cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Risa Suryana
Contact Email
rsuryana@uns.ac.id
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
ijap@uns.ac.id
Editorial Address
-
Location
Kota surakarta,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
Published by Universitas Sebelas Maret
ISSN : 20890133     EISSN : 24776416     DOI : -
Core Subject : Science,
Astronomy Energy Materials Science & Nanotechnology Physics
Indonesia Journal of Apllied Physics provides rapid publication of short reports and important research in all fields of physics. Indonesia Journal of Apllied Physics publishes articles that are of significance in their respective fields whilst also contributing to the disclipline of physics as a whole. Articles should be submitted to the Editorial Office of Indonesia Journal of Apllied Physics through this site. Further information on submission is also available at this site
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 4 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol 8, No 2 (2018): October" : 4 Documents clear
Physical Modeling on Time Domain Induced Polarization (TDIP) Response of Metal Mineral Content Yatini Yatini; Djoko Santoso; Agus Laesanpura; Budi Sulistijo
INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS Vol 8, No 2 (2018): October
Publisher : Department of Physics, Sebelas Maret University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (668.983 KB) | DOI: 10.13057/ijap.v8i1.20648

Abstract

The Induced Polarization (IP) methods is an extension of resistivity method by adding ability of the ground in storing electrical charge. One of the measurement technique is done in time domain, hereinafter referred to as Time Domain Induced Polarization (TDIP). TDIP responses measured on the surface are affected by the physical properties of the subsurface. Research in TDIP response modeling studies is performed to obtain a quantitative relationship between response to metallic mineral content at subsurface. The relationship can be obtained by forward and physical modelling. The forward modeling produces a curve that connects TDIP response to the subsurface parameters and an array. The laboratory-scale physical model is performed on the sand-box size (200x100x70) cm3 by varying iron-ore content in a sphere target. TDIP response measurements on physical models is done using Dipole-dipole and Wenner configuration. The relationship between the TDIP response and metal mineral content is obtained by comparing the results of measurements on physical modeling and forward modelling. There is good appropriatement between the theoretical curves and measuring results of the physical modelling. The greater of iron-ore content on the target, increasing in the TDIP response.
A Comparison between Drilling and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Data to the Electrical Resistivity Sounding with Schlumberger Configuration in UNS Area Sinta Nur Rizqi Listanti; Darsono Darsono; Yusep Muslih Purwana
INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS Vol 8, No 2 (2018): October
Publisher : Department of Physics, Sebelas Maret University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (866.569 KB) | DOI: 10.13057/ijap.v8i2.17962

Abstract

The geophysics test using electrical resistivity method has been conducted in the area of UNS Campus to indicate the lithological of subsurface. This method is categorized as a Non-Destructive Test (NDT) due to the data acquisition is done at the ground level and no destruction during the test, which is more advantageous than destructive method such as drilling and SPT test. This study was performed with Schlumberger configuration in three location by electrical resistivity sounding. The acquisition data uses Resistivity meter OYO 2119 McOHM-EL with the track length is 100 m, while the data processing use IPI2Win to get a logarithmic graph between distance and resistivity and Origin to obtain graphic of resistivity and SPT. The result of this study indicates that electrical resistivity has a good correlation with SPT data. The electrical resistivity graph shows a linear increase along with increment of the depth, which is similar to the SPT graph. The slope difference at the first location is 2.44±1,197, the second location is 2.028±0.822, and the third location is 0.622±0.735.
Crystal Structures and Magnetic Properties of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG-4000) Encapsulated Co0.5Ni0.5Fe2O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles Edi Suharyadi; Lintang Griyanika; Joko Utomo; Ayu Kurnia Agustina; Takeshi Kato; Satoshi Iwata
INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS Vol 8, No 2 (2018): October
Publisher : Department of Physics, Sebelas Maret University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (629.629 KB) | DOI: 10.13057/ijap.v8i2.22108

