There is some sort of radiation coming out of Rossi's Mouse reactor that stimulates the unpowered Cat reactors. Maybe pions and muons... how can we tell now that MDMP has a reactor that maybe is functional at a Mouse level COP of 1.2
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Bob, > > > > Isn’t the reality check that eliminating a cosmic ray contribution means > the expected gamma counts are going to be too low to impress anyone? > However, I am very glad you are going to the trouble – if you also test for > radiation (all types) with and without the enclosure, and then compare the > two. Without both, the benefits of a cave alone are small. > > > > BTW - a PNNL study I ran across says that the best material to shield > against cosmic-ray components is iron, which has the best combination of > primary shielding and minimal secondary neutron production. As you are > using iron with lead – that is good. > > > > A compromise is the simple expedient to test the ongoing reaction as you > plan but also with no shielding. If bare gives significantly more counts, > then you have made the right choice to shield. However, it is likely that a > bare test will show fewer, not more. That is especially true if the > reaction itself is making muons. And didn’t Mark mention having a second > meter anyway? Perfect. > > > > IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this is to see > significantly more gammas in the cave than with no shielding - and to see a > variance from inverse square when the cave is moved back from the reactor. > If a radiation burst was to be correlated with apparent endotherm, as in > the last test – it would be a significant indication that Holmlid is > correct. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > Do you have a reference on this? Otherwise, a lead cave would not be > useful - it is there to protect the sensor from the cosmic rays. > > My understanding is that the cosmic rays produce the neutrons by > spallation. If the neutrons are absorbed in the lead, they will likely > cause isotopic shift which will lead to beta emission and then > characteristic x-rays for lead at 78 keV. My plan is to follow the inside > of the lead with 1/4" of Fe which will absorb all of the 78 keV but will > produce the characteristic x-ray of Fe at 6 keV. Then there is the boric > acid neutron absorber, and then the aluminum absorbs the 6 keV from the > Fe, but gives off 1.5 keV Al characteristic x-ray in small amount. > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > Ø Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead > (and it probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of > the cosmic rays into a small* neutron* flux. > > Bob, as the thesis clearly states – the neutrons then are absorbed by the > lead, causing the gamma radiation. > > > > >
