Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Logarithmic scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A logarithmic scale (or log scale) is a way of displaying numerical data over a very wide range of values in a compact way. As opposed to a linear number line in which every unit of distance corresponds to adding by the same amount, on a logarithmic scale, every unit of length corresponds to multiplying the previous value by the same amount. Hence, such a scale is nonlinear: the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on, are not equally spaced. Rather, the numbers 10, 100, 1000, 10000, and 100000 would be equally spaced. Likewise, the numbers 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and so on, would be equally spaced. Often exponential growth curves are displayed on a log scale, otherwise they would increase too quickly to fit within a small graph.

A logarithmic scale from 0.1 to 100
 
Semi-log plot of the Internet host count over time shown on a logarithmic scale

Common uses

The markings on slide rules are arranged in a log scale for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.

The two logarithmic scales of a slide rule

The following are examples of commonly used logarithmic scales, where a larger quantity results in a higher value:

Map of the solar system and distance to Alpha Centauri using a logarithmic scale.

The following are examples of commonly used logarithmic scales, where a larger quantity results in a lower (or negative) value:

Some of our senses operate in a logarithmic fashion (Weber–Fechner law), which makes logarithmic scales for these input quantities especially appropriate. In particular, our sense of hearing perceives equal ratios of frequencies as equal differences in pitch. In addition, studies of young children in an isolated tribe have shown logarithmic scales to be the most natural display of numbers in some cultures.

Graphic representation

Various scales: lin–lin, lin–log, log–lin, and log–log. Plotted graphs are: y = 10 x (red), y = x (green), y = loge(x) (blue).

The top left graph is linear in the X and Y axes, and the Y-axis ranges from 0 to 10. A base-10 log scale is used for the Y axis of the bottom left graph, and the Y axis ranges from 0.1 to 1,000.

The top right graph uses a log-10 scale for just the X axis, and the bottom right graph uses a log-10 scale for both the X axis and the Y axis.

Presentation of data on a logarithmic scale can be helpful when the data:

  • covers a large range of values, since the use of the logarithms of the values rather than the actual values reduces a wide range to a more manageable size;
  • may contain exponential laws or power laws, since these will show up as straight lines.

A slide rule has logarithmic scales, and nomograms often employ logarithmic scales. The geometric mean of two numbers is midway between the numbers. Before the advent of computer graphics, logarithmic graph paper was a commonly used scientific tool.

Log–log plots

Plot on log–log scale of equation of a line

If both the vertical and horizontal axes of a plot are scaled logarithmically, the plot is referred to as a log–log plot.

Semi-logarithmic plots

If only the ordinate or abscissa is scaled logarithmically, the plot is referred to as a semi-logarithmic plot.

Extensions

A modified log transform can be defined for negative input (y<0) and to avoid the singularity for zero input (y=0) so as to produce symmetric log plots:

for a constant C=1/ln(10).

Logarithmic units

A logarithmic unit is a unit that can be used to express a quantity (physical or mathematical) on a logarithmic scale, that is, as being proportional to the value of a logarithm function applied to the ratio of the quantity and a reference quantity of the same type. The choice of unit generally indicates the type of quantity and the base of the logarithm.

Examples

Examples of logarithmic units include units of data storage capacity (bit, byte), of information and information entropy (nat, shannon, ban), and of signal level (decibel, bel, neper). Logarithmic frequency quantities are used in electronics (decade, octave) and for music pitch intervals (octave, semitone, cent, etc.). Other logarithmic scale units include the Richter magnitude scale point.

In addition, several industrial measures are logarithmic, such as standard values for resistors, the American wire gauge, the Birmingham gauge used for wire and needles, and so on.

Units of information

Units of level or level difference

Units of frequency interval

Table of examples

Unit Base of logarithm Underlying quantity Interpretation
bit 2 number of possible messages quantity of information
byte 28 = 256 number of possible messages quantity of information
decibel 10(1/10) ≈ 1.259 any power quantity (sound power, for example) sound power level (for example)
decibel 10(1/20) ≈ 1.122 any root-power quantity (sound pressure, for example) sound pressure level (for example)
semitone 2(1/12) ≈ 1.059 frequency of sound pitch interval

The two definitions of a decibel are equivalent, because a ratio of power quantities is equal to the square of the corresponding ratio of root-power quantities.

Atomic battery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

An atomic battery, nuclear battery, radioisotope battery or radioisotope generator is a device which uses energy from the decay of a radioactive isotope to generate electricity. Like nuclear reactors, they generate electricity from nuclear energy, but differ in that they do not use a chain reaction. Although commonly called batteries, they are technically not electrochemical and cannot be charged or recharged. They are very costly, but have an extremely long life and high energy density, and so they are typically used as power sources for equipment that must operate unattended for long periods of time, such as spacecraft, pacemakers, underwater systems and automated scientific stations in remote parts of the world.

