corner
corner
APS » Journals » Phys. Rev. D » Volume 70 » Issue 7
< Previous Article | Next Article >

Phys. Rev. D 70, 078302 (2004) [5 pages]

The IGEX experiment reexamined: A response to the critique of Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Dietz, and Krivosheina

Download: PDF (89 kB) Buy this article Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)

C. E. Aalseth1, F. T. Avignone, III2, R. L. Brodzinski1, S. Cebrian3, E. Garcia3, D. Gonzales3, W. K. Hensley1, I. G. Irastorza3, I. V. Kirpichnikov4, A. A. Klimenko5, H. S. Miley1, A. Morales3,*, J. Morales3, A. Ortiz de Solorzano3, S. B. Osetrov5, V. S. Pogosov6, J. Puimedon3, J. H. Reeves1,2, M. L. Sarsa3, A. A. Smolnikov5, A. S. Starostin4, A. G. Tamanyan6, A. A. Vasenko4, S. I. Vasiliev5, and J. A. Villar3
1Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99352, USA
2University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA
3University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
4Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 117259 Moscow, Russia
5Institute for Nuclear Research, Baksan Neutrino Observatory, 361309 Neutrino, Russia
6Yerevan Physical Institute, 375036 Yerevan, Armenia

Received 28 April 2004; published 28 October 2004

This paper is a response to the preceding Comment by Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Dietz, and Krivosheina. The criticisms are confronted, and the questions raised are answered. We demonstrate that the lower limit quoted by IGEX, T1/20ν(76Ge)≥1.57×1025   yr, is correct and that there was no “arithmetical error” as claimed in the “Critical View” article.

© 2004 The American Physical Society

URL:
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.078302
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevD.70.078302
PACS:
14.60.Pq, 23.40.Bw, 23.40.Hc

*Deceased.

 
< Previous Article | Next Article >