Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • The following content is provided under a Creative

  • Commons license.

  • Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare

  • continue to offer high quality educational resources for free.

  • To make a donation or to view additional materials

  • from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare

  • at ocw.mit.edu.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: OK.

  • I think things have been getting pretty derivy lately,

  • so I wanted to shift gears to something a little bit more

  • practical.

  • So I started alluding to this hypothetical radiation source

  • I might have right here, and things

  • like if you have a source of known activity, which

  • we calculated yesterday, and you have

  • a detector of unknown efficiency,

  • how do you know what the efficiency is?

  • How do you know what, let's say, your dose distance relationship

  • is?

  • And how do you calculate all this stuff?

  • So let's take the general situation that we're

  • starting to work out.

  • Let's say we have a Geiger counter right here.

  • That's our GM tube.

  • And we have a point source that's

  • emitting things in all directions.

  • Let's go with the stuff from yesterday.

  • Let's say it's a cobalt 60 source.

  • It's now 0.52 microcurie.

  • The question is, how many counts do you expect in this detector

  • when it's a certain distance away?

  • So I've actually laser-cut out a little Geiger counter jig

  • from a previous class.

  • And you guys can all do this too.

  • Who here has been to the IDC before?

  • A couple.

  • The international design center--

  • so they've got a laser cutter that you can sign up to use,

  • which is where I did this.

  • And it's set to just take a Geiger counter

  • and put your sources at some fixed distance

  • away so you can discover the dose distance

  • relationship with things.

  • Speaking of, does anybody know what the relationship

  • is between dose and distance or measured activity and distance?

  • Yeah, Luke.

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] r cubed.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Close.

  • It's, let's say, the measured activity

  • would be proportional to 1 over r squared.

  • Who knows where this comes from?

  • I'll move the source a bit away to lessen the beeping.

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: Well, the flux of particles coming out

  • is just [INAUDIBLE] over the surface area of [INAUDIBLE]

  • and the [INAUDIBLE] is 4 pi r squared.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Yeah, exactly.

  • If you were to draw a hypothetical sphere

  • around the source right here, then you've got,

  • let's say, a detector that's roughly rectangular

  • with a fixed area.

  • Let's say it's got a half length L and a half width

  • W. Then the area--

  • I'm sorry, let's just say length L, width W--

  • would be just L times W. And actually,

  • what Chris mentioned as the solid angle subtended

  • by this detector right here--

  • in other words, at a certain distance r away,

  • how much of this sphere--

  • how much does the area of this sphere-- does this detector

  • take up?

  • In other words, how many of these gamma rays

  • are going to go in a different direction than the detector,

  • versus how many we'll actually enter the detector?

  • And a simple formula for the solid angle

  • is just the surface area of whatever

  • you've got over r squared.

  • It's a pretty good approximation to the solid angle of something

  • for very long distances, and it's probably the one

  • that you'll see in the reading.

  • But I wanted to show you the actual formula, in this case,

  • for a rectangle--

  • solid angle comparison.

  • Good, that's up there.

  • So let's say on the x-axis, right here,

  • this would be distance from the source

  • to the detector in meters.

  • And I've said that we've got some sort of a detector that

  • is 2.5 by 10 meters in size.

  • That's an enormous detector.

  • Let's actually switch it to the units right here.

  • So this is roughly 10 centimeters long.

  • So let's change our length to 0.1.

  • And what do you think the width of this Geiger counter

  • is in meters?

  • AUDIENCE: A centimeter

  • MICHAEL SHORT: A centimeter.

  • 0.01.

  • We're going to have to change our axes so we can actually

  • see the graph.

  • So instead of looking all the way out to 15 meters away,

  • let's look one meter away, maybe less.

  • This whole thing is probably 50 centimeters.

  • And we'll take a look there.

  • And what we notice is that except for extremely

  • short distances, this approximate formula

  • for the solid angle-- or in other words,

  • if I were to draw a sphere around the source that's

  • the radius of the distance between the source

  • and the detector, how much of that

  • sphere's area does the detector take up?

  • This approximate formula-- the blue curve--

  • is a pretty good approximation of the red curve

  • until you get really, really close to 5 centimeters

  • away, or about this distance right here.

  • Does anyone know why this formula would break down?

  • What happens as r goes to 0?

  • What happens to our solid angle or our approximation

  • for our solid angle?

  • AUDIENCE: Goes to Infinity

  • MICHAEL SHORT: It goes to infinity, right?

  • Can a detector actually take up infinity area

  • on, well, anything?

  • Never mind that unit sphere.

  • Not quite.

  • If you were to take this detector and bring the radius

  • down to 0 so that the source and the detector,

  • if not counting for the thickness of the plastic,

  • were right upside each other, if that solid angle went to, well,

  • infinity , then the count should go to infinity,

  • and it does not compute.

  • Does anyone know how many--

  • first of all, who here has heard of solid angle before?

  • So a little more than half of you.

  • That's getting clicky.

  • I'm going to turn that off.

  • Solid angle is kind of the analog to regular old angle,

  • except in 3D.

  • So instead of looking at things in radians,

  • this has the unit of what's called steradians--

  • steradians-- with a full sphere taking up 4pi steradians.

  • Interestingly enough, 4pi is also

  • the surface area of a unit sphere with radius of 1.

  • So that's where this comes from.

  • If something were to completely cover a unit sphere--

  • like, if you were to, let's say, encase a light source in tin

  • foil completely, and say, how much of that solid angle

  • does the tin foil encase?

  • It would be 4pi steradians, regardless

  • of the size of the sphere or how much tin foil you had to use.

  • So this pretty simple formula isn't the best approximation

  • for it.

  • And I'm not going to go through the derivation,

  • because like I said, today is going

  • to be a more practical nature.

  • There is a more complex and rigorous formula

  • for the solid angle of something,

  • let's say, in this case, a rectangle of length L

  • and with W, from a certain distance r, or, in this case,

  • on our graph, x away from the sphere.

  • And you can actually see that red curve right there.

  • Once you get to a few centimeters away,

  • it's pretty close.

  • Anyone want to guess what the maximum value of the red curve

  • is?

  • If I take this source and slam it right up next

  • to the detector, how much of sphere

  • is the detector subtending?

  • AUDIENCE: 2pi

  • MICHAEL SHORT: 2pi-- half the sphere.

  • Because let's say this whole side of the source

  • is completely obscured by the detector and this whole side

  • is free to move.

  • And if you look really closely, yep, at 0, the correct formula

  • does give you 2pi steradians.

  • Which is to say that half the gamma rays leaving the source

  • would enter the detector.

  • I didn't say anything about get counted yet.

  • That's where the detector efficiency comes in.

  • And that's something we're going to be measuring today,

  • which is why I have my big bag of burnt bananas.

  • These are the ashes of roughly 50 pounds of bananas charred

  • to a crisp at about 250 Fahrenheit for 12 hours in most

  • of the dorms and a couple of the frat houses.

  • So last year, I had the students, everyone, take home

  • about 50 pounds of bananas or 50 bananas--

  • I forget which one.

  • It was a lot.

  • And we did some distributed labor.

  • So everybody peeled the bananas, put them in the oven,

  • baked them, separated off the tin foil,

  • baked off as much water and sugar as possible

  • to concentrate the potassium 40 in the banana.

  • So there's a reason I've been using

  • potassium 40 as a lot of examples in this class,

  • because you're full of it.

  • That's pretty much the short answer of it.

  • If you eat bananas--

  • which, I think most of you guys do--

  • you're intaking a fair bit of radioactive potassium, which

  • is a positron emitter, and also it

  • does electron capture and all that fun stuff.

  • So today, what we're going to be doing

  • is calculating the activity of one banana.

  • But that's kind of a very difficult thing to do.

  • So anyone know how radioactive one banana actually

  • is in any units at all?

  • Whatever it is, it's very, very, very, very little.

  • One banana contains a minuscule but measurable amount

  • of radioactivity.

  • And one of the ways to boost your confidence

  • on any sort of radiation measurement

  • is to boost your signal strength or to boost your counting time.

  • And because I don't want to count for the next seven years,

  • we've concentrated the ashes of 50 pounds of bananas in here

  • to boost your signal strength, which

  • is going to boost your count rate, which

  • is the intro I want to give to statistics certainty

  • and counting.

  • So let's take one of the homework problems

  • as a motivating example.

  • You guys, did anyone notice the extra credit problem

  • on the homework?

  • Let's start talking about how we'd go about that.

  • That should motivate the rest of the day.

  • So I'll pull up that problem set, number 4--

  • which, by the way, is due Thursday, not Tuesday,

  • because we have no class on Tuesday.

  • That was a surprise to me, but whatever.

  • I'll still be here.

  • We don't get holidays--

  • just you guys.

  • So bonus question-- go do this.

  • So we all know that smoking is a major source of radioactivity.

  • And if you think about it, it's not

  • just the smoke that contains those radiation particles,

  • it's got to be the cigarettes, cigars,

  • and other smokables themselves.

  • And so I was thinking, there's no better concentrated source

  • of smoking radioactivity than a smoke shop.

  • There's one out at [INAUDIBLE] at the end of the T.

  • There's probably some closer to campus.

  • But I know there's a whole bunch that are T accessible.

