Repository navigation
Conversation
pkienzle
commented
Jul 5, 2026
Collaborator
Author
|
@CAOShurong I used your 2- and 3-rate integrals in the decay calculation. Please check that the math is reasonable. |
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
During irradiation the 151Pm activity is counted twice: once in the calculation of 151Pm from 151Nd and again in the calculation of 151Sm which directly estimated activity from 151Nd ignoring the 151Pm transient.
This PR subtracts the 151Pm activity calculated during the irradiation from the 151Sm activity at t=0 so it is only
counted once. The post irradiation decay calculation now uses the 3-stage Bateman equation to compute 151Sm
activity from 151Nd, 151Pm and 151Sm activity at t=0.
For the decay time estimate we make a simplifying assumption that all 151Nd activity immediately transforms into 151Sm. This leads to some error in the decay time estimate. For example 1 kg 150Nd at 1e8 for 2.77 m estimates 250 days to decay rather than 253 days.
Tested by adjusting exposure time and mass so that 151Sm is just above/just below threshold and again for 151Pm is just above/just below threshold.
Fixes #127
Improved accuracy for activation calculations:
(1) Columns U, V, W, X (activation):
(2) Column T (2n activation):
Improved accuracy for decay calculations (Column Y, Z, AA):
(3) for 151Sm activation
(4) for other delayed β– activation
(5) for the non-chained decays
Decay is simple exponential decay
See PR #130 and #136 on github python-periodictable / periodictable:
The change to the decay calculation happened over several PRs.
$ git diff f7ea74b 127-fix-150Nd