Nuclear battery technology began in 1913, when Henry Moseley first demonstrated a current generated by charged particle radiation. The field received considerable in-depth research attention for applications requiring long-life power sources for space needs during the 1950s and 1960s. In 1954 RCA researched a small atomic battery for small radio receivers and hearing aids. Since RCA's initial research and development in the early 1950s, many types and methods have been designed to extract electrical energy from nuclear sources. The scientific principles are well known, but modern nano-scale technology and new wide-bandgap semiconductors have created new devices and interesting material properties not previously available.

Nuclear batteries can be classified by energy conversion technology into two main groups: thermal converters and non-thermal converters. The thermal types convert some of the heat generated by the nuclear decay into electricity. The most notable example is the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), often used in spacecraft. The non-thermal converters extract energy directly from the emitted radiation, before it is degraded into heat. They are easier to miniaturize and do not require a thermal gradient to operate, so they are suitable for use in small-scale applications. The most notable example is the betavoltaic cell.

Atomic batteries usually have an efficiency of 0.1–5%. High-efficiency betavoltaic devices can reach 6–8% efficiency.

Thermal conversion

Thermionic conversion

A thermionic converter consists of a hot electrode, which thermionically emits electrons over a space-charge barrier to a cooler electrode, producing a useful power output. Caesium vapor is used to optimize the electrode work functions and provide an ion supply (by surface ionization) to neutralize the electron space charge.

Thermoelectric conversion

Radioisotope-powered cardiac pacemaker being developed by the Atomic Energy Commission, is planned to stimulate the pulsing action of a malfunctioning heart. Circa 1967.

A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) uses thermocouples. Each thermocouple is formed from two wires of different metals (or other materials). A temperature gradient along the length of each wire produces a voltage gradient from one end of the wire to the other; but the different materials produce different voltages per degree of temperature difference. By connecting the wires at one end, heating that end but cooling the other end, a usable, but small (millivolts), voltage is generated between the unconnected wire ends. In practice, many are connected in series (or in parallel) to generate a larger voltage (or current) from the same heat source, as heat flows from the hot ends to the cold ends. Metal thermocouples have low thermal-to-electrical efficiency. However, the carrier density and charge can be adjusted in semiconductor materials such as bismuth telluride and silicon germanium to achieve much higher conversion efficiencies.

Thermophotovoltaic conversion

Thermophotovoltaic (TPV) cells work by the same principles as a photovoltaic cell, except that they convert infrared light (rather than visible light) emitted by a hot surface, into electricity. Thermophotovoltaic cells have an efficiency slightly higher than thermoelectric couples and can be overlaid on thermoelectric couples, potentially doubling efficiency. The University of Houston TPV Radioisotope Power Conversion Technology development effort is aiming at combining thermophotovoltaic cells concurrently with thermocouples to provide a 3- to 4-fold improvement in system efficiency over current thermoelectric radioisotope generators.

Stirling generators

A Stirling radioisotope generator is a Stirling engine driven by the temperature difference produced by a radioisotope. A more efficient version, the advanced Stirling radioisotope generator, was under development by NASA, but was cancelled in 2013 due to large-scale cost overruns.

Non-thermal conversion

Non-thermal converters extract energy from emitted radiation before it is degraded into heat. Unlike thermoelectric and thermionic converters their output does not depend on the temperature difference. Non-thermal generators can be classified by the type of particle used and by the mechanism by which their energy is converted.

Electrostatic conversion

Energy can be extracted from emitted charged particles when their charge builds up in a conductor, thus creating an electrostatic potential. Without a dissipation mode the voltage can increase up to the energy of the radiated particles, which may range from several kilovolts (for beta radiation) up to megavolts (alpha radiation). The built up electrostatic energy can be turned into usable electricity in one of the following ways.

Direct-charging generator

A direct-charging generator consists of a capacitor charged by the current of charged particles from a radioactive layer deposited on one of the electrodes. Spacing can be either vacuum or dielectric. Negatively charged beta particles or positively charged alpha particles, positrons or fission fragments may be utilized. Although this form of nuclear-electric generator dates back to 1913, few applications have been found in the past for the extremely low currents and inconveniently high voltages provided by direct-charging generators. Oscillator/transformer systems are employed to reduce the voltages, then rectifiers are used to transform the AC power back to direct current.

English physicist H. G. J. Moseley constructed the first of these. Moseley's apparatus consisted of a glass globe silvered on the inside with a radium emitter mounted on the tip of a wire at the center. The charged particles from the radium created a flow of electricity as they moved quickly from the radium to the inside surface of the sphere. As late as 1945 the Moseley model guided other efforts to build experimental batteries generating electricity from the emissions of radioactive elements.

Electromechanical conversion

Electromechanical atomic batteries use the buildup of charge between two plates to pull one bendable plate towards the other, until the two plates touch, discharge, equalizing the electrostatic buildup, and spring back. The mechanical motion produced can be used to produce electricity through flexing of a piezoelectric material or through a linear generator. Milliwatts of power are produced in pulses depending on the charge rate, in some cases multiple times per second (35 Hz).

