plutonium, put it into the vacuum chamber, and then expose the sample to beam. As I said, this is under vacuum. You have to have a really good vacuum for the timing detectors to work well. And then there is a window that the fragment passes through to get into the ionization chamber that is at the pressure. So another difficulty in building one of these is to have a very thin window so that you have minimal energy loss and you achieve enough resolution or you don't have enough as little energy straggling as possible. So with the Kosey-Fanturi spectrometer, they used stretch mylar for thin windows. We wanted to go to higher angular acceptance, and then stretch mylar had some issues. The thickness of the mylar windows might vary across the surface. So we went to a different type of window, and I will show you what that is here in a little bit. So the time of flight detectors are of a standard type that, again, was used in the old systems. It's based on microchannel plates. And what you have is an electrostatic mirror. So a sufficient fragment goes through these detectors. They pass through a carbon film in the back of this detector. And the fragment passes through with minimal energy loss. But as they go through these carbon films, secondary electrons are emitted. And they are bent down using electrostatic mirrors here, down to MCPs at the bottom. And that gives you a very fast time stamp. Another difficult thing here was that we wanted this, as I said, to go to large angular acceptance. So we had to go to very large microchannel plates, which typically were sensory resolution. So in other systems where they had MCPs of 2 or 4 centimeter diameter, these are 7 and 1 half centimeter in diameter MCPs. And then in order to get position resolution, to calculate the flight path length, we have this position sensitivity. So the microchannel plates sits on delay line anodes. So these are just wires in x and y position. And by measuring the time delay from where the electrons hit until you read out your signals, if you look at the two time delays, you get an xy position of your hits. So you know where the electrons hit on the microchannel plate. And this is just the time of flight assembly going into the vacuum chamber. These MCPs or the delay line anodes were made by Rontek in Germany. And they can get very high position resolution in the way that we are using them with the extra static mirrors. We can get to a few millimeter resolution. But for other applications, you can do much better than that. So the first thing we needed to look at was the time of flight resolution. That's the difficult part. People know how to optimize the energy resolution of minus station chambers. But getting good time resolution was really crucial here. So some of the early tests that we did, again, you saw what the time detector assembly looked like. We put two of them at 70 centimeter separation and had an alpha source and let the alpha particles go through the two detectors and then just measure the time of flight for alpha particles. So we used a source with different alpha lines and looked at their time of flight. And by optimizing the setup and using the position information, we were able to get down to about 200 picosecond coincidence resolution. So that's 200 picoseconds coincidence. So it means about 150 picoseconds per detector. People have done better than that. It's not clear that you can do better than that with the large MCPs. So that is something we will continue to try. But I haven't seen people getting better than that in the past. Another thing you want to know is the efficiency. So as I said, we tried to get large angular acceptance. And the whole point is to get high efficiencies. And high efficiency in this case means 10 to the minus 3 efficiency for detecting fragments with the angular acceptance that we have per detector arm. So you don't want to lose any more efficiency by missing some of the events. So we studied the detector efficiency as a particle goes through the electrostatic mirror. You can lose some fragments as they hit wires in the electrostatic mirror. And you can also lose some events because you don't produce enough secondary electrons from the interaction in the foil. So we did a measurement for alpha particles where you had alpha particles going through. And then you look at coincidences into a surface barrier detector. And by looking at the coincidence count rate, you can figure out where your efficiency was. And then depending on the electric field in the electrostatic mirror, you need certain fields to start having full efficiency. But then for alpha particles, we got to 70 or 80% type of efficiency. We didn't do the same thing for efficient fragments, but you expect that efficiency to be higher because you make more secondary electrons with the higher ionizing particle of efficient fragments. And then so that's the timing detectors. And then we have the ionization detectors that measures the kinetic energy of the fragments. So this was developed in collaboration with University of New Mexico, so University collaborator. So this is just what the ionization chamber looks like. It ends up being a fairly long chamber because we want to run at low pressure so that you can have a thin window between the vacuum and the pressurized ionization chamber. And then we have these guard rings to make a very uniform field inside the chamber. So this was developed at UNEM. They ran some different gases. In this case, they actually ran P10. And what we're running now is isobutane, which gives you