  • And so I was thinking it'd be neat for us to find out,

  • how radioactive is it to work in a smoke shop?

  • Because there's all these radon decay-- oh, yeah?

  • You actually know.

  • AUDIENCE: You know you have to be 21 to go into a smoke shop?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Are you serious?

  • But you have to be 18 to smoke.

  • AUDIENCE: Yeah.

  • It's a Cambridge, Boston law.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Interesting.

  • We may have to leave the city for this one.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • What about Somerville?

  • I think--

  • AUDIENCE: It's still-- you're not allowed

  • to go into there either.

  • It's all of Massachusetts now.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Wow.

  • AUDIENCE: So [INAUDIBLE]

  • [INTERPOSING VOICES]

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] you can buy them.

  • It's still late-stage.

  • It's like town-to-town.

  • Most of the Boston area is 21.

  • But once you leave Boston--

  • MICHAEL SHORT: It varies.

  • AUDIENCE: Yeah.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Yeah.

  • I don't think it is where I'm-- from Swampscott,

  • I don't think it's 21.

  • But that's kind of up on the commuter rails.

  • You don't want to go to Swampscott.

  • At any rate, I would think that, OK,

  • it's probably a fairly radioactive place to work.

  • But the question is, how long would you actually have

  • to bring a detector in and count in order

  • to be sure that there's any sort of measurable difference?

  • And so, without deriving all of this stuff about binomial,

  • Poisson, and normal statistics, I'll say,

  • that's in the reading for today.

  • I want to show you some practical uses

  • and applications of this stuff.

  • Let's say you were to measure some count

  • rate in some experiment.

  • And we'll put this in units of counts per minute,

  • which would be the number of counts divided by the counting

  • time.

  • That's about as simple as it gets.

  • From Poisson statistics, you can say

  • that the standard deviation of that count rate

  • is actually just the square root of the count rate divided

  • by time.

  • And that's kind of the simple thing right here.

  • But usually, in these sorts of experiments,

  • if you want to know how much more radioactive is

  • one place than another, you have to take a background count.

  • So if I wanted to know how much activity that source was giving

  • off, there is lots of background radiation

  • that we'll be going over in about a month.

  • I would have to sit here for quite a while

  • and wait for the slow clicks of whatever background

  • radiation is in the room--

  • there we go-- to get enough of a count right going on.

  • As you can imagine, the slower the count rate,

  • the less certain you can be that the number that you're

  • measuring is actually accurate.

  • So the idea here is that this standard deviation

  • is a measure of confidence that your value is actually right.

  • So the two things that you could do to decrease

  • this standard deviation--

  • you could increase your counting time.

  • Why is there a C on top?

  • That doesn't look right.

  • It actually is OK.

  • Yeah.

  • Yeah, there we go.

  • So by counting for longer you can decrease

  • your standard deviation.

  • This is going to take forever.

  • It actually takes about 67 minutes,

  • because we've already done this calculation,

  • to get a 95% confidence on 5% uncertainty

  • for this sort of background count.

  • I mean, how many counts we have so far, like, 12?

  • 14?

  • Yeah, not very many.

  • Then you've got to be able to subtract that count

  • rate from whatever your source actually is.

  • And the way that you actually measure this

  • is pretty straightforward.

  • The way that you do error subtraction

  • is not as straightforward.

  • So let's say we're going to separate these two

  • experiments into a background experiment, which

  • we're actually going to do in an hour.

  • When we want to count these banana ashes,

  • we're going to have to count radiation

  • coming from the detector itself, which will account

  • for cosmic rays, contamination in the detector, whatever else

  • might have been spilled in there from previous samples.

  • And we're also going to take some sort of gross count

  • rate, which will be our background plus the net count

  • rate of our actual source.

  • And that's what we're going for.

  • So the net count rate is pretty easy.

  • It's just the gross count rate minus the background--

  • let's keep the symbols the same--

  • count rate.

  • Does anyone know how to quantify the uncertainty

  • of this net count rate?

  • Do you just add the two?

  • Well, in this case, we have to account for the fact

  • that radiation emission from anything

  • is a truly random process.

  • So it's actually random.

  • There is no correlation between when one particle leaves

  • and the next particles going to leave.

  • And because it's a truly random process,

  • these errors in the background rate and the gross rate

  • could add together or could subtract from each other.

  • In other words, one might be a little higher

  • than it should be, one might be a little lower than it should

  • be.

  • If you just add together the two standard deviations,

  • you actually always get an overestimate

  • of the true error, because you're not

  • accounting for the fact that these two experiments may have

  • partially canceling errors.

  • So in this case, that would be your worst case scenario,

  • which is not your most likely scenario.

  • What you actually want is to do what's called uncertainty

  • in quadrature, where you actually

  • add up the sum of the square roots of those errors.

  • It kind of looks like the magnitude of a vector,

  • doesn't it?

  • It kind of looks exactly like the magnitude of a vector.

  • So in this way, you're accounting for the fact

  • that more error in each experiment

  • does increase the error on whatever net experiment

  • you're doing, but not linearly.

  • Because sometimes you have partially canceling errors.

  • And with enough statistics, if you count for long enough

  • or you count enough counts, then these things, on average, are

  • going to add in quadrature, which will come out to--

  • and I want to make sure we don't have any typos, so I'll just

  • keep the notes with me--

  • so you'd need the background count over the background time

  • squared, plus those.

  • There we go.

  • And so, now, I'd like to pose a question

  • to you, the same one that's here in the problem set--

  • how long do you have to count in the smoke shop

  • to be 95% percent sure?

  • So let's say your count rate's 5% uncertain.

  • And we're going to spend the rest of today's class

  • taking apart that statement and getting at what it should be.

  • So again, what we want to say is,

  • how do you know that we're 95% confident of our count

  • rate plus or minus 5% error?

  • That's the main question for today.

  • Does anyone know how we'd start?

  • Anyone get to the reading today?

  • I see some smiles.

  • OK.

  • We'll start from scratch, then.

  • All right, So who here has heard of a normal distribution

  • before?

  • A lot of you guys.

  • Great.

  • The idea here is that with enough counting statistics,

  • this very rare event binomial distribution approaches

  • a normal distribution, where you can say if you measure

  • a certain count rate-- let's say this would be your mean count

  • rate--

  • to limits of plus or minus 1 sigma

  • or one standard deviation, 1 sigma gives you about 68%

  • confidence in your result. Yeah, I spelled it right.

  • The reason for that is that if you go plus or minus 1 sigma

  • away from your true average right here,

  • you've filled in 68% of the area under this normal distribution.

  • Similarly, if you go plus 2 sigma or minus 2 sigma,

  • it's around 95% confident.

  • 3 sigma is getting towards 99 point--

  • what was the number, again--

  • I think it's 6.

  • Maybe it's more like 98.5%.

  • And then so on, and so on, and so on.

  • There's actually societies called 6 sigma societies.

  • And the way that they get their name is

  • we're so confident of things we can predict them

  • to 6 sigma, which is some 99 point a large number

  • of nines percentage of the area under a normal distribution.

  • So if I ask you, how long do you have

  • to count to be 95% confident in your result,

  • you have to give an answer that will relate two

  • times this standard deviation.

  • And now we know the formula for standard deviation of this net

  • counting experiment.

  • So we can formulate our equation thusly--

  • let's say in order to be 95% confident, in other words, 2

  • sigma, that our counting rate is within 5% of the actual value,

  • in other words, plus or minus 5% error,

  • we put our error percentage here,

  • and our true net count rate there.

  • So this part right here tells us the 95% confidence.

  • This part right here is our 5% error.

  • And that part right there is our count rate.

  • So then we can substitute in our expression for sigma--

  • our uncertainty in quadrature-- and find out things like,

  • well, it depends on what the information we're given is.

  • Let's say before you go to the smoke shop,

  • you take your Geiger counter, and for an extremely long time

  • you count the background counts somewhere.

  • So let's say in this problem the known quantities--

  • we know our background count rate,

  • because you can do that at your leisure at home.

  • And when I did this, it came out to about 25 counts per minute.

  • And known is the background counting time.

  • And when I did this, to get within 95% confidence

  • of 5% error, I had to do this for 67 minutes.

  • And now, all that's left is we want

  • to relate our net count rate and our gross counting time,

  • or our gross count rate and our gross counting time,

  • because it's the same thing.

  • So this is actually how you decide

  • how long you have to sit in the smoke shop

  • to count in order to satisfy what we asked for--

  • 95% confidence that your count rate is 5% error.

  • So let's start substituting this out.

  • That's not mine, so we can get rid of that.

  • So we'll take that expression and substitute in everything

  • we can.

  • So 0.05 C n equals 2 sigma.

  • And there's our sigma expression,

  • which I'll rewrite right here.

  • So we have see C b over t b squared plus C

  • g over t g squared.

  • What's next?

  • How do we relate t g and C g?

  • Well, let's start with the easy stuff, right?

  • What can we cancel, or square, or whatever?

  • Just somebody yell it out.

  • AUDIENCE: Do we have numbers for these counts?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Yep.

  • So we have numbers for C b and t b, but not C g and t g.

  • We have not yet answered the question

  • when you go into the smoke shop and talk to the owner,

  • and he says, fine, you're going to sit here

  • with the radiation detector.

  • How long do you have to be here, looking all weird?

  • You want to have an answer.

  • And so if you get some initial estimate of C g,

  • you can tell him this is my approximate t g, at which point

  • he or she will say yes or no, depending

  • on how they're feeling.

  • So why don't we just start, divide by 2, right?

  • Divide by 2.

  • 0.025.

  • We can square both sides.

  • And there's a C n there.

  • Square both sides, and we end up with 0.000625 C

  • n squared equals C b over t b squared plus C

  • g over t g squared.

  • There's lots of ways to go about it.

  • I want to make sure I do the efficient one.

  • Oh, I'm sorry those aren't squared.

  • Because our standard deviations had the square root in them.

  • There we go.

  • That's more like it.

  • What's next?

  • We've got too many variables.

  • Yeah?

  • AUDIENCE: I think there's still a square value [INAUDIBLE]

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Isn't there still a what?

  • AUDIENCE: Isn't there a square value

  • still under the [INAUDIBLE]?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Because, in this case,

  • the standard deviation is the square root of the count

  • rate over the time.

  • So the standard deviation squared

  • is just count rate overtime time.

  • Was there an earlier expression we have to correct?

  • Yep.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • That's where it came from.

  • That's right.

  • That's not.

  • Because that's right.

  • There we go.

  • Good.

  • Good, tracing out that.

  • OK.

  • Now that everything is corrected here, what's next?

  • We've got too many variables.

  • Yeah?

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] the standard deviation

  • have units of [INAUDIBLE]?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Not quite, because there's

  • a count rate in here.

  • So the units of standard deviation,

  • if this is square root of count rate over time,

  • which is the same as number of counts times time over time,

  • right?

  • AUDIENCE: OK.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Yeah.

  • Because again, a count rate is a number over--

  • where'd it go.

  • AUDIENCE: Number over time squared.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Yeah.

  • Number over time squared.

  • That doesn't sound right though.

  • Let's see.

  • Hold on a sec.

  • Although the standard deviation has

  • got to have the same units as the count rate itself,

  • because they're additive, right?

  • Because they usually express some count rate plus or minus

  • either sigma or 2 sigma, so they've

  • got to have the same count rate.

  • So standard deviations are expressed in counts per minute

  • if your counts are expressed in counts per minute.

  • OK, cool.

  • So we've got too many variables, but it's

  • easy to get rid of one of them, either C n or C g.

  • Do you a question?

  • AUDIENCE: No, I was just going to say [INAUDIBLE]..

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Great.

  • So you were going to say the same thing

  • that I was going to do.

  • Cool.

  • So we'll take out our C n, and we'll stick in a C g minus C b.

  • And we're trying to isolate t g as a function of C g or vice

  • versa.

  • There's a lot of C g's and not a lot

  • of t g's, so let's just keep the t g on its own.

  • So we'll have 0.000625 C g minus C b squared.

  • Then I'm going to subtract C b over t b from both sides.

  • Minus C b over t b equals C g over t g.

  • And do I have to go through the rest the math with you guys?

  • I think, at this point, we've got it pretty much solved.

  • We divide everything by C g, flip it over,

  • and you end up with-- actually, I've

  • already written out the expression, which

  • I want to show you guys here.

  • Back to smoke shop counting time.

  • So I want to show you some of the implications

  • of this expression.

  • That number right there is just a more exact part-- a bit

  • of 2 Sigma.

  • Instead of 0.05, we had something much, much closer.

  • So what I want us to look at is this graph right here.

  • We've got a nice relation now between the count

  • rate and counts per minute--

  • and it was the gross count rate and the required counting

  • time to get to that 5% uncertainty.

  • Well, there's a couple of interesting bits

  • about this equation.

  • What are some of the features you notice?

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: The count rate is extremely low for [INAUDIBLE]..

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Yes.

  • If the count rate is extremely low,

  • it's going to take an infinite amount of time.

  • You're absolutely right on some level.

  • So if we have that expression right

  • there-- so let me just actually get it all the way out

  • so we can see.

  • Because I want to show you some of

  • the math-related implications for this.

  • So if we had our counting time--

  • what do we have--

  • C g over 0.025 C g minus C b squared, minus C b over t b,

  • at what point is this equation undefined?

  • Yeah, Sean.

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] question [INAUDIBLE],,

  • using the second one after the [INAUDIBLE]..

  • MICHAEL SHORT: That's right.

  • So like Sean said, for the condition

  • where 0.025 C g minus C b-- let's

  • just call it C net squared minus equals C b over t b,

  • this equation is actually undefined.

  • Which means that if your C b and t b-- let's

  • say if the uncertainty from your background counting rate

  • experiment is such that you can never

  • get the total uncertainty down to let's

  • say 5% error with 95% confidence,

  • you can't actually run that experiment.

  • Because these uncertainties are added in quadrature,

  • if you're trying to reduce sigma down to a value

  • below that already, how can you do that?

  • You can't have a negative standard deviation, right?

  • So what this actually means is that when

  • you're designing this experiment, even if you count

  • for 67 minutes at 25 counts per minute,

  • like we can now out in the air, that might not

  • be enough to discern the activity of the smoke

  • shop, or the source, or whatever you

  • happen to be looking at to 95% confidence within 5% error.

  • And so let's actually look at that on the graph.

  • If we keep on scrolling up just by adding stuff to the y-axis,

  • eventually we see that it gets all straight.

  • And right here, at about 49 counts a minute,

  • suspiciously close to the background counts,

  • you'll never actually be able to get within this confidence

  • and error interval.

  • So there's always some trade-offs

  • you can make in your experiment.

  • Let's see-- there it is.

  • So sometimes, do you necessarily have

  • to be 95% confident of your result?

  • Depends on what you're doing.

  • Or do you necessarily have to get within 5% error?

  • That's probably the one you can start to sacrifice first.

  • So usually, you want to be confident of whatever

  • result you're saying and be confident that you're

  • giving acceptable bounds.

  • So you can remain at 95% confidence, which means--

  • where did part go--

  • which means keep your 2 Sigma, but you can then increase

  • your allowable percent error.

  • So if you can't get within 5% error--

  • and I believe the homework doesn't actually say that

  • for a reason--

  • yeah, we don't tell what error to choose.

  • But we do say try to get a 95% confidence.

  • So then the question is, for a reasonable counting

  • time, to what error can you get within 95% confidence?

  • The more error you allow, the shorter time you

  • have to count for.

  • And I want to show you graphically how some of that

  • stuff interplay with each other.

  • Let's say you were to increase your counting time,

  • which we can do here with a slider.

  • So for the same background counting rate,

  • if you increase the counting time,

  • what happens to the uncertainty on your background experiment?

  • Does it go up, down, or nothing?

  • AUDIENCE: It goes down.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: It's going to go down.

  • Yeah.

  • Count for longer-- the uncertainty goes down.

  • I'm going to have to change the bounds here to something

  • more reasonable.

  • So we were at 67 minutes.

  • And now, notice, as you increase your counting time,

  • even though you haven't changed the counting rate,

  • it then takes less time to distinguish

  • whatever your source is.

  • So let's count for less time in the background,

  • you have to count for more time in the experiment

  • until it just kind of explodes.

  • Count for more time in the background,

  • you have to count for less time in the experiment

  • in order to get to the uncertainty and confidence you

  • want to get to.

  • So if you doubled your background count time

  • from 67 minutes to 134, then you can

  • measure count rates as low as 42 counts per minute gross.

  • So when you start going into the smoke shop, you can, let's say,

  • count for a few minutes and get some very crude estimate

  • of the counting rate and then decide

  • how long you have to let your background accumulate

  • so you can distinguish the activity in the smoke shop

  • to within some confidence and some error.

  • Yes.

  • AUDIENCE: So does the background in the case of the smoke shop

  • just the area right outside of it?

  • Instead of the inside?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: It's definitely location dependent.

  • So we will get into background counts and sources

  • of background radiation in about a month.

  • But to give you a quick flash-forward,

  • it depends on your elevation to say how much of the atmosphere

  • is protecting you from cosmic rays.

  • It definitely depends on location.

  • So in New Hampshire, the background count's quite a bit

  • higher, because there's a lot of granite deposits,

  • and granite can be upwards of 52 parts per million radium.

  • Conway granite in particular, named

  • after Conway, New Hampshire, is pretty rich in radium ore.

  • Oh, is that where you're from?

  • AUDIENCE: No.

  • My last name is Conway.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Oh, there you go.

  • OK.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • Yeah.

  • It's also neat.

  • You can use background counts as a radiation altimeter.

  • One of my graduate students actually built a Geiger counter

  • interface to an Arduino, where you could actually

  • tell what the height you were flying at

  • is by the amount of background radiation increase.

  • So certainly it's going to depend where you are, right?

  • But you want to make sure that you're in an area,

  • to answer Sean's question, representative of where

  • the smoke shop is.

  • So you can't go into the reactor,

  • and drop this in the core, and say,

  • I'm doing a background count.

  • That's not a valid experiment.

  • So yeah, you'd want to be, I don't know, same block.

  • That would be a pretty good.

  • And then go in there and see, can you

  • measure any sort of increase, get

  • a crude estimate of your C g--

  • your gross count rate.

  • Use this formula right here to estimate how much time you'd

  • have to wait.

