|JEF-2.2||JEFF-3.0||JEFF-3.1||JEFF-3.1.1||JEFF-β Proposals||Submit new feedback|
|8-O-16||C. Nordborg||26.01.94||(n,alpha) reaction MT=107, 800’s :At one of the first energies these reactions have cross sections of 10e-38 which may cause problems on short word machines.|
|13-Al-27||C. Dean||22.10.94||MT=102 SIGMA is recorded as having been changed from 232 mb to 213mb(upon recommendation from Bologna?). However, c.f. with Mughabgabab which quotes 231+-3 and this change looks suspicious.|
|6-O-16||C. Dean||6.10.94||Atomic Weights on the 1994 WIMS library.
The atomic mass values on the 1994 WIMS library are listed in Table 10 of AEA-RS 5690. They are taken from the relevant JEF2.2 evaluation. These are given relative to a neutron. The NJOY code converts them to the C12 scale by multiplying by the neutron mass. Values on JEF2.2 are often dated because "current" values were included when the evaluation was FIRST produced. Many parts of JEF and ENDF libraries are converted from older issues without updating the mass values. Values from the latest mass evaluations should be included in later WIMS libraries.
6/10/94 Mike Halsall noted Table 10 contained a value of 15.9905 for O16. He expected a value of ~15.995. The JEF2.2 evaluation is taken from ENDF/B-VI. Both contain a mass of 15.85316 relative to a neutron giving 15.9905 on the C12 scale. JENDL3 contains 15.8575 and JEF1.1 15.858. ENDF/B-VI hydrogen in H2O contains an oxygen mass of 15.858.
Checks against the latest mass evaluation indicate the JEF2.2/ENDFB-VI evaluations may be wrong!
Currently JEF and ENDF/B-VI will not be changed - neither will the WIMS 1994 library. However the US evaluators should be asked to examine the value.
|38-Sr-90||M. Sowerby||6.2.95||Problem in Sr-90 capture cross section - thermal capture is x60 to high in JEF-2.2|
|Many||P. Ribon||All energy points in the partial sections should be present in the total sections. Examples: 174Hf, 176Hf, 235U.|
|G.C.Panini||Missing angular distributions for the following light isotopes:
9Be (MT=700-701), 10B (600-603, 800-801), 14N (600-604, 650-653, 700-701, 800-810), 16O (800-803).
|G.C.Panini||Kerma calculation problems for some isotopes|
|Many||C. Dean||Checking of the unresolved resonance parameters needed. Processing problems, especially with parameters taken from KEDAK formatted evaluations, have been encountered.|
|25-Mn-55||P. Ribon||Modification of the capture resonance region background cross section needed.|
|42-Mo-100||C. Gragg||(n,2n) - tabulated subsection must be last.|
|50-Sn-122||T. Nakagawa||Upper limit of the resolved resonance region should be 8.603905+3 eV.|
|Contains artificial resonance parameters from ENDF/B-V|
|68-Er-166||C. Gragg||Resonance integral and 2200 m/s values much larger than ENDF/B-VI|
|92-U-233||H. Tellier||Needs updating|
|92-U-235||P. Ribon||There are two resonances with the same energy and same spin at 2.2 keV|
|92-U-235||C. Dean||Verify the consistency between the JEF-2.2 and ENDF/B-VI rev. 1 evaluations|
|94-Pu-239||P. Ribon and E. Dupont||neutron widths for L=1, J=1 unresolved resonance parameters should be divided by 2, following an earlier correction to the value of parameter AMUN and upper limit unresolved resonance range to 30 keV JEF22N9437_CEA.ASC||corrected evaluation available|
|94-Pu-239||H. Derrien||New resonance parameters up to 2 keV from H. Derrien available|
|95-Am-241||J.L.Rowlands||25.08.95||Resonance widths, for capture and fission need x7/6 adjustment. Resonance width for neutron needs x2 adjustment|
|82-Pb-nat||A. Hogenbirk||08.04.97||Format problem; for threshold energies in the MF6
data the distribution is not normalised.
It occurs for MT numbers for which MF6 data are given (not only MT16 and MT91)
|94-Pu-239||M. Mattes||21.02.96||Redundancy in fission spectra (MF=5) leads to processing
problems with NJOY.
JEF-2.2 evaluation contains both MT=18 and also the partials - MT=19,20,21 and 38.
|92-U-235||P. Ribon||13.05.97||Resolved resonance region: J=4 – two resonances with the same energy (744.2 eV)|
|92-U-235||P. Ribon||13.05.97||Resolved resonance region: 300-500 eV: 6 pairs of resonances with spacings of <0.04eV, i.e. statistically impossible.|
|48-Cd-nat||P. Ribon||13.05.97||Pointwise cross sections: the resonance at 58.7eV is a phantom (i.e. does not exist in JENDL and has not been observed in GEEL experiments).|
|45-Rh-103||P. Ribon||13.05.97||Spin of resonance at 154eV is J=0. This gives a poor fit to with predictions from GEEL, and Older experiments.|
|68-Er-166||P. Ribon||13.05.97||Resolved resonance region: missing resonance at 170eV|
|68-Er-166||P. Ribon||13.05.97||Pointwise cross section: interpolation of a background capture cross section between 0.025eV (33.3b) and 2000eV (0.118b) this is an absurd interpolation|
|45-Rh-105||P. Ribon||13.05.97||Pointwise cross section: lack of data between 0.5 and 2.0 eV|
|26-Fe-56||P. Ribon||13.05.97||Pointwise cross section: inelastic cross section too low between 1.5 and 4.5 MeV|
|Waclaw Gudowski via NJOY list server via C. Dean||05.06.2000||Evaluations are not complete. They include cross
sections and angular distributions for (n,n'p) and (n,n'alpha),
but the corresponding File 5 secondary energy distributions are
missing. This makes it impossible to run HEATR, GROUPR matrices,
or ACER "c" files, and it is impossible to do neutron transport
calculations. The ENDF format requires that both MF4 and MF5 be
present for reactions in the range MT=16-50.
