Solid 100Mo target preparation using cold rolling and diffusion bonding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction 100Mo target design is key to commercially viable large scale cyclotron production of 99mTc. The target back plate supporting the 100Mo must be chemically inert to the target dissolution conditions but ideally it should also be able to dissipate the high thermal loads of irradiation, not contaminate target substrate with radionuclidic by-products, and be adequately inexpensive to allow for single use. Aluminum was selected as our target support as it satisfies these requirements. Our process entails rolling 100Mo powder into a foil of desired thickness, and then diffusion bonding [1] the foil onto an aluminum back plate. The 100Mo targets were designed to be 20×80×0.1 mm to match our TR24 cyclotron’s proton beam profile and energy. Efforts are currently underway to scale up the process to allow for simultaneous production of multiple targets at once. Material and Methods The crude enriched 100Mo foil (99.815% enrichment) was made from 100Mo powder using a horizontally mounted rolling mill and an aluminum hopper. The crude foil was rolled repeated-ly, and the space between the rollers gradually reduced until the thickness of the foil was changed from an initial thickness of 0.3 mm to a thickness of 0.1 mm. The rolled 100Mo foil was annealed under reducing atmosphere and then bonded to the aluminum target plate support under inert atmosphere in a heated press at 500 °C. Results and Conclusion By rolling 100Mo foils from powder we were able to produce uniform foils with an average density of > 98 % compared to the maximum theoretical density of 100Mo (n = 5) and thicknesses of roughly 0.1 mm. All foils produced were the desired 20 mm width (i.e. limited by the width of the opening of the hopper) and trimmed to the desired 80 mm length. The annealing process was necessary due to the brittleness of the un-annealed rolled foil and the difference in the thermal expansion coefficients of molybdenum and aluminum which caused un-annealed foils in previous experiments to crack and break off during pressing (n = 10). Surface preparation of the aluminum support plate was also found to play a critical step in the efficiency of the bond, and continuing effort to scale the above de-scribed procedure to mass produce 100Mo tar-gets is ongoing. Targets have undergone preliminary testing to 250 μA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".