I seriously doubt that in the TPT the experimenters would have been allowed
to modify the hotCat.  A "membrane" would have provided a continuous leak
to the limited supply of H2 inside the hotCat; however, a thin area window
would suffice if they could modify it.  If the reaction produces high
energy gamma, it will come right through the vessel, attenuated by the mass
per square cm of the reactor vessel.  So you don't need a window for high
energy gamma.  However, we know that high energy gamma cannot be the
primary carrier of the heat because too much of the energy would escape the
reactor vessel, and it would be dangerous to be around and easily
measured.  Low energy gamma (below 25 keV) may be a primary carrier of the
heat because it would be highly attenuated by the reactor vessel (and thus
thermalized).  Measuring low energy gamma is difficult because it doesn't
escape easily.  To measure this, you either need to create a sensor that
can be placed inside the reactor (and it would have to work with at the
hotCat's high temperature); OR, you need to make your reactor vessel thin
in a small spot (a window); OR, make your reactor vessel small, so that the
whole containment vessel can be thin (this is what I am doing).

Neutrons don't need a window - they will just come through.  If the heat
were carried by neutrons, the reactor vessel would not get hot because
there is not enough mass and capture cross-section there to stop
(thermalize) them.  The neutrons would just be killing everyone around the
reactor.  Any few neutrons detected externally are definitely a useful clue
about internal reactions, but fortunately few neutrons are ever detected.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:57 AM, frobertcook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  A small diameter membrane to allow some internal radiation out seems
> like a nice feature in any test, which the professors would certainly
> consider.
>
>  In an good test one should expect to see such a feature.
>
>  The same should be expected for neutrons--a neutron window.
>
>  Bob
>

Reply via email to