better energy resolution and a better response. So they did some measurements to look at the energy resolution. And we were able to achieve close to the roughly half percent that you can get to for efficient fragments with an ionization chamber. So there were some publications back in the 80s where they tried to optimize chambers for the Caucifan-Tutti spectrum at that time. And they got something like 0.4% energy resolution for the light fragments and 0.6%, 0.7% for the heavy fragments. And we were getting close to those numbers. But then, as I mentioned, one of the critical points, I'll go ahead. I'm sorry? So the low pressure is nice because you want to have a very thin window for the fragments to pass from the vacuum into the ionization chamber. So if you have a low pressure in the chamber, you can also have a very thin window. If you want to go to higher pressure, then you have to have a thicker window and you lose more energy for the efficient fragments. Well, it just means that you have a little bit of a look. Because there's something wrong with that. Just a moment. Thank you. You want to run the same field per centimeter? Oh, yeah, that's right, sure. So the total, you need a higher voltage, that's right. Yeah, that's right. And that was a bit of an issue. We had to run at fairly high voltages with this longer chamber. But that's all we want. So as I mentioned, in the past incarnations of this type of detector, people used the stretched mylar windows. Back in the 90s, at the PSI, they started using silicon nitride windows as a very thin alternative to mylar. And it turns out that these windows work really well. You can get them as thin as the mylar or even thinner and even have better properties. So here is just a comparison where they tested or looked at the energy loss of the rest energy of some ions going through a mylar window and compare that to silicon nitride. I don't actually know if this is a fair comparison because they might be different in terms of micrograms per square centimeter thickness. But more importantly, the silicon nitride windows are more uniform. So we have the stretched mylar. You can have variation in thickness. So you have a variation in energy straggling. Whereas the silicon nitride window, you get very uniform windows. You have the same energy correction to make no matter where you hit. So these are the windows that we had designed. So there's actually an array of individual windows. So there's only something like 50% geometric transmission. So you have a 50% chance of hitting the support structure and a 50% chance of going through one of the thin windows. But the thickness here is only 200 nanometers. So they are very thin. So you only lose a few percent of the energy of the fission fragment as they go through. So this is kind of a small correction to make in a small straggling energy broadening that occurs. So we built the spectrometer. We had one arm, one spider arm, and measured spontaneous fission of California in 252 to look at the performance of the instrument. So this is the black, our data points. And red is the England and Rider evaluation of the fission product yields from California in 252. Spontaneous fission. And so we get a good comparison with the evaluation. And based on these tests, we estimated a resolution. So if you looked at the energy resolution, the velocity resolution, we came up with something like 1 and 1 half mass unit time of resolution for the light fragments and somewhat worse for the heavy fragments. And again, we're trying to get more towards one mass unit. But that's going to require us to really make use of the position sensitivity of the detector. And that wasn't actually working well in this first test. So after looking at spontaneous fission, we went to the Luan Center at Lans and looked at thermal neutron induced fission. Both for uranium 235 in this case and for plutonium 239. So again, we're comparing to the England and Rider evaluation. And if you compare this to what I was showing for the ionization chambers, when you have several mass unit resolution, you lose some of the structures in the mass peaks. And here, when we have better resolution, you sort of follow the same trends as you see in the evaluation. When you go to the heavy peak, the mass resolution gets worse, more like closer to two mass units. And you can see that for one of these yields here that is in the value according to the variation is rather high. But because of resolution and broadening, you measure a lower yield in this case. So this is still being analyzed on the same thing with the plutonium 239. Actually, I'm just showing the light peak in that case, because we haven't really done a careful analysis, so I didn't want to show the full mass distribution. So the two-arm version of spider is actually right now running at the Luan Center, and we're continuing to take data for thermal fission. But the whole point of doing this is that we want to measure the change in yields for higher excitation energy or higher neutron energies. And with two arms, you just don't have enough efficiency, as I mentioned, 10 to the minus 3 type of efficiency per arm. So if you go to fast neutrons where the cross section is down, at least two orders of magnitude or three orders of magnitude, your count rates are going to be very small. So the solution to that is just to add detectors to do a detector array. So a few months ago, we started the process of building a larger version. Instead of having two arms, we want to go to something between six arm pairs and nine