  • So for example, let's shrink our y-axis down a little

  • and be more optimistic than we probably should.

  • Let's say you go in there and you get a count

  • rate of 100 counts per minute.

  • That would do that would surprise me.

  • You'd only have to count for an extra 28 minutes

  • to nail that net count rate with 95% confidence to 5% error.

  • Let's say now, what happens if we increase

  • the allowable percent error?

  • So let's say 10% error would be acceptable.

  • We just take that number and double it.

  • Then, all of a sudden, you don't have

  • to count for nearly as long.

  • So again at 5% error, which means a 0.25 here,

  • at 100 counts per minute, you'd have

  • to count for about 30 minutes.

  • If you're willing to accept 10% error,

  • it goes down to seven minutes and 18 seconds.

  • So do you guys see the general interplay

  • between confidence, percent error, counting time,

  • and counting rate?

  • Who here is built an NSE Geiger counter before?

  • Awesome.

  • So this is definitely a try-it-at-home kids kind

  • of thing.

  • If you want to find out is something radioactive,

  • this is what you can actually use to answer the question,

  • is it discernibly radioactive to within some limit of error

  • or limit of confidence?

  • That's what we're going to be doing here with a much, much,

  • much more sensitive detector.

  • So the only thing missing from our complete picture

  • of going from the activity of a source, which we've shown you

  • how to count, to dealing with the solid angle, which is just

  • a simple formula, to dealing with statistics

  • and uncertainty, is now the efficiency of this detector.

  • Out of the number of radiation quanta or whatever

  • that enter the detector, how many interact,

  • and how many leave out the other side?

  • That's we're going to be spending most of the next month

  • on when we do ion, photon, electron, and neutron

  • interactions with matter.

  • So we'll find out-- what's the probability per unit length

  • that each one undergoes an interaction, what kind

  • of interactions do they undergo, and then we'll

  • complete this actual picture.

  • So you can take a source of, let's say, unknown activity,

  • put it a known distance away from a known detector

  • with a known efficiency, and back out

  • what the activity of that source is with accuracy.

  • That's what you're going to start doing on this homework

  • as well for the banana lab.

  • The only thing you don't know is the activity

  • of this bag of bananas.

  • But we're going to give you all the information,

  • like the efficiency of the detector

  • and the geometry of the detector,

  • and you're going to be able to measure

  • the number of potassium 40 counts

  • that the detector picks up.

  • So by taking-- let's see where we have some space left.

  • We had a little bit here.

  • So by taking that number of counts

  • and dividing by, let's say, the efficiency

  • of the detector, where that efficiency is

  • going to range from 0 to 1, probably much closer to 0,

  • and also dividing by, let's say, your solid angle over 4

  • pi to account for how many of the emitted potassium

  • 40 gamma rays actually get into the detector

  • and dividing by 2 gamma rays per disintegration--

  • I think that's what we had last time.

  • Or was that cobalt 60?

  • Yeah.

  • We've been using cobalt 60 as an example.

  • So remember, we had two gamma rays emitted per cobalt 60

  • disintegration on average.

  • Then you can get to the actual activity of the source.

  • Once you know the activity of this bag of bananas,

  • you can then divide by either the mass of one banana,

  • or the number of bananas, or whatever

  • to get the final answer.

  • That's what we're going to spend the rest of today doing.

  • So since it's getting on five out of five of,

  • do you guys have any questions about what we covered today

  • or what we're about to go do?

  • AUDIENCE: You said that for solid angle

  • you wouldn't do this.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Yep.

  • AUDIENCE: So for solid angle, it's

  • [INAUDIBLE] to the surface area over y squared.

  • And in this situation, does solid angle over 4 pi

  • mean that you can only have a maximum of half of the sphere?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Not necessarily.

  • Let's say you were to encase your detector

  • in an infinite medium of radiation material.

  • Then you could subtend 4 pi.

  • So the idea here is that if you captured every single gamma

  • ray, your solid angle would be 4 pi.

  • So if your solid angle is 4 pi, then that

  • would equal-ish the area over r squared of your thing.

  • But this is actually not that good of an approximation

  • when you put a source very, very up close to a detector.

  • So there are actual formulas for solid angle, where

  • the real formula for a solid angle,

  • you actually end up having to do a surface

  • integral of the sine, which accounts for the fact

  • that the object that you have might be, let's say,

  • tilted towards or away from the detector,

  • times some differential d phi d theta of this unit sphere.

  • So you'll have to integrate to say

  • how many of these little d phi d thetas are actually

  • subtended by your detector.

  • And the value of that actual surface integral

  • gives you the real solid angle.

  • That's the super simple one if you just

  • know the area of something and you know

  • that you're kind of far away.

  • But again, whenever possible, use the exact formula.

  • So any other questions?

  • Yeah, Sean.

  • AUDIENCE: You said that that expression

  • is a true statement [INAUDIBLE] per second, right?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: The two gammas per cobalt 60?

  • This one?

  • AUDIENCE: Yeah.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: That accounts for the fact

  • that if you remember the decay diagram for cobalt 60,

  • how does that decay?

  • By beta emission.

  • It goes to one energy level, and it

  • tends to go down by two gamma decays to nickel 60.

  • So each time it gives off a gamma ray

  • to one level and a gamma ray to another level.

  • So in this case, one becquerel of cobalt 60

  • would give off two gamma rays per second.

  • So if you're measuring a number of counts, and each count,

  • one gamma ray was responsible, you

  • have to then divide by the number of gamma

  • rays per disintegration on average in order

  • to get the actual activity of that source.

  • Because remember, activity is measured in disintegrations,

  • not in number of gamma rays emitted.

  • That's the difference here.

  • Dose-- you'd actually care about how many gamma rays you absorb.

  • But activity is how many atoms are disintegrating per second.

  • Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: What units of cobalt 60 [INAUDIBLE]??

  • MICHAEL SHORT: The units of cobalt 60?

  • AUDIENCE: It's just two gamma--

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Oh, this would be, like, atoms of cobalt 60.

  • And those gamma rays would be gammas per atom.

  • So in this case, it's like two gamma rays per atom of cobalt

  • 60 disintegrating, or better yet, per disintegration.

  • So you've got to know what material you're

  • looking at in order to know how many gamma

  • or how many betas or more that you're going

  • to get per disintegration.

  • Who here has heard of this uncertainty in quadrature

  • before?

  • There's a couple folks.

  • OK.

  • Yeah.

  • The idea here is that, again, if you just add the errors up,

  • you're probably overestimating the error

  • and selling yourself short.

  • Cool.

  • In that case, if there's no questions, let's go do this.

  • So follow me to the counting lab.

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK.

  • So this is my counting lab.

  • These are three high-purity germanium detectors.

  • Have you explained high-purity germanium detectors?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: No, we haven't.

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK.

  • Have you explained any detectors?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Just the Geiger counter

  • we were playing around with today.

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK.

  • Well, here.

  • Down in here there's a little high-purity germanium crystal

  • with a couple thousand volts across it.

  • When a gamma ray goes into it, it

  • makes some electron hole pairs.

  • Nod when I say electron hole pairs.

  • OK, good.

  • And basically, you get more electron hole pairs the more

  • energy of the gamma you have.

  • So you collect the current from that,

  • and you get a little pulse of current,

  • and the height of the pulse tells you

  • how many hole pairs you had, and then

  • back it up to what the energy or your gamma was.

  • That works fine if you collect all of the gamma energy.

  • You don't always quite do that.

  • Anyway, so that's how--

  • You all can scooch up.

  • There's not a whole lot to see in there.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: It's worth a look.

  • If you've never seen it.

  • MICHAEL AMES: It's worth a look.

  • You can't really see the crystal.

  • There's just an aluminum cylinder in there.

  • The black part is just a carbon fiber window,

  • because you don't want to cut off the low energy gamma.

  • So it's got a really thin carbon fiber window on it.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: What's with the hundreds of pounds

  • of copper around the side?

  • MICHAEL AMES: What's with the hundreds of pounds

  • of copper on the side?

  • There's not hundreds of pounds of copper on the side.

  • These guys are lead.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Ah-hah!

  • MICHAEL AMES: Which does two things--

  • it shields the detectors from the activity out here, from you

  • guys, from the activities coming out of here--

  • because sometimes I'm counting very low activity samples--

  • and it also, if I'm counting something

  • that has a lot of activity, it shields us from that activity.

  • So it kind of goes both ways.

  • The reason there's copper is if you get a high energy gamma

  • ray into some lead, it makes x-rays.

  • And it makes a very nice 75 keV--

  • do you guys know keV?

  • Good.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: We've done x-rays.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Awesome.

  • So it's a really, really nice 75 keV

  • x-ray that interferes with trying to count things

  • around 75 keV, because you're getting all these x-rays coming

  • out of lead.

  • So you line it with copper, which

  • makes a lower energy x-ray and filters out the lead x-rays.

  • So anyway, so this is I've got two germanium detectors.

  • That ones also germanium, but it's a well detector.

  • So it's got a little one-centimeter hole

  • in so you can stick a sample right in the germanium.

  • They're hooked up through a little electronic box

  • and go into the computer over there that does

  • all the peak height analysis.

  • Oh, yeah, liquid nitrogen [INAUDIBLE]..

  • Thanks for pointing.

