Paper detail

Comparison of available measurements of the absolute air-fluorescence yield and determination of its global average value

Experimental results of the absolute air-fluorescence yield are given very often in different units (photons/MeV or photons/m) and for different wavelength intervals. In this work we present a comparison of available results normalized to its value in photons/MeV for the 337 nm band at 1013 hPa and 293 K. The conversion of photons/m to photons/MeV requires an accurate determination of the energy deposited by the electrons in the field of view of the experimental set-up. We have calculated the energy deposition for each experiment by means of a detailed Monte Carlo simulation and the results have been compared with those assumed or calculated by the authors. As a result, corrections to the reported fluorescence yields are proposed. These corrections improve the compatibility between measurements in such a way that a reliable average value with uncertainty at the level of 5% is obtained.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.