arm pairs. So this is the current design. If you increase the number of arms in order of magnitude, then you're going to get to 1% efficiency, and then you can actually start to get reasonable count rates even for fast neutrons. So right now, we have the diving helmet design, large spherical chamber with all the ionization chambers mounted outside of it. Some of my colleagues kind of likes this design because it looks like a nuclear device. But there are certain challenges with this. So we're going to have a very large vacuum volume to pump out. And you need to place the start detectors and the sample and some structure in the center. And even worse, in order to work on the detectors in the middle, you have to get to them. So right now, we have a design with sort of this access door on there. So we're going to send graded students in there to work on this, and hopefully not lose any of them inside the chamber. But yeah, so it's going to be a very large chamber one over one meter in diameter to get the right flight path length everywhere. Another problem is with the geometry that we have, it's going to be hard to make use of the full solid angle for each stop detector. So we've been looking at different arrangements to come up with the optimal one. But this is the current design. So for now, we're just required to draw the internal components, the detector components, and we're still working on the vacuum chamber design. Interestingly enough, this can end up being almost as expensive as the TPC. I mean, the TPC was kind of an expensive instrument because of the electronics. This becomes expensive because of the mechanical design of doing all these different custom components and the large vacuum chamber. All right, so that was everything I had about fish and product yields. And now I'm going to talk about, sort of go back to the transition chamber work and talk about total kinetic energy release in fission. So as you now know, most of the energy release in fission is in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fragments. And that has been well measured in the amount of TK, has been well measured in the past, but how much that kinetic energy changes as a function of the incident, nutrient energy was less well known. In fact, up until the EMBF-6 evaluation, it was in the data library, it was assumed that the total kinetic energy release in fission of the actinides was independent of incident nutrient energy, which we've known for a long time. It's not true, but that's what was in the evaluation. So Madland had a paper from 2006, where he looked at the existing data and made some fits to the data. I don't really want to call it the model, but it's more like a data fitting exercise. So he looked at the data fit it. Obviously, it was pretty clear that the TKE gets lower as you increase the incident nutrient energy. And the data that he used for the major actinides, typically, so for Uranium 238, there was data up to 100 MV or so, but for Plutonium 239 and Uranium 235, the data sets only went up to five or nine MV, at least the stuff that he found. So he recommended that we make some more measurements and extend this range up at least until 30 MV. And I think the 30 MV came from the fact that you want to know TKE at 14 MV. So if you go twice as far and have a consistent measurement over that range, you get some confidence that you get the right answer at 14 MV. So again, we used this fresh-gritted ionization chambers. The one in the picture and the one we used actually is from Gale, so Stéphane's or George's chamber. So they were nice enough to bring it to Los Alamos and also bring a Uranium 238 sample and thin backings. The Gale group is really good at making nice fission targets. So this is the interior of the chamber sitting in one of our glove boxes. So in this case, we actually mounted, I think this is the Uranium 235 sample that we put in there. So this is the same cartoon you've seen the cartoon before. So you have the central cathode with the sample. This here is the fresh grids and under there is the anode and an anode. So back in 2012, we did Uranium 238 measurements to look at both the master yields but also the TKI and that was done together with collaborators from Gale. So they came out to Lance and did measurements with us there. And that was really a cool measurement. So we decided next year to do Uranium 235 and then the year after that to tonium 239. We could have probably done 239 in 2013 but those thin backings with plutonium is kind of scary and I get the shakes every time I try to put them in the detector so I broke in quite a few of them. That's always very popular with our radiation protection people. Especially since we use carbon backings and they flake. So when they break you get a million flakes of plutonium stuff everywhere. So anyway, over three years we did measurements of these three isotopes. And the first measurement with 238, this is what we see. So as I mentioned 238, there was already measurements going out to high energies to 100 MV or so. This was worked by solar that was also done at Los Alamos plus back in the, I think it was the late 80s and early 90s. So what this plot is showing is, so I think the solar data, so the solar data is on here but it's kind of hard to tell. And then the red line is the fit that Madland did to the solar data to show that it's decreasing out to higher energies. And then John Lester on at Los Alamos did some more detailed modeling and tried to understand not only how this behaves if you make it fit but try to sort of