@Eric, Yes, a number of calibrations have been done. One of the precautions being taken is putting a sensitive GM detector separated from the reactor. This separate sensor should be sensitive to a shower, but have reduced sensitivity (1/r^2) from the reactor. The cadre of sensors around the reactor also reduce the likelihood that any event could come from a hot radon progeny or Fukishima flea. The spectra integrations will be shorter, allowing much better time resolution of any signals. Also, I think there will be an attempt to capture the ROI (Region Of Interest) outputs from the detectors to provide a measure of flux vs. time for the NaI spectrometer and the x-ray spectrometer. GS5.3 takes a big step in improved radiation monitoring. Before GS5.2, no one had seen much and so extraordinary measures seemed futile. Now that we know that there is good science available from measured radiation, we are ramping up our detection capability.
@Dave, If the radiation signature is real, based on what was seen before, the spectral energy is down to 10% at 100 keV. This is easily block-able by lead. Since the x-spectrum was not measured, it could be that 99+% of the total energy is below 100 keV. The small amount that would leak out of a shield, while comprised of high energy photons, is of very low total flux. Just because those are higher energy, doesn't really make them more dangerous than the x-rays. Think about the x-ray leakage from the old CRTs we sat in front of, and what about the gamma leakage from the 241Am smoke detectors. The benefits outweighed the tiny risk associated with the small exposure that was less than most people are exposed to via radon, Fukishima, and cosmic rays (living at 9000' elevation, I get my dose from cosmic rays and those are really high energy). On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:36 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Guys, lets hope that the radiation does not escape the system if we ever > want to see any of these units become adopted in large numbers. Be careful > what you hope for! I would be far more satisfied to find that the original > measurement was not accurate. > > If this radiation signal is for real, can the energy be confined to > within a well shielded device? I have not followed the testing too > closely, but I tend to recoil at the mention of gamma radiation. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Apr 12, 2016 12:12 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > We are all hoping for a repeat performance of the "signal", the gamma >> burst output. In GS5.3, the team is much better prepared to monitor the >> radiations. Time bases for all of the data acquistions have been carefully >> synchronized. Amptek has generously loaned MFMP an X-123 CdTe x-ray >> spectrometer capable of about 6keV to 80keV measurement. Mark Jurich has >> borrowed an x-ray scintillator system from SLAC to monitor. The GM >> detector has been upgraded to a sensitive 2" pancake detector. >> > > I'm looking forward to the conclusions. I'm sure MFMP have done a range > of calibrations; possibly something like these? > > - Calibrated the x-ray spectrometer and scintillator against known > standards. > - Verified that the x-ray spectrometer, the x-ray scintillator and GM > detector work in coincidence (when there's a signal in one there's a signal > in the others). > - Taken background readings over a period of weeks n order to > characterize occasional background events and avoid confusing them for a > possible signal. > > Eric > >
