Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:10:20.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The theory of ionisation measurements in gases at high pressures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

D. E. Lea
D. E. Lea
Affiliation:
Coutts Trotter Student, Trinity College.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The columnar theory developed by Jaffé to account for the recombination of ions in alpha particle tracks is extended to beta rays by taking account of the clusters of secondary ionisation. Reasonable agreement is obtained with experiment. Recombination in proton tracks produced in hydrogen by neutrons is shown to be in agreement with the columnar theory, but in the case of nitrogen nuclear tracks in nitrogen the recombination is only a hundredth of that predicted by the theory. An explanation of this effect is advanced, and it is suggested that recombination is likely to be abnormally small for all heavy nuclei of velocities not exceeding 5 × 108 cm. per sec.

An experimental determination of the coefficient of recombination of ions in nitrogen and hydrogen at pressures of 20, 40 and 90 atmospheres is reported.

My thanks are due to Dr Chadwick for interest in this work, and to Dr Gray and Dr Tarrant for advice on the experimental technique of high pressure ionisation measurements. I am indebted also to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for a maintenance grant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 1934 , pp. 80 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Harper, , Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 29, 149 (1933).Google Scholar
(2)Compton, , Bennett, and Stearns, , Phys. Rev. 39, 873 (1932).Google Scholar
(3)Jaffé, , Ann. der Phys. 42, 303 (1913).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Jaffé, , Phys. Zeit. 30, 849 (1929).Google Scholar
(5)Tate, and Smith, , Phys. Rev. 39, 273 (1932).Google Scholar
(6)Gross, , Zeit. f. Phys. 78, 271 (1932); 80, 125 (1933).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Riemann-Weber, , Partial Differential Equations, p. 175.Google Scholar
(8)Rutherford, , Chadwick, and Ellis, , Radioactive Radiations, p. 447.Google Scholar
(9)Schweidler, , Wien. Ber. 127, 953 (1918); 128, 947 (1919); 133, 23 (1924).Google Scholar
(10)Harper, , Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 28, 219 (1932).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Williams, and Terroux, , Proc. Roy. Soc. 126, 289 (1930).Google Scholar
(12)Blackett, , Proc. Roy. Soc. 135, 132 (1932).Google Scholar
(13)Blackett, and Lees, , Proc. Roy. Soc. 134, 658 (1932).Google Scholar
(14)Schintlemeister, , Wien. Ber. 141, 539 (1932).Google Scholar
(15)Feather, , Proc. Roy. Soc. 136, 709 (1932).Google Scholar
(16)Chadwick, , Proc. Roy. Soc. 142, 1 (1933).Google Scholar
(17)Alper, , Zeit. f. Phys. 76, 172 (1932).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Messerschmidt, , Natwiss. 21, 235 (1933).Google Scholar