Fitting $\overline{\nu}$ for minor Pu isotopes

Abstract

After successful fitting of prompt $\overline{\nu}$ for 235 U, 238 U, and 239 Pu(n,f) using CGMF, we will move on to the minor plutonium isotopes. Minor isotopes pose a greater challenge both because there is less data available and we do not, by default, have parametrizations in CGMF already. To mitigate these challenges— and provide consistency within CGMF—we will take a stepped approach to the optimization. Continuing from the 239 Pu work, we will then fit 241 Pu(n,f) $\overline{\nu}$, where there is also a number of experimental measurements, keeping consistency between the parameters that are included in the calculation for 239 Pu and 241 Pu. With these parametrizations settled, we can consistently optimize 240 Pu(n,f) $\overline{\nu}$. Following that step, we will move on to 242 Pu(n,f) (and increasing neutron number) and 238 Pu(n,f) (and decreasing neutron number). By including the fissioning systems in this manner, we should be able to minimize the unknown parameters in CGMF. We will possibly also be able to develop systematics for the CGMF input parameters along the Pu isotopic chain. This work can serve as a guide to broadening the reactions available in CGMF. In this short report, we first give an example of how we have updated CGMF to include 240 Pu(n,f) and 242 Pu(n,f), keeping consistency with the current 239 Pu and 241 Pu calculations, but without rigorous optimization (Sec. 2). Then, we will shown in Section 3 what experimental data exist for the various isotopes to provide some insight into why 241 Pu and 239 Pu are used as anchor points.