🚀 go-pugleaf

In reply to BartB, perhaps it would help if I gave a bit more complete
description of the data which is under discussion.  This is not a
case in which there is a well defined peak at the appropriate energy
and that is all.  As is common for measurements of this sort, there
are in fact two measurements required:  one for effect and one in which
the effect is somehow turned off without altering significantly the
interferring background signal.  The background determined with the
effect turned off must then be subtracted from the measurement for
effect to see any net signal that remains.  It sounds more straight
forward than it may actually be.  For starters both the measurement
for effect and for background are subject to statistical fluctuations.
Furthermore in the experiment under discussion the background may
have an unknown time dependence that limits the acuracy with which
one can due a subtraction of two data sets recorded at different
times.  The background measurement may not be "proper" for other
reasons, such as a removal of a background source such as the
palladium sample itself.  Finally, one question I am raising
about this experiment has to do with the nature of the signal
the detector would record even in the absence of background.  In
the Czir-Jensen paper that describes the detector, the calibration
spectrum shown is not in accord with the signal claimed in Jones
paper.  This is not just a question of extrapolation beyond the data.
The data is more or less a continuum from zero energy to well beyond
anything associated with 2.45 MeV neutrons.  It is a very tough
experimental problem, and when it has only been done once and several
other attempts give different results or nothing at all.... well
I don't think it is one of those "facts" that Jed Rothwell says
we just have to accept.

As an aside, Thanks to Jon Webb for his well stated reply to Jed's
latest.  Saves me the trouble.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU