You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science
Reactor data hint at existence of fourth neutrino
2016-02-26
OK, I admit it; I am a nerd. I have been interested in Sterile neutrinos since MiniBooNE hinted at their existence. But enough of that. The last paragraph got me thinking about Iran and nonproliferation. Directional detectors might be useful for remote detection of banned materials in the proportions necessary for a bomb. Neutrinos travel easily through the entire earth and cannot be shielded.
Scientists see another, more practical, benefit for studying neutrinos. By recording the antineutrino output of nuclear reactors, detectors can discern the relative amounts of plutonium and uranium, the raw materials for making nuclear weapons. Gram for gram, fissioned plutonium and uranium have distinctive fingerprints in both the energy and rate of antineutrinos they produce, says physicist Adam Bernstein of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Closeup monitoring of reactors, from a distance of 10 to 500 meters, has already been demonstrated; detectors capable of monitoring weapons activity from several hundred kilometers away is possible but will require additional research and funding, Bernstein says.
Posted by:Sven the pelter

#8  Daya Bay uses 20 ton detectors, about 2km from the reactors. If you're 200km away, make that 200,000 ton to get the same rate they do, which http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/The_Daya_Bay_Experiment says is of order 100,000/year. I don't have a good handle on how to use the spectrum to tell banned from OK materials, but I'd hope (WAG) that would be more than enough to distinguish.

FWIW, have a look a this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00666
Posted by: james   2016-02-26 21:23  

#7  More flux perpendicular to the length but lower detection probability per particle. I wonder if there is a minimum fluid thickness required to get a detection event?
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2016-02-26 19:57  

#6  The cross section sideways is greater, though. The integral of the area by depth is the volume.

You'd be too far away for the difference in flux between the near and far sides to matter.

You _can_ get instrumentation effects. The readout might not be so good evaluating paths on tracks that come sideways, for example.
Posted by: james   2016-02-26 19:26  

#5  Why do you say that? Given a cylinder the path along the length would traverse the most fluid and would have the highest probability of triggering a detection event. If the cylinder's width was small when compared to its length a transverse path perpendicular to the length would encounter far less fluid and hence would have a much smaller chance of triggering a detection event. Since you would be getting many events from a pile of refined uranium/plutonium you could orient the cylinder to maximize the number of hits per unit time. The research instruments are spherical/cubist, i.e. symmetrical so they wouldn't have a preferred direction.
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2016-02-26 19:10  

#4  To first order, orientation won't matter.
Posted by: james   2016-02-26 18:36  

#3  Sh*t. I hope nobody has already built one.
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2016-02-26 16:20  

#2  There could be multiple detectors to allow triangulation. The more detector fluid the greater the chance of detection via a weak force interaction so a cylinder which can be rotated to point in a given direction. Low detection odds except down the length.

Just speculating.
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2016-02-26 15:21  

#1  1/R^2 bites pretty hard, though. And if you want directional answers, the resolution needs to be very good and the interaction medium density low--which makes the instrumentation more costly and the detectors even bigger.
Posted by: james   2016-02-26 14:40  

00:00