Abstract

Nanocrystalline mixed spinel ferrite of Co0.5Ni0.5Fe2O4 magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) has been successfully synthesized by coprecipitation method and encapsulated by PEG-4000 with various concentrations. X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) patterns showed that nanoparticles contained Co0.5Ni0.5Fe2O4 spinel ferrite with crystallite size of 14.9 nm. After PEG-4000 encapsulation particles size decreased became 7.7 nm. Interaction Co0.5Ni0.5Fe2O4 nanoparticles with long chain PEG-4000 caused the crystal growth trap. Lattice parameter and X-Ray density have no significant difference after encapsulated PEG-4000. The coercivity (????????) of Co0.5Ni0.5Fe2O4 was 214 Oe. The ???????? decreased after PEG-4000 encapsulation became 127 Oe, which is due to the decrease of crystallite size. The maximum magnetization (Mmax) of Co0.5Ni0.5Fe2O4 was 12.0 emu/g, and decreased after PEG-4000 encapsulation to 11.7 emu/g, because PEG-4000 is paramagnetic. After the concentration of PEG-4000 increased, then the amount of paramagnetic material increase which lead maximum magnetization decrease.
Numerical Analysis of Fusion Cross Section of (_^16)O+(_^16)O by Using The Modified Glas-Mosel Formula Yacobus Yulianto; Zaki Su'ud
INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS Vol 8, No 2 (2018): October
Publisher : Department of Physics, Sebelas Maret University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (513.529 KB) | DOI: 10.13057/ijap.v8i2.21820

Abstract

One of the interesting topics in nuclear reactions is a study about reaction cross section between the interacting nuclei. For calculating fusion cross section, the Glas-Mosel formula has been proven successfully in explaining the experimental results of fusion cross section. In this study, the fusion cross sections of O16+O16 reaction were calculated by using modified Glas-Mosel formula. The energies were set at 10≤????≤40 MeV. The potential of interacting nuclei was approached by using Woods-Saxon potential. In numerical process, the differential equations were solved by using finite different method and optimization process was performed by using Nelder-Mead method. Good agreement between the experimental and this study results has been achieved successfully. Referring those results above, it can be indicated that the modified Glas-Mosel formula has good capability to explain the experimental results of fusion reaction of light nuclei. It can be a useful tool in explaining the experimental results or in predicting fusion cross section of light nuclei.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 4

 1 

Filter by Year

2018 2018


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 14, No 1 (2024): April Vol 13, No 2 (2023): IJAP Volume 13 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2023 Vol 13, No 1 (2023): IJAP Volume 13 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2023 Vol 13, No 2 (2023): October Vol 13, No 1 (2023): April Vol 12, No 2 (2022): IJAP Volume 12 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2022 Vol 12, No 1 (2022): IJAP Volume 12 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2022 Vol 12, No 2 (2022): October Vol 12, No 1 (2022): April Vol 11, No 2 (2021): IJAP Volume 11 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2021 Vol 11, No 1 (2021): IJAP Volume 11 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2021 Vol 11, No 2 (2021): October Vol 11, No 1 (2021): April Vol 10, No 01 (2020): IJAP Volume 10 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2020 Vol 10, No 2 (2020): IJAP Volume 10 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2020 Vol 10, No 01 (2020): April Vol 10, No 2 (2020): October Vol 9, No 02 (2019): IJAP Volume 9 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2019 Vol 9, No 01 (2019) : IJAP Volume 9 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2019 Vol 9, No 02 (2019): October Vol 9, No 01 (2019): April Vol 8, No 02 (2018) : IJAP Volume 8 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2018 Vol 8, No 1 (2018) : IJAP Volume 8 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2018 Vol 8, No 2 (2018): October Vol 8, No 1 (2018): April Vol 7, No 2 (2017): IJAP Volume 07 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2017 Vol 7, No 1 (2017): IJAP Volume 07 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2017 Vol 7, No 2 (2017): October Vol 7, No 1 (2017): April Vol 6, No 02 (2016): IJAP Volume 06 Issue 02 Year 2016 Vol 6, No 01 (2016): IJAP VOLUME 06 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2016 Vol 6, No 02 (2016): October Vol 6, No 01 (2016): April Vol 5, No 02 (2015): IJAP Volume 05 Issue 02 Year 2015 Vol 5, No 01 (2015): IJAP Volume 05 Issue 01 Year 2015 Vol 5, No 02 (2015): October Vol 5, No 01 (2015): April Vol 4, No 02 (2014): IJAP Volume 04 Issue 02 Year 2014 Vol 4, No 01 (2014): IJAP Volume 04 Issue 01 Year 2014 Vol 4, No 02 (2014): October Vol 4, No 01 (2014): April Vol 3, No 02 (2013): IJAP VOLUME 03 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2013 Vol 3, No 01 (2013): IJAP VOLUME 03 ISSUE 01 YEAR 2013 Vol 3, No 02 (2013): October Vol 3, No 01 (2013): April Vol 2, No 02 (2012): IJAP VOLUME 02 ISSUE 02 YEAR 2012 Vol 2, No 02 (2012): October More Issue