model the fission process and then you get this purple curve where you see structure in the TKE energy dependence that occurs at multi-chance fission. Excuse me. And then the larger black points here are measurement that agrees very well with the less known prediction. Now I can drop the mic at the end of this. That's gonna be good. So then the next measurement we did was for EM-235. And it turns out that there's been some some type of experiment evidence in the past that the TKE not only decreases with increasing excitation energy or neutron energy but also that there is a drop off if you go below one MEV and that the TKE sort of turns over again and is reduced. So again, the fit here is Madland's fit in the EM-235 it was data out to nine MEV. So that's what he fitted. And then less known in purple made his prediction in the black hour measurements that are again a very good agreement with the less known measurement. And in fact, we do see this turnover quite nicely below one MEVs that really did confirm what people had sort of seen before but didn't really have full confidence in it. And actually after we made these measurements and Arnie Cerk was doing some of the fission modeling tried to model the TKE. Made some predictions. It was first of all able to reproduce this turnover for EM-235 and predicted that it will happen in EM-233 as well. So we are interested in measuring EM-233 and see if we observe the same behavior for that isotope. And then the most recent result is for plutonium 239. So that was the last measurement we made and this is actually just about to get published. In this case there was only data or at least only data being used in the evaluation that extended out to five MEV. So you might see a red line here which is the fit to the data out to five MEV and again less known prediction. And in this case we have reasonable agreement with less known. For some reason we see an enhancement in the TKE below second chance fission. So I have a little bit of a hard time understanding why that would be but that's what we see experimentally. Of course the important point is gonna be where is the 14 MEV cross-section. So 14 MEV is important for applications. And as I said in the past in the evaluation you assumed a flat TKE out higher in E. So you were overestimating what it was at 14 MEV. After that people said okay so clearly that's too high a value. So what they did is they took Madeline's evaluation or fit and in his paper Madeline said okay so this is only valid in the energy range that I'm fitting to. So don't extrapolate using this value. So you can imagine what the evaluators did and they extrapolated down to 14 MEV of course. So doing and doing so they come up with too low TKE value at 14 MEV. So these new measurements should fix that problem and give you a more reasonable value for the 14 MEV TKE point. All right so that's all I had to say about fission finally. So now I'm gonna move over to talk a little bit about neutron capture measurements being done at the Leuven Center at LANS. So there are different reasons to measure neutron capture. A lot of the work we do is motivated by a nuclear astrophysics. But there's also some interest from nuclear energy programs to do neutron capture measurements. One of the reasons is that if you have a breeder reactor and neutron capture is actually what's making some of the fuel that you get. And even in a traditional reactor you're building up significant amounts of plutonium-239 and a lot of the energy towards the end of a fuel cycle actually comes from plutonium and that happens to your neutron capture on uranium-238. So I'm not really from the nuclear astrophysics background. So I'm not gonna talk much about this but as I mentioned many of the neutron capture measurements we wanna do really is to understand the synthesis of heavier elements in the universe. And there's been many proposals at Los Alamos to use our neutron capture capabilities to measure different reactions of nuclear astrophysical importance. Most of it is for the S, nuclear astrophysical S process. There are limits on how shortly of isotopes you can do capture measurements on. So what you can do at Los Alamos is mostly related to the S process and you can't really do very shortly of targets with our current capabilities. So at the Luan Center we have the dance detector. Detector for Advanced Neutron Capture Experiments. So this is a calorimeter. It has 160 barium fluoride crystals and it was really designed for radioactive targets for things going down to sort of 100 day half-lives. And it allows you to measure the full gamma ray energy in a capture event as well as look at the multiplicity of gamma rays. The nice thing in using that technique is that you identify which isotopes you did capture on by looking at the Q value. So even if you have a mixed target, you can pull out which isotope captured in an event by event approach. So these are the crystals. So here's the neutron beam coming in. You place the target here in the center and then you have the scintillating crystals that have the different geometries to cover all close to the full four pi. There's also a lithium hydride sphere that reduces some of the background by absorbing some of the scattered neutrons. And when you wanna do capture on things that have large fish and cross sections, we also have a P-PAC detector that triggers some fission and allows you to distinguish between fishing gamma rays and capture gamma rays. So this fission tagger was added about five years ago or so and that really helped support