  • Yeah, you cool the electronics and everything down

  • so it cuts out the thermal noise.

  • Because you're looking for really tiny little signals

  • here, so you cool everything down.

  • And that way, it's not too noisy.

  • These guys are OK warming up.

  • It doesn't destroy the detector.

  • The old detectors you had to keep cold all the time.

  • And if they warmed up, then they were just paperweights.

  • So this is just the counting lab.

  • I've got an actual sample counting in here right now.

  • We'll take a look at the spectrum in a minute.

  • Your bananas are going to go here.

  • And let's see if we can smash it down.

  • Yeah.

  • Because it would be nice if I can close the lid.

  • Oops.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Well, almost.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Almost.

  • Well, smash this down.

  • Here, one you guys do this.

  • Here, you.

  • Smash that down until it fits in there.

  • Although, don't break the bag.

  • Oh!

  • OK, we'll get another bag.

  • AUDIENCE: Oh, did I break it?

  • MICHAEL AMES: It's OK.

  • It's just banana ash.

  • We'll find another bag.

  • It's OK.

  • You know, I'm all about making mistakes.

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah, yeah, yeah, just be a little more gentle.

  • We'll throw some duct tape on it, and it'll be fine.

  • So you're looking for potassium 40 in your bananas, correct?

  • Where else do you think we got potassium 40?

  • Or do you think there's any other potassium 40 in the room?

  • AUDIENCE: In us.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah, right.

  • So when you do the banana count, we frequently

  • take a spectrum on this with the lid closed,

  • and we always see potassium 40.

  • There's potassium 40 everywhere.

  • So after we get the count of the bananas,

  • we'll take a background count.

  • You'll want to subtract the two signals.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: We just did 15 minutes ago.

  • MICHAEL AMES: You're so ahead of me.

  • OK, I think that's all--

  • Is this going to fit now?

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK.

  • Close enough.

  • I've got this thing--

  • I've got a whole bunch of little spacers

  • if I'm counting something that's hot.

  • And by hot, I mean radioactive hot.

  • I'll space it out a little further.

  • AUDIENCE: Need a little more smashing?

  • MICHAEL AMES: No, that's fine.

  • We just got to close the lid.

  • And if I've got something that's very radioactive,

  • I'll just space it out away from the detector.

  • If you've got something that's really hot,

  • it just kind of swamps out the electronics.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: We did just go for a solid angle too, today.

  • MICHAEL AMES: There you go.

  • Is there anything else I want to say in here?

  • No, let's move this way.

  • This is the spectrum I'm collecting on MIT 1.

  • Right now, I don't know-- how long has that been going?

  • Half a day-- less than that.

  • Anyway, so this is a sample of quartz

  • that was irradiated next to the reactor.

  • You guys are going to do shorts in like a month--

  • did you bring your samples?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: We're getting them.

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK, good.

  • Anyway, this is a sample of quartz

  • that was irradiated in the same spot you guys are going

  • to do your irradiation, sort of in the graphite

  • region of the reactor.

  • The reason we're running it is the people who

  • are looking at this quartz want to run it for 80 hours,

  • and we'd like to know if there are any impurities in it

  • that'll cause grief--

  • meaning a lot of activity when it comes out.

  • So we run it for a short period.

  • I think this ran six hours.

  • And it's just a little tiny piece.

  • And so I can look at the gamma spectrum coming out of this.

  • So you can see, there's a whole mess of peaks in here.

  • This one-- you see that?

  • You see that lovely, little peak right there?

  • Can you all see that?

  • Nod.

  • Yeah, OK.

  • So that's the full spectrum.

  • That's the peak.

  • That's a tungsten 187 peak.

  • So I did put up one little thing right behind you.

  • Have you all seen the chart of the nuclides?

  • This thing?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Every day.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Every day!

  • Good.

  • I've got one of these on every wall

  • in every lab in office and a little handbook Yeah.

  • So the tungsten 186 activates into tungsten 187.

  • So if you've looked at the chart of the nuclides,

  • you can tell that there's all the sort of parameters

  • you would need to calculate how much activation

  • you'd get based on neutron flux, and time, and cross.

  • The 28.43, that's the abundance of that isotope.

  • You can see the sigma gamma 38, that's

  • the cross section for thermal neutrons.

  • And so that's how likely you'll get from 186 to 187.

  • 187, that's the half-life--

  • 23.9 hours.

  • So with all of that--

  • oh, and underneath the 23.9, you've

  • got what the gammas are--

  • 685, 479.

  • it's got a whole mess of gammas.

  • So that's a bunch of the gammas in here for that.

  • So you could, knowing how big that peak is,

  • what the efficiency of the detector is for collecting that

  • peak in that geometry, the half-life, the cross set--

  • that whole mess of parameters--

  • back-calculate how much tungsten is in the sample.

  • So that's kind of how NAA works, which

  • I assume you've explained.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: We have.

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Actually, the whole idea

  • behind doing those short NAA activations is

  • these guys are going to calculate

  • what's in their samples.

  • MICHAEL AMES: There you go.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Once we get the date.

  • MICHAEL AMES: But that's not how I do NAA.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: [INAUDIBLE] We're doing a simplified version.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Right, right.

  • No, no, no.

  • So there's two things that you could do.

  • One of the things you could do is

  • you take all those nuclear parameters

  • and you calculate it just from the peak height.

  • The other way that everybody who does NAA--

  • almost everybody who does NAA--

  • is you run a standard material.

  • Any of you guys chemists at any point in your life?

  • You all took some chemistry at some point?

  • OK.

  • So you've run a standard, which means a material

  • that how much tungsten is in it or how much a whole mess

  • of other things are.

  • So I run a bunch of different standards.

  • So along with this piece of quartz,

  • I ran a standard, irradiated it at the same time.

  • I'll count the quartz and then I'll count the standard.

  • And by comparing the peak heights

  • and doing all the decay corrections and the weight

  • corrections, then I calculate how much

  • tungsten is in my sample.

  • So I don't actually use the cross sections, or the flux,

  • or any of that other stuff-- all of those parameters disappear.

  • Notably, the detector efficiency disappears out of the equation,

  • because that's the parameter that you usually

  • have the funniest idea about.

  • And so you reduce the uncertainty

  • in your concentration by doing this sort of comparative method

  • with a standard.

  • That all make sense?

  • OK.

  • So when we run shorts, I guess, in a month,

  • we'll take whatever your samples are.

  • I've had feedback about, oh, God,

  • you don't want to run that many samples.

  • But we'll figure out how many samples we'll run.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: It's one per person.

  • [INAUDIBLE]

  • MICHAEL AMES: That's a lot of shorts.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: In pairs, right?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah.

  • So I'll show you how the shorts get run.

  • So when we run your shorts, we'll run your samples

  • and we'll run standards, and then

  • you can do the comparative method.

  • Or, if you feel like it, you can do the other method,

  • depending on what exercise--

  • MICHAEL SHORT: The other method.

  • MICHAEL AMES: You're going to do the other method.

  • You don't want to do the standard method?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Oh, no, no no.

  • We're drilling comprehension, not [INAUDIBLE]..

  • MICHAEL AMES: Not practical?

  • Oh.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: What happens if the computer break down?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Well, if the computer goes down,

  • you can't get any data anyway.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Oh, [INAUDIBLE].

  • MICHAEL AMES: I can do the comparative one on an envelope.

  • Anyway-- well, we'll run standards or not, depending

  • on how you guys are feeling.

  • So that's that.

  • Oh, right.

  • Let's count your bananas.

  • So this is detector 2.

  • We did an energy calibration earlier today.

  • So actually, I've got a couple of little button sources.

  • Have you seen the button sources?

  • Yeah.

  • So that's just a couple of cobalt 60 lines and a cesium

  • 137 line down in here.

  • And I know where those energies are,

  • so that just gets used to calibrate the detectors.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: We were playing around one of those cobalt 60

  • buttons today in class.

  • MICHAEL AMES: There you go.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: We mentioned the two gammas per disintegration,

  • and there they are.

  • MICHAEL AMES: There they are.

  • They're kind of small there because my buttons are probably

  • 30 years old.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Oh, I got some fresh ones.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah.

  • So anyway, we cleared that out.

  • And we just hit Start.

  • And we're not going to see anything a while.

  • Where are we?

  • Oh here.

  • 14-- anyway, your banana peak will end up out in here.

  • So it'll take a while.

  • We're going to let this count until Tuesday.

  • Because, why not?

  • And I don't feel like coming in over the weekend

  • and turning it off.

  • So yeah.

  • So this is just picking up all the gammas coming out

  • of the bananas, and everything else that

  • happens to get through the [INAUDIBLE],,

  • and all the contamination on the inside of that.

  • And we just let it count.

  • And then you guys can calculate how much

  • potassium 40 is in your ashes.

  • You'll need to do the background subtraction.

  • I will give you--

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Do you have background spectra?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah.

  • We collect background spectra once a month or so.

  • So I'll give you a background spectra.

  • I will provide the efficiency for this geometry, which

  • is pretty poorly defined, because I've

  • got a program that'll do that.

  • And I can't give you the program,

  • and it's a pain in the neck to run anyway.

