From: Eric Walker
...however, that having been said, the path that the
"bouncing" neutrons follow
would be longer because of a "random-walk". Since the path
is longer, their
chances of being captured increases...but maybe this is
already included in the
concept of cross-section?
That's kind of what I was thinking -- the more elastic
collisions there are that don't result in an escape, the more there's a
chance for a capture. But I was hoping you would know this one. The cross
sections are a little bit magical.
Think about how you could demonstrate cold neutrons - IF they were really
there. Then ask yourself “why has this not been done by NASA (or has it)?” There are such specialized detectors at publicly funded labs. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900208017543 Also, boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is practiced in almost every large hospital for cancer treatment. It is based on the nuclear capture reactions that occur when boron-10, which has an extremely large cross-section for neutrons, is irradiated. If even tiny amounts of boron/borax was added to the periphery of the LENR experiment – the one where putative ultracold neutrons were present - there should be a bremsstrahlung or secondary radiation signature which is detectable by specialized medical equipment or even a Geiger counter. The nuclear reaction is: 10B + n → [11B] → α + 7Li + 2.31 MeV. The fast alpha and Li ion are absorbed at once – which kills the cancer, but there is tell-tale secondary radiation, which would essentially prove the ultracold neutron was present. When proof seems to be relatively easy to come by, but is nevertheless absent – does that not raise red flags – even at NASA ?
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