However, the cross sections can be used for dosimetry or activation purposes.
|49-In-104||F. Chukreev||18.10.93||15.4s state missing|
|49-In-126||F. Chukreev||18.10.93||Isomer and ground states probably transposed. At present Q(isomer)< Q(g.s.). Comparing spin and T1/2 with nuclear wallet supports this assumption|
|49-In-126||F. Chukreev||11.11.93||Ba-129 decay data contains gamma line 419.83kev twice|
|Many||M. Konieczny||10.11.93||All data taken from ENSDF - error in translating ENSDF to ENDF format : Error in RADLST (SIGFIG) causes uncertainties to reset to zero when in fact they are non-zero :|
|M. Konieczny||30.11.93||Ground state missing in decay file.
In the case of: 66-Dy-147, 68-Er-149, 67-Ho-160, 81-Tl-185, 83-Bi-197, 97-Bk-248 - the g.s. is known in ENSDF should be included in JEF.
|92-U-235m||A. Nichols||05.03.96||In JEF-2.2 the average gamma energy is given as 76
eV (equal to the Q-value).
In the original evaluation, A. Nichols had the av. gamma energy set to 0.0, since the internal conversion coefficient has been set to 10E17, indicating that nearly all the gammas are internally converted (i.e. only 76 eV /10E17 are emitted as gamma rays).
However, it appears that the preprocessing of UKHEDD2_1 into JEF-2.2 using CORDECAY has reset the av. gamma energy to be equal to the Q-value - which is clearly wrong.
This looks like a problem with CORDECAY
|90-Th-206||A. Nichols||In JEF-2.2 the spin/parity is given as +0.0. However,
A. Nichols maintains that he had evaluated it as -0.0.
Upon investigation, it appears that it was set as -0.0 in UKHEDD1 but changed to +0.0 in UKHEDD2.
6/3/96 - A. Nichols has informed me that the +0 and -0 problem is caused by computer dependancy. Some machine will see -0 and reset this to +0
|34-Se-79||12.03.96||Se79 decays by beta emission (150keV) to Br(g.s.)
- No intermal Bremsstrahlung, no annihilation radiation, no x-rays,
Thus, mean electromagnetic energy (or mean gamma energy in ENDF terminology) is zero.
However, in JEF-2.2, then mean gamma energy is reset to 0.0496662 MeV!
NB. mean beta energy is not all the energy of the decay because the neutrino energy is not included.
|40-Zr-93||A. Nichols||Zr-93 decays to Nb(g.s) (Q-value=91 keV) and to Nb(m.s)
From Blachot's evaluation (JEF-2.2) we only have the m.s. decay.
A. Nichols thinks that this decay should be clearly labelled as a branching to the two states of Nb
|A. Nichols||15.03.96||In the JEF-2.2 file, for both modes 1.0 (beta- decay) and 1.5 (beta- followed by neutron emission), LCON=2 indicating that both discrete and continuous spectra are given. In each case FD (the discrete spectrum normalisation factor is set, but FC (the contiuum spectra normalisaton factor) is given as zero (INCORRECT) ==> multiply the continuum spectra values by this number.|
|59-Pr-144||R.W.Mills||24.01.97||Two major gamma lines at 1489 and 2186 keV missing.|
|98-Cf-255, 86-Rn-224, 66-Dy-169, 66-Dy-170||R.A.Forrest||04.10.2000||The value of AWR is given incorrectly as the A value.|
|83-Bi-210n||C.J.Dean||04.10.2000||This second metastable state is a "copy" of the first metastable state data and so should be removed. This state does not exist in reality.|
|56-Ba-142||C.J.Dean||27.11.2008||Rudstam had measured 760+/-80keV whereas summation calculations gave 1.069MeV at the time of JEF2.2. The JEFF3.1.1 value is based on summation calculations giving 1.03863MeV. This discussion was hiding a MAJOR error in JEF2.2 in that there was a factor 10 discrepancy on the gamma normalisation factor - FD. The value is 2.11E-3 and should be 2.11E-4.The effect of this is that the energy release from gamma lines in a shielding study is 10.69 MeV not 1.069MeV.The error can be seen by running FIZCON on the JEF2.2 file.This means that Ba-142 is no longer such a strong component of gamma dose in safety studies.|
|P. de Leege||08.10.97||Values of NN and NNP incorrect (at E=4.0E+5 - mt=454,459)|
Last reviewed: 24 September 2010