In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:08:59 -0700:
Hi Eric,
[snip]
>On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:01 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>I would still be inclined to consider reactions that produce heavy charged
>> particles. The heavier and slower, the better. E.g. fusion/fission
>> reactions.
>
>
>The reactions I've been looking at recently have charged particles as
>daughters as well.  But the daughters are generally protons in the 5-10 MeV
>range.  The way I propose that gammas from excited nuclei are avoided is to
>suggest that the reactions occur at the surface and that the daughters fly
>out from the surface:

...but wouldn't you expect 1/2 to fly away from the surface, and half to fly
into it?

>
>+++++++++ d
>
>+++++++ p p p
>
>+++ p p p d p p
>++ p ---> p d p
>+++ p p d p p p
>
>+++++++ p p p
>
>+++++++++ p
>
>
>Here the (+)'s are nickel lattice sites.  The p results from an Ni(d,p)Ni
>reaction.  The arrow represents the momentum.  Although the p is born with
>~ 5-10 MeV of energy, it burrows into the other p's at the surface, quickly
>thermalizing to a much lower energy.  Occasionally there is a d that is
>broken apart through spallation.  This wouldn't happen very often with a
>normal hydrogen mix, because there are only ~ 1/6000 parts deuterium, and
>only a fraction of these would be encountered (and only a fraction of the
>neutrons resulting from such spallations would exit the system).
>
>I think the secondary gammas from heavily charged slow moving daughter
>> nuclei
>> might have been shielded.
>>
>
>By this I take it you mean gammas from lattice sites excited through
>inelastic collisions?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Reply via email to