FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Understanding attenuation of potential ionising radiation in a Parkhomov style reactor

Written by Robert Greenyer on .

Understanding attenuation of potential ionising radiation in a Parkhomov style reactor.

[]=Project Dog Bone=[]

A concerned follower and very generous British donor called Stephen has made it possible for the project to acquire a full turn-key UCS30 spectrometer system which arrived yesterday at Alan's in California and was set up by him and MFMP volunteer Skip who has driven all the way down from Canada to help in a series of tests.

UCS30

The system comes complete with a set of check sources - detailed as

"A set of 8 sources including one each of Co-57, Na-22, Cs-137, Co-60, Mn-54, Cd-109, Ba-133 and an unknown mixture of two nuclides."

and between us and the donor, we came up with the idea to do research that would add valuable data to all those working on replications. For a start we want to see

1. how far these samples emissions would be attenuated by the kind of reactor materials we are using

2. if they can get through, would they trigger a reaction?

The first would help people understand the reality of what should be being seen outside a reactor should there be high energy photons being generated inside.

The second is worth considering because Alexander Parkhomov has at least 2 Strontium 90 sources in his neutrino experiment that is under 1 meter away from the Ni+LiAlH4 experiments he is conducting. 90 Sr is a know beta emitter, beta emission has been claimed as one way to form Rydberg state Hydrogen. It is likely though that none of these emissions reach the reactor.

Bob Higgins has his own personal UCS20 system which is part of his {GarbageCan} apparatus and has already started the research, with interesting results, see the attached graph.

Alan Goldwater's setup of the UCS30



Here is what Bob says:

"Here are some outputs from the measurement of the alumina substrates using the two primary gamma lines of the 241Am source. The source is a point emitter from a smoke detector. The two lines are at 26 keV and 59 keV. The measurements were made as the sum of counts within a ~10% bandwidth for each line. Using a band of channels gave a lot more counts and reduced the uncertainty in each measurement over what it would have been for just a single channel. The integration time was 100 seconds for each sample.

The substrates used are 99.8% alumina that are 2.5" square and ~0.025" thick. 0 to 8 substrates were placed in a stack between the source and the detector. The mass density of each substrate was measured and the plot is attenuation vs. mass density. However, the greatest mass density data point corresponds to 8 substrates which is 0.2" of alumina (a lot of alumina).

As can be seen in the plot, even the 26 keV photons penetrate the 0.2" thick alumina with relatively high efficiency (~68%). That's good news. It means that 1) substantial low energy (26 keV) photons can make it through the alumina, and 2) the NaI detector can detect them pretty well even at 26 keV.

A linear trend-line was used in this plot, which is not the correct curve for such a transmission analysis. However, the actual curve will differ little from the linear curve over this small attenuation."

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Comments   

 
0 #3 Stephen 2015-11-06 16:14
Just out of curiosity was any experiment run to check if Stimulation with a radiation source nearby has any impact? Either Gamma or Beta? I'm quite curious if gamma would be attenuated in the device or trigger something and also If I remember right Bob mentioned that Parkhomov maybe had a beta source near his experiment. I suppose muons would be hard to generate ;-) but could be interesting to see what they do if they could.

Maybe this kind of test is for later but I'm curious if it was done if we saw any effect.

Good luck with your other test by the way.
Quote
 
 
0 #2 Neil Farbstein 2015-06-25 21:58
I'm looking for LENR experimenters to test a patent pending concept I have for an improved Rossi type nickel-proton reactor The fuel will be little a different. But I think a small difference in fuel composition will make a big difference in power output, performance and reliability. I have reasons for this conjecture that are proprietary.

Please contact me at if you want to work on this project
Quote
 
 
0 #1 JAMES A. ROVNAK 2015-06-14 02:56
Alan, Please let me know what GS3 test ash analysis says!
Jim :-)



Anxiously anticipating the best outcome.
Quote
 

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here