  • If we've got a really well-defined geometry that's

  • not a big bag, usually I try to count sort of point sources--

  • so I've got an efficiency standard that I

  • can use that I know what the disintegrations in that

  • are at a lot of energies, and I use

  • that to do an efficiency calibration, usually.

  • But I don't have an efficiency standard that's that big.

  • It's just a point source.

  • And I think that's the practical NAA.

  • From this end, did that all makes sense?

  • I want you guys to nod, not him to nod.

  • Yeah.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Do you guys have any questions for Mike

  • on what you've just heard?

  • Well-timed, because we were just talking about this stuff

  • all week.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Good deal.

  • For neutron activation, that's kind of a real common part

  • of the chart.

  • So there's the manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel.

  • One of the things--

  • what you'd like, usually when you're doing NAA,

  • is you want a nice thermal neutron spectrum.

  • You know what thermal neutron spectra means?

  • Real slow neutrons.

  • And they'll just give you sort of an n gamma reaction.

  • So on that chart, iron 58 to iron 59,

  • that's a nice n gamma reaction.

  • And that's the one I use to analyze for iron.

  • If you're near the reactor, you're

  • also getting some fast neutrons, which

  • can give you an n p reaction.

  • So if you're looking on the chart there,

  • cobalt 59, if you get an n p reaction,

  • will also make the iron 59.

  • And that's a pain in the neck, because if you've got iron,

  • you've always got a little cobalt floating around--

  • you maybe need to do a correction.

  • So in practical terms, when you're running NAA,

  • you really want to avoid having all these fast reactions.

  • There's usually an energy threshold

  • for the fast reactions, like 1 meV or so.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Sound familiar from the cube equation?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah, OK.

  • Right.

  • The place where we do the irradiations is very thermal.

  • It's got a very low, fast spectrum.

  • So I don't usually have to worry about that.

  • There's a couple of times I actually

  • use the fast n p reaction.

  • If I want to measure nickel, you can see nickel 58,

  • an n p reaction will get cobalt 58.

  • And since there's not a good reaction n

  • gamma from cobalt 57, cobalt 57 isn't around usually.

  • So that's how I measure nickel, using n p reaction.

  • And I need to put the rabbits into where I've

  • got a fast flux in the reactor.

  • Which, well, they've got a couple of spots for that.

  • I try not to have to measure nickel,

  • because it's pain in the neck.

  • But sometimes people want to know nickel.

  • And we talked a little about what

  • we've run in here for types of samples.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Well, why don't you tell us?

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK, OK.

  • So back 15, 20, 25 years ago, we did

  • a ton of environmental samples in this lab.

  • We had a whole three grad students, myself included,

  • who did atmospheric particulate matter, rain water, snow,

  • we even did some fog collection, which

  • is kind of fun, ice cores, which are old particulate deposition.

  • And it was all for trace elements in those kind

  • of environmental samples--

  • also lake sediments.

  • Other analytical methods have gotten a lot better,

  • and so they've kind of caught up to NAA,

  • and you don't need a reactor to run those.

  • So the environmental side of this

  • has kind of quieted down a lot.

  • But it's still useful for a bunch of things.

  • And so I do some work here now.

  • I also work in the NCORE group.

  • So that's a lot of my time, rather than just this lab.

  • Practical things-- let's go take a look at a couple other labs.

  • You're not on wheels?

  • You don't have a steady cam?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: I got a question.

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK.

  • You've got a question.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: What's the weirdest thing you've ever

  • been asked to count?

  • MICHAEL AMES: The weirdest thing I've been asked to count?

  • That's already activated, or?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: At all.

  • MICHAEL AMES: OK.

  • I don't know-- brain tissue.

  • Fish samples that we actually did the fresh fish samples.

  • And you want to kind of homogenize those.

  • And we had this kind of titanium blender--

  • you remember the Bass-O-Matic?

  • We had this titanium blender that we dropped the fish in,

  • and you completely homogenized the fish,

  • and then you took a little sample of it,

  • and freeze dried it, and then analyzed it for mercury.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: [INAUDIBLE]

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah, right.

  • Because, I mean guys saw, the rabbits are only this big,

  • and the samples I want are only that big.

  • And so to get a representative fish,

  • you want to kind of make a fish smoothie

  • and then take a sample out of that.

  • We did have a guy who came to me and was

  • promising we were going to do this giant study using

  • fingernails and toenails for nutritional analysis.

  • He was working with a group that looks at zinc deficiencies,

  • and fingernails and toenails will give you

  • a good record of how much zinc you've

  • had over the last week, or month,

  • or whatever-- depend where you cut the nails.

  • And so I was going to get a couple of hundred

  • African children's toenails.

  • That didn't happen.

  • But I did analyze my own toenails.

  • Well, if you went to somebody who

  • was a little suspicious of you, asking for toenails

  • is a lot easier than asking for a blood sample.

  • Because people would give up toenails-- it's not a big deal.

  • Have you ever seen the movie or read the book

  • Civil Action, about the superfund site in Woburn.

  • It was a big old superfund site, and Woburn had arsenic

  • and chromium contamination.

  • There used to be a lab--

  • I forget which building it was in-- that did a ton of research

  • there.

  • One of the things we did in this lab was we

  • collected baby hair samples from people's scrapbooks.

  • So we had baby hair going back 50-60 years--

  • dated, because everybody knew how old their kid was--

  • and we analyzed the hair samples for arsenic and chromium,

  • and then we plotted out where they were,

  • when the sample was taken, and how close they were

  • to some contaminated wells.

  • And because we did a fairly short of radiation,

  • after a while the activities died down

  • and we gave the samples back.

  • And we found that it didn't correlate with the well

  • water or the time when the contamination was

  • the worst, which made people happy in retrospect,

  • that the contamination from that area

  • didn't get into the well water.

  • That was in the mid-90s or so.

  • Anyway, that was one of my samples.

  • And the hair is a pain in the neck to work with.

  • So I hope none of you give me hair samples.

  • I won't run them.

  • So let's go down the hall, this way.

  • You all got to follow.

  • And so this is just a fine powder.

  • And it's fly ash from a coal-fired power plant.

  • Fly ash means the ash that goes up the smokestack, as opposed

  • to bottom ash which is what falls down.

  • And so, they collect a whole hundreds of kilograms of fly

  • ash, just homogenize it, sieve it, send it out

  • to a lot of labs to analyze--

  • NIST is really good at this--

  • take all the data.

  • And so this ash is characterized for about 20 elements or so.

  • So when I run my samples, if I were

  • to run your samples with standards,

  • I'd run a little bit of this, 5, 6, 7 milligrams.

  • And I know what the concentrations are in this.

  • And so that's how I do the comparative method.

  • And so I got this.

  • And they all look the same.

  • And this is some soil from Montana next to a mine,

  • so it's nicely contaminated with some metals.

  • This is my IAEA mercury and hair standard.

  • But again, it's just a little powder.

  • And this is kind of what everybody uses for standards.

  • And you just kind of have a whole collection of them.

  • And depending on what elements you're looking for,

  • you try to mix and match them so you

  • cover what you want without having

  • to run five or six of them.

  • This is my hot lab, or one of my hot labs.

  • You guys, last week, or whatever it was,

  • I came by-- so this is the rabbit.

  • Those you who weren't there, these

  • are called rabbits because it's the little thing that runs

  • through the pneumatic tube.

  • You guys are doing [INAUDIBLE] later today?

  • Yeah.

  • When you're sitting at the control panel,

  • there's a button, I think it's to the left,

  • and it says insert rabbit.

  • And that's what this is referring to.

  • For longer radiations there's a spot

  • in the basement in the reactor where they can get these,

  • and they send them into the irradiation location.

  • For short irradiations, like what

  • you guys are going to be doing in a month,

  • I send them in from here.

  • That's OK-- I just don't want to bump into that thing.

  • So this is one end of the pneumatic system.

  • And so I can put a couple of samples in here.

  • I stick it in that little tube there, call the control room

  • and say, OK, turn a bunch of knobs,

  • and switches, and whatnot.

  • And it goes schwoonk, and in about 15 seconds

  • it's next to the reactor to the core

  • of the reactor in the graphite.

  • I usually run shorts.

  • I'll usually irradiate for about 10 minutes.

  • We usually let the sample sit in the reactor for a little while.

  • So the very short half-life stuff decays away,

  • and then it comes back out here.

  • And the thing just kind of shoots out there

  • and bounces into here.

  • And then pop open the rabbit, and in that hood,

  • pull the samples out.

  • I usually try to repackage the samples.

  • So this is partly why I asked for stuff that's

  • one or two good solid pieces.

  • Because then I can take it out of whatever it was irradiated,

  • put it in a clean bag or vial, and that way we

  • don't have to do a blank subtraction for the sample.

  • Does that make sense?

  • Because, otherwise, if I take a little vial,

  • irradiate it, and then count it, I'll

  • also have whatever elements are in the vial on the thing.

  • For when I'm running standards-- and this is when if we're not

  • running standards you don't have to worry about this--

  • that powdered standard stuff, I never get that out of a bag.

  • Because you'd never get all of it out,

  • and I'd have contamination everywhere if I started cutting

  • open those bags.

  • So I do have to do a bag correction for those.

  • So when I do when an irradiation,

  • I always irradiate a few empty bags,

  • and then you do a correction for those.

  • Because the bags have got aluminum, and antimony,

  • and a bunch of things in them.