our nuclear energy, motivated measurements. We wanna do capture on things like uranium-235 and other fissile isotopes. So this is a fairly straightforward P-PAC design. So you have in this case, plutonium-239 in the detector and with a P-PAC you run at very low pressures. So you have very little material in the beam to scatter neutrons from. So it works really well for what you wanna do with the dance detector. Now one of the problems is that this P-PAC is not 100% efficient. So sometimes you actually have fission and fission gamma rays but you don't really know that from the P-PAC fission tagger. So instead what you do is that you look at the times where you have a fission trigger and you see the characteristics of the fission gamma rays. So the multiplicity and total energies are fairly different compared to neutron capture. For example, the multiplicity is quite a bit higher. So you look at the gamma ray or the dance response for fission and use that shape to subtract off background in the neutron capture spectrum. So here's just some comparison to the traditional way of using C6 detectors. So those detectors are very nice because they're very insensitive to neutrons but you don't get the energy information. So that's the advantage of using a detector like dance where you can really distinguish which isotope you captured on. And yeah, so it's just a different technique. It has some advantages and disadvantages. So one of the early measurements that were done for nuclear energy programs was uranium 235 and there were some large discrepancies in the evaluation out in the sort of KV region where it gets very difficult to measure. For one reason, one of the reasons that it's difficult to measure is that the capture cross-section drops off very quickly at those higher energies so you have a hard time getting statistics and you get a fairly unfavorable background to signal ratio at those energies. So this was approached with the dance detector by making both thin and thick uranium sample measurements. So you got sort of the statistics from the thicker measurements and then the details from the thinner sample and by combining those two measurements, we're able to get down to uncertainties of a few percent in some of the relevant energy regions as compared to the 30% uncertainties that was there before. So that was Marion Jendall who was leading that work and he has a publication on the uranium 5 results. So with the success of those measurements, we continued on plutonium 239 and investigated the same energy region. Shane Mosby is a new staff member at Los Alamos who did some work on that. I think these results have now been finalized. So I have the preliminary results from about a year ago but really what the success here was that they extended the energy range out to sort of half in MEV or so where they got good neutron capture data. And again, this was only possible by doing the thin and thick sample measurements and extend that energy range. So this, the data up to one KV was published as a year ago and I think they are now either submitted or have published the results going up to the higher energies. All right, and then I was gonna go and talk a little bit about a topic that is not actually nuclear data but just a program we have at the WNAR facility that is kind of cool and it's another use of the neutron beam. So I just have a couple of slides on that. So you might be aware of the fact that neutrons can damage or have an impact on semiconductor devices. So as you make, as cosmic radiation hits our atmosphere, you are producing high-end neutrons and those neutrons can penetrate down into the atmosphere to flight altitudes and even to sea level altitudes. And those neutrons in turn can interact with semiconductor devices, make charged particles and cause a single event upset in electronics. It turns out that one of the flight paths at the WNAR facility has a neutron spectrum that is very similar to what you see at flying altitudes. So if you go to the different flight paths at WNAR and depending on which angle you're at relative to the proton beam, you get a slightly different neutron spectrum. So if you go to 30 degrees, you get something that is very similar to what you see up in the atmosphere. So industry and different university users come to WNAR and put their electronics in the beam and just study the effects of the neutron beam on their electronics. So again, so these are so-called single event effects that causes failure in electronics. So what happens is that these high-energy neutrons hit. The semiconductor produce charged particles and you get a charged deposit in the cell and you can have a switch from a zero to one or one to zero. Turns out that the aviation industry is kind of concerned about this if their computers fail as you're in flight. That can be a serious issue. Of course, most of the electronics is self-correcting but at least you wanna know sort of how common these failures are. So what you see over here is the same blue. You have a measurement of the neutron spectrum in this case at Los Alamos altitude. So not at sea level, but at 3,000, two or 3,000 meters above sea level compared to the neutron spectrum at the WNR facility. And as you can see, they're very close. They're much more intensity in the neutron beam, of course. So you can test the failure electronics much faster than if you just put it outside and count the failures. Anyway, so some of the first experiments were done by the Boeing company to investigate this effect on their electrical system. Boeing