Yes that is a probably too much thickness to see soft x-rays.
However, if all of the excess energy, let’s say it is over a kilowatt - originates as soft x-rays, then that is a very intense flux, and moving the window progressively closer could turn up a signal which is statistically meaningful. FWIW – the camera which is standard in many smart phones can be adapted to become a radiation monitor. There is an app for the iphone. http://phys.org/news/2014-06-smartphone-detector-app-positive.html Worth mentioning. If soft x-rays were being downshifted to visible light, this could account for some of the brightness observed in the photos of Lugano. Is the light emission more intense than it should be for an incandescent wire embedded in cement? If so the COP was even higher than stated. From: Bob Higgins Parkhomov's alumina tube has a wall thickness of 2.5mm and then he has 4-8 mm of alumina cement on top of that. I don't think any 3.6keV photons, if produced in the reaction, would make it though that mass at a measurable level above background. Parkhomov uses an SI-8B pancake tube with a large area mica window. It is probably the one of the most sensitive detectors for that soft x-ray. That x-ray energy will not make it into an NaI scintillator. The problem with radiation detection in Parkhomov's setup is that the tube is placed some distance from the reactor and photons would have to go through even more material to get to the detector. On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: Prediction for Parkhomov: if a more sensitive GM meter can be obtained to look for soft x-rays in the range of 3.6 keV – they will be found. The normal meter will miss this radiation spectrum.