  • And so then I take a couple of samples,

  • I throw them in a lead pig--

  • so I've got a whole bunch of these floating around--

  • and I run it down the hall, and throw it on a detector,

  • and we count it.

  • When we're doing shorts, I'll irradiate two samples

  • at a time, because I have two detectors.

  • When I used to have four detectors,

  • I ran for samples at a time.

  • So you irradiate it, repackage it, count it.

  • While those pair of samples are counting,

  • you come down here, you irradiate the next two,

  • so that you're just kind of always

  • irradiating and counting.

  • I usually do a 10-minute irradiation for shorts.

  • I'll do a fairly quick count-- five minutes-- right

  • after I get the sample down there,

  • and that's looking for stuff with half-lifes

  • under 10 minutes.

  • The shortest half-life I look for is for aluminum.

  • It's 2 and 1/4 minutes.

  • But things usually have a lot of aluminum in them,

  • so I see aluminum pretty well.

  • For shorts, I'll count all the way up

  • to about sodium, which is almost 15 hour half-life.

  • Longer stuff, I'll do a longer irradiation to count.

  • There's a little overlap on my shorts and longs.

  • That helps me do QA on things.

  • And if I run two standards, I'll check the concentrations

  • from one standard to the other.

  • That's another little QA thing.

  • What else we got?

  • MICHAEL SHORT: What question do you guys have?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Questions.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Now that you know how this done.

  • MICHAEL AMES: It's pretty straightforward.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: What sort of things

  • are you going to be bringing in?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah, what do we got?

  • AUDIENCE: Probably middle Bronze age pottery shirts.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Oh.

  • Yeah, yeah.

  • OK.

  • There is a lot of archeology that NAA

  • got used for that a lot.

  • I don't think we ever did it here.

  • Fred Frey, who's a professor, retired now, from EAPs--

  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary--

  • he did a lot of geological samples.

  • And I forget where it was that they did all the archeology.

  • One of the things NAA is really good

  • for is rare earth elements, which

  • are hard to measure by other methods.

  • I can get very low limits on that.

  • And by picking out various rare earths and the ratios,

  • it can help identify where things are from in the world.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: Yeah.

  • AUDIENCE: Can I use a bird as a sample?

  • MICHAEL AMES: If you give me a little, tiny piece of it.

  • AUDIENCE: OK.

  • MICHAEL AMES: I mean, you know--

  • I

  • AUDIENCE: Like, how small [INAUDIBLE]??

  • MICHAEL AMES: Well, see, that's the rabbit.

  • So it's definitely got to fit in there.

  • AUDIENCE: OK.

  • MICHAEL AMES: The thing I really like--

  • excuse me, where's my vials?

  • I used to have some smaller ones up here.

  • But that should definitely fit in one of those.

  • Like, see that guy.

  • AUDIENCE: OK

  • MICHAEL AMES: My usual description

  • of what size sample I like is if it's

  • a piece that you would pick up with a pair of tweezers.

  • So not too small to pick up--

  • to be able to find.

  • So no powders.

  • And you could maybe get it with your fingers.

  • But 20 milligrams, 50 milligrams, 100 milligrams

  • is just in the right ballpark.

  • AUDIENCE: OK.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: What else are you guys thinking of bringing?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Doesn't matter.

  • We'll look at what comes in, and--

  • yeah, I might veto some things or not.

  • But we'll see.

  • We'll see what we got.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: OK.

  • AUDIENCE: What are those little bricks for?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Well, we got bricks everywhere.

  • So when I get the sample out of there,

  • I do the repackaging in here.

  • And so this is just shielding between the samples

  • I'm working on and myself.

  • I don't have my dosimeter on now,

  • but I usually have got the symmetry and a ring badge.

  • And then it kind of comes over here,

  • and this is where the heat sealer is.

  • So I can heat seal it here, and then I'll have a pig over here.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: They're just painted lead bricks?

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah, these are just painted lead bricks.

  • And you know, these have been here longer than I have.

  • And sometimes things just are somewhere,

  • and you never move them.

  • These, I think, are older than me too.

  • This lab has been doing NAA since the '70s, I think.

  • Anybody else?

  • AUDIENCE: Is there a single brick

  • that I could just hold to see how heavy it is?

  • MICHAEL AMES: The full size bricks--

  • like, that size, 2 inches, by 4 inches, by 8 inches,

  • weighs about 25 pounds.

  • There's usually a bunch of them floating around.

  • Here, you want this game?

  • That one's not quite full size.

  • AUDIENCE: Wow.

  • That's pretty heavy.

  • MICHAEL AMES: They're heavy.

  • They're lead.

  • Anybody else want to toss it?

  • No, OK.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • When people ask me--

  • because I work in the reactor, as well-- they say,

  • is there anything dangerous in the reactor?

  • The dangerous thing is dropping lead bricks on your feet.

  • So I've got steel toast.

  • If I miss the toe, I'd probably break my--

  • I don't want to think about it.

  • And they move much bigger things in the reactor.

  • Have you toured the reactor yet?

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

  • MICHAEL AMES: So there's that giant crane there,

  • and they move five-ton pieces a shielding.

  • And that's the other dangerous thing in there,

  • dropping really big things.

  • We've never dropped anything that big.

  • I think somebody dropped a steel plate on their foot once.

  • That was about the worst of it.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • You know, like, four-foot, half-inch steel-- boom.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: That's what happened to my foot.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Yeah.

  • OK, good.

  • And people trip and fall off ladders.

  • And it's the usual industrial accidents.

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] cut off your toe.

  • [INTERPOSING VOICES]

  • AUDIENCE: Well, my toes are still here.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Good.

  • Yeah.

  • I mean, I've broken a few, but not here.

  • MICHAEL SHORT: So, cool.

  • Thanks a ton, Mike.

  • MICHAEL AMES: Sure.

  • And I'll see you guys in a month or something

  • and have fun running the reactor.

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: Well, good day, folks.

  • You guys are here to do an experiment on the reactor.

  • It's in two parts.

  • The first part is raising reactor power.

  • The first is raising reactor power

  • using a low worth absorber called a regulating rod.

  • And then the second part will be lowering reactor power

  • using a high worth absorber.

  • And the high worth absorber, things will moved much faster.

  • And we don't want to run into a chance

  • if you accidentally going too high,

  • so that's why we use a low worth absorber on the way up

  • and a high worth absorber on the way down.

  • And I just want to show you the controls.

  • With me today is Tim.

  • To actually do this experiment, we

  • need two licensed people in here,

  • one at least has a senior reactor operator.

  • Both Tim and I are both senior licenses,

  • so we have that covered.

  • The only way you can actually do these manipulations

  • are if you're in my training program--

  • I'm the training supervisor for the facility--

  • or you're in a program that needs you to actually operate

  • the reactor.

  • And the program you guys are in fits that definition.

  • So I just want to show you some of the controls of the reactor.

  • First, we have our shim blade controller.

  • This basically moves one of six shim blades at a time.

  • The one that's selected has a slide on it.

  • And we can change which one's selected with the shim blade

  • selector switch.

  • This switch here is a regulating rod.

  • This one will allow you to move the regulating rod up and down.

  • Our blades our fixed speed, meaning they

  • can only move at the exact same rate at all times.

  • Moving the shim blade in an upward direction

  • or the regulating rod in upwards direction,

  • take an underhand grip and pull up

  • or twist upwards until it stops.

  • Moving it just a little bit doesn't move anything.

  • You have to move all the way until it stops,

  • and then the absorber will move in the outward direction.

  • If you want the blade to stop just release it.

  • It's spring-loaded and will go back to the neutral position

  • and stop moving.

  • If you want to drive something in the inward position,

  • take an overhand grip and twist downwards,

  • and that will drive the absorber in.

  • Once again, let go.

  • It'll snap back up and stop the motion of the blade

  • or the regulating rod.

  • The experiment we're doing is basically change reactor power

  • by half a megawatt.

  • And we're currently at 500 kilowatts

  • we're going bring the reactor up to 1 megawatt

  • and then bring it back down to 500 kilowatts.

  • So before we can do this, you have to log into our log book

  • as a trainee on console.

  • We'll show you the proper way to make the entries.

  • As you make those entries, you'll go ahead and then

  • do the actual movement itself.

  • Sp the first one is going to be using a regular rod to move

  • the reactor power up.

  • What's the reactor power?

  • We have about nine different instruments

  • that tell us what the reactor power is at all times.

  • But the ones we're going to be paying attention to are

  • channel seven 7 and channel 9.

  • These two channels are what we used to basically tell us

  • what the wrecked power is.

  • Channel 7 is what we control our automatic control at.

  • If you watch the regulating rod, you'll

  • see it move up and down on its own.

  • That's because it's changing power

  • based on what it sees channel 7 is doing.

  • So if channel 7 sees that the power level's going too low,

  • it'll cause the regulating rod to drive outwards

  • to increase the amount of neutrons

  • making the reactor power go up.

  • Channel 9 is a linear power channel,

  • and it basically tells us what the power level is based

  • on a chart that we create.

  • So it's not showing you megawatts, or kilowatts,

  • or anything like that, it's showing you a current coming

  • from a chamber.

  • And that current is then converted

  • into megawatts and so forth.