company to investigate this effect on their electronics and airplanes, but since then there's been many different companies Intel, AMD and others that come and do testing at Los Alamos. There are some examples where single event upsets actually cost issues in industry. There's been one incident with an airplane where it lost altitude and they think it had to do with a single event upset, although that's kind of hard to prove. They've also seen some high power supply devices that have had problems because of the impact of neutrons. So there's a lot of interest from the industry to test these effects. So my last topic is gonna be on neutron induced charged particle production measurements, and that's in a different presentation here. There's not theories? Anyone who's good at PDF presentation? This hand, so you must have... I think it has to be switched. I don't know if I get the presentation, do you and PDF as well? Put on full screen mode. No, no, no. The view is that the page display? It is not, why it's not showing? All right. Nothing is shown. No, no. What is this? Can we reconnect it next? Again, yes sir? Yeah. This is here, no? Restart it. Probably you restart and then... No, it is not where it was. This means, it's pretty sure. I think it should come like this. This is where you restart it, probably. So it goes, yes. Can I follow you to the end? It's showing here but it's not able to do it properly. It's in problem. We can restart, what do we need? Frederick, another option memory stick, and you run from another computer. Sure. Without uploading it, yeah? Yeah. Yeah, that's what I need. One minute. Great, yeah. I have one. I hope to throw away that memory stick. Otherwise, the security guys are collaborating with me. All right, so the last topic is an alpha or an charged particle at reaction measurements. This is a project that's... The PI is a young lead in my group. So she's been developing this new capability as part of an early career grant to build an instrument that allows her to do and charge particle reactions, mainly for nuclear astrophysics but also for reactor applications. It's the last time I used a PDF. This should work. It just replaced the... Okay, so as I mentioned, this is a new capability for measuring NC reactions that he is developing. It's the so-called LENCE detector, NC-NAT-CN capability. And there's some different reactions that she wants to measure, and currently she's focusing on the oxygen and alpha reaction. So why is that reaction important? Well, there's some different reasons. When you do data testing and solution criticals, there's a lot of water around, so plenty of oxygen. And you need to know the N-alpha reaction. There's some interest for naval reactors and then as well as for some other radiobiology and other interests. It turns out that there has been a large change in the evaluation of this reaction very recently. So the evaluation that Jerry Hale did changed by something like 30 or 50% in one of the higher energy regions. So there were different measurements supporting both the higher and lower values, so there was interest in remeasuring this to really study or try to confirm one of the evaluations. So there's a measurement at the IRMM in Gale as well as IPPE, which I don't actually know what it is in Russia. Okay. So these are the two measurements that give significantly different results in a fairly narrow energy range there. So there's a discrepancy that we want to be addressing. So one of the difficulties in setting up the experiment is you want to have a pretty low sensitivity to low energy particles. So there was some thoughts of using the TPC, for example, for end-charge particle reactions. We are currently using the TPC for fission measurements, so that wasn't really feasible. So Hey Young looked at designing in a different ionization chamber to do NC. So that's the lens chamber. So it's kind of like a freeze-created ionization chamber. It has a multi-target wheel system to look at different reactions as well as the reference reaction. And then in the forward angles, it has a silicon strip detector or a set of the silicon strip detectors to measure charge particles. And the whole system is based on waveform digitizers, which we do for most of our experiments recently. So this is sort of the setup. So you can see the multi-target wheel there, back there. And then you have the ionization chamber part with freeze-created cyanode, cathode. And then here are the silicon strip detectors for charge particle detection in the forward system. So this was sort of developed over the last few years as part of an early career grant. And it's actually right now taking data on oxygen and alphas. This experiment started a couple of weeks ago out at LANS. So there was some work done with other reactions to commission the detector. And here's some example of the data that was collected. Different resonances. Energy resolution, I know as much as I say. In the MED region at WNOR you get really high energy resolution. So that's not really a limitation in the measurements. Here are some of the targets that was made, the oxygen targets. Tantalimbacking. So the feasibility of the study was done and right now we're actually taking data. So hopefully we'll see some results in the next few weeks or so. And this is work done. So He Yang is the lead on this, but Shea Mosby and Bob Hater are also involved. And there should be some publication on the nuclear instrument publication on the instrument coming out very soon. So that's all I had. So I'll take questions.