  • So right now, we're at 500 kilowatts, 8.5 microamps,

  • on this channel.

  • And that's 8.5 microamps equals 550 kilowatts.

  • You're going to be bringing a record up to 1.

  • Megawatt and since it's linear, it'll be double that-- so 17.1.

  • Now, you want to be careful when you raise reactor power.

  • So when you start to add power to the reactor

  • by raising a regulating rod, you don't want to keep raising it

  • until you reach your value, because you

  • have to actually stop the power increase as well.

  • So we have two rules that we have to follow--

  • one, at the power level we're at, we have period--

  • the reactor period.

  • The reactor period is amount of time

  • it takes reactor power to increase.

  • At the power level we're at, we're

  • not allowed to go shorter than a 100-second period.

  • So here is one of three periods meters--

  • one here, one here, which is selectable between two

  • different meters.

  • So as you're pulling up the regulating rod,

  • one of the things you have to watch

  • is to make sure that the reactor period doesn't go shorter

  • than a 100-second period.

  • If it does, you have to stop pulling blades.

  • The other thing we have to watch for

  • is to make sure that the power level, channel 9,

  • doesn't exceed where you're going to.

  • Not only not exceed, but we also want

  • to make sure that you can actually control the reactor.

  • It's called feasibility of control.

  • And what that means is when you get to about 80%

  • of the power level you're going to--

  • since we're going up to 1 megawatt,

  • that's about 800 kilowatts--

  • you want to be able to drive the absorber in and hold

  • the absorber in.

  • You'll drive the regulating rod inwards.

  • And watch that channel nine value.

  • It'll slow until it actually starts to go down again.

  • Once it reaches that value and you see it going down,

  • you now know that you could control the reactor

  • and keep it from going away--

  • rack power increasing continuously.

  • So what we're going to do is have you

  • when you reach 80% of the power level you're going to,

  • which happens to be 800 kilowatts,

  • you're going to start increasing or lengthening the period

  • by driving the absorber back in the regulating rod.

  • And you'll keep holding it in until you see the number

  • not only stop increasing, but actually go down a little bit.

  • As soon as you see it going down a little bit

  • and go of the regulating rod, You

  • haven't stopped the power at this time,

  • you've just decreased how fast it's going up.

  • And then the power level will sill go up,

  • but a much slower rate than it was before.

  • And once it reaches the power level you want to stop at,

  • the 1 megawatt, keep driving the regulating rod in

  • to hold it at that power level.

  • Once you're at that power level, you're

  • going to make an entry in a log book that

  • basically says you made it to the power

  • level you're going to.

  • And then we'll go down in power.

  • So once again, you make an entry in a log book

  • that says I'm going to lower ranked power to 500 kilowatts,

  • and then this time we'll use a shim blade.

  • The shim blade is worth a lot more than a regulating rod--

  • about 10 times the regulating rod, so things

  • will happen much faster.

  • So you'll be able to drive this in

  • and reactor power will change much faster than before.

  • Same thing-- as you get closer to the power level you start

  • at, the 500 kilowatts, you don't want

  • to undershoot and go too low.

  • So right around 600 kilowatts or so, start driving or shim

  • blade out to slow down how quickly the power

  • level is going down.

  • And once you get back to the place where you started it,

  • we'll use a regulating rod to fine tune it

  • to keep the reactor power where would want it to be.

  • There'll be another logbook entry,

  • and your time on the console will be completed.

  • So with us today we actually have two MIT students

  • who are actually in my training program,

  • and they've actually done a lot of these manipulations already.

  • AUDIENCE: Ladies first.

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: Sarah.

  • Let's go.

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

  • It's been so long since I've done one.

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: I'll take that.

  • So, normally, we sit and watch.

  • If, at any time, you don't feel comfortable doing something,

  • let us know.

  • We'll ask you just to take your hands off the console,

  • and we'll take care of doing whatever

  • is necessary to keep the reactor safe.

  • But be aware, we're a factor of 10

  • lower than where we would automatically scram at so.

  • So it would be very difficult for you

  • to get to someplace where it would

  • cause a problem without us being able to stop it.

  • I don't know if you want to move or anything,

  • but the supervisor normally sits kind of right in your way

  • so that they can keep eye on what's happening.

  • AUDIENCE: Are we doing doing any announcing for these?

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: You can go ahead and make the announcement

  • that we're starting power manipulations,

  • and then the last person will make an announcement that we're

  • done with power manipulations.

  • AUDIENCE: Commencing power manipulations.

  • Commencing power manipulations.

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: Right now, the reactor is on autocontrol.

  • And when we do these manipulations,

  • the reactor operator is going to take manual control.

  • That'll cause an alarm to come in.

  • And this will only happen for the first time.

  • So one of the things she's going to do after she

  • makes her logbook entry--

  • AUDIENCE: Are we filling this out?

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: No, we'll do that at the end--

  • is she'll take manual control of the reactor,

  • an alarm will come in on console, and she'll answer it.

  • And that should be the only time you hear this alarm,

  • because we'll leave it on manual control

  • until the final participant has done their manipulations.

  • AUDIENCE: All right.

  • I hope to get to 1 megawatt at 17.11 [INAUDIBLE]..

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: OK.

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

  • [ELECTRONIC SOUND]

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: Now, she's pulling out

  • the red rod all the way.

  • You see the red rod number going up.

  • The period is getting shorter.

  • It's no longer at infinity.

  • It's getting closer to 100 second.

  • And channel 7 and channel 9 are increasing in value.

  • Another way you can see it is we have a display

  • on the front the operator.

  • Those three displays, two of them

  • are just for evaluation only.

  • We don't actually use those to control the reactor.

  • They're based on a system that hasn't been approved yet.

  • But we're testing them to see how well they work.

  • So you can see that the power level on the far left

  • is going up.

  • The middle one is showing what the actual power level--

  • we started at 500 kilowatts.

  • It's already up to 630 kilowatts and increasing.

  • And the period that was at infinity

  • is now around 160 seconds.

  • So she's watching, and she sees the 800 kilowatt value here

  • on channel 7 or channel 9, and she's started

  • to driving the regulating ride.

  • So she's slowing down how quick the power increases going.

  • And you see the period lengthening.

  • It's no longer at 150-160 seconds.

  • It's going closer to infinity again.

  • So she's proving that she could stop the reactor

  • power if she continued driving in this regulating rod.

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] back on auto?

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: No.

  • She's closing in on the 1 megawatt.

  • One of the things the note is that when she started,

  • the [INAUDIBLE] was around 0300, 0310,

  • and she's almost right back to there.

  • When you raise reactor power, you basically open up a valve

  • and let more neutrons in.

  • And when you get to the place where you want to be,

  • you basically close that valve again.

  • So you basically add reactivity and then stop that reactivity

  • addition by bringing the absorbers back to about

  • where they started from.

  • AUDIENCE: We're at 17.1

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: We're at 1 megawatt?

  • AUDIENCE: Yeah.

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: Go ahead and make your log book entry.

  • So once again, she has experience.

  • She's been doing startups and power manipulations

  • for a while.

  • When the rest of you sit down here,

  • we'll guide you through those--

  • the log book entries that she's making and so forth.

  • AUDIENCE: The [INAUDIBLE].

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: 30.6.

  • OK.

  • AUDIENCE: Should [INAUDIBLE]?

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: Yep.

  • So one of the things that could change the reactor is xenon.

  • It's a poison that builds into the reactor while we operate.

  • Poison in that it absorbs neutrons

  • not leading to fission.

  • And it has two ways of being made

  • and two ways of having it removed.

  • One is direct from fission and the other is decay.

  • That's the way it's produced.

  • The way it goes away is basically absorbing a neutron

  • and decaying to another isotope.

  • AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] half a megawatt at 8.56 microamps.

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: OK.

  • AUDIENCE: Use the same shim blade?

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: Yep, use blade 6.

  • And what happens is when we lower reactor power,

  • the way we remove most of the xenon from burn up,

  • basically the neutrons being absorbed by the fission

  • process.

  • The fact that we don't have the reactor at a very high power

  • means that the amount of xenon in the core

  • isn't being removed.

  • So we actually start--

  • the power would actually want to go down on it's own.

  • So you would have to do a lot of re-shims.

  • And for a while, that's a very large amount of reactivity

  • that has to be compensated for.

  • For this experiment, though, we actually

  • shut down the reactor yesterday and we started up

  • early this morning.

  • So it's not a big factor as it normally

  • would be after doing one of these lowering reactor power.

  • AUDIENCE: Do you want to have her do a re-shim now?

  • Or do you want me to?

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: No.

  • I think we'll be able to get at least one more person.

  • So once again, she's lowering reactor power.

  • You can see on the period meter, she's at a negative period,

  • and the reactor power is decreasing.

  • She's almost at 500 kilowatts.

  • She's driving the absorber out again to slow down

  • how quickly the power level is going down.

  • And when she's done, the shim blade

  • will end up about at the same point where it started,

  • the 13.42 inches out of the bottom of the core.

  • AUDIENCE: It might not make it all the way back up to

  • [INAUDIBLE].

  • FRANK WARMSLEY: It'll be close.

  • Compensate with the reg rod if you need to.

  • 30.8.

  • OK.

  • And that's the end of the exercise.

The following content is provided under a Creative

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it