Radiovoltaic conversion

A radiovoltaic (RV) device converts the energy of ionizing radiation directly into electricity using a semiconductor junction, similar to the conversion of photons into electricity in a photovoltaic cell. Depending on the type of radiation targeted, these devices are called alphavoltaic (AV, αV), betavoltaic (BV, βV) and/or gammavoltaic (GV, γV). Betavoltaics have traditionally received the most attention since (low-energy) beta emitters cause the least amount of radiative damage, thus allowing a longer operating life and less shielding. Interest in alphavoltaic and (more recently) gammavoltaic devices is driven by their potential higher efficiency.

Alphavoltaic conversion

Alphavoltaic devices use a semiconductor junction to produce electrical energy from energetic alpha particles.

Betavoltaic conversion

Betavoltaic devices use a semiconductor junction to produce electrical energy from energetic beta particles (electrons). A commonly used source is the hydrogen isotope tritium.

Betavoltaic devices are particularly well-suited to low-power electrical applications where long life of the energy source is needed, such as implantable medical devices or military and space applications.

Gammavoltaic conversion

Gammavoltaic devices use a semiconductor junction to produce electrical energy from energetic gamma particles (high-energy photons). They have only been considered in the 2010s but were proposed as early as 1981.

A gammavoltaic effect has been reported in perovskite solar cells. Another patented design involves scattering of the gamma particle until its energy has decreased enough to be absorbed in a conventional photovoltaic cell. Gammavoltaic designs using diamond and Schottky diodes are also being investigated.

Radiophotovoltaic (optoelectric) conversion

In a radiophotovoltaic (RPV) device the energy conversion is indirect: the emitted particles are first converted into light using a radioluminescent material (a scintillator or phosphor), and the light is then converted into electricity using a photovoltaic cell. Depending on the type of particle targeted, the conversion type can be more precisely specified as alphaphotovoltaic (APV or α-PV), betaphotovoltaic (BPV or β-PV) or gammaphotovoltaic (GPV or γ-PV).

Radiophotovoltaic conversion can be combined with radiovoltaic conversion to increase the conversion efficiency.

Pacemakers

Medtronic and Alcatel developed a plutonium-powered pacemaker, the Numec NU-5, powered by a 2.5 Ci slug of plutonium 238, first implanted in a human patient in 1970. The 139 Numec NU-5 nuclear pacemakers implanted in the 1970s are expected to never need replacing, an advantage over non-nuclear pacemakers, which require surgical replacement of their batteries every 5 to 10 years. The plutonium "batteries" are expected to produce enough power to drive the circuit for longer than the 88-year halflife of the plutonium.

Radioisotopes used

Atomic batteries use radioisotopes that produce low energy beta particles or sometimes alpha particles of varying energies. Low energy beta particles are needed to prevent the production of high energy penetrating Bremsstrahlung radiation that would require heavy shielding. Radioisotopes such as tritium, nickel-63, promethium-147, and technetium-99 have been tested. Plutonium-238, curium-242, curium-244 and strontium-90 have been used. Besides the nuclear properties of the used isotope, there are also the issues of chemical properties and availability. A product deliberately produced via neutron irradiation or in a particle accelerator is more difficult to obtain than a fission product easily extracted from spent nuclear fuel.

Plutonium-238 must be deliberately produced via neutron irradiation of Neptunium-237 but it can be easily converted into a stable plutonium oxide ceramic. Strontium-90 is easily extracted from spent nuclear fuel but must be converted into the perovskite form strontium titanate to reduce its chemical mobility, cutting power density in half. Caesium-137, another high yield nuclear fission product, is rarely used in atomic batteries because it is difficult to convert into chemically inert substances. Another undesirable property of Cs-137 extracted from spent nuclear fuel is that it is contaminated with other isotopes of Caesium which reduce power density further.

Micro-batteries

In the field of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), nuclear engineers at the University of Wisconsin, Madison have explored the possibilities of producing minuscule batteries which exploit radioactive nuclei of substances such as polonium or curium to produce electric energy. As an example of an integrated, self-powered application, the researchers have created an oscillating cantilever beam that is capable of consistent, periodic oscillations over very long time periods without the need for refueling. Ongoing work demonstrate that this cantilever is capable of radio frequency transmission, allowing MEMS devices to communicate with one another wirelessly.

These micro-batteries are very light and deliver enough energy to function as power supply for use in MEMS devices and further for supply for nanodevices.

The radiation energy released is transformed into electric energy, which is restricted to the area of the device that contains the processor and the micro-battery that supplies it with energy.

History of gamma-ray burst research

The history of gamma-ray began with the serendipitous detection of a gamma-ray burst (GRB) on July 2, 1967, by the U.S. Vela satellites. After these satellites detected fifteen other GRBs, Ray Klebesadel of the Los Alamos National Laboratory published the first paper on the subject, Observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts of Cosmic Origin. As more and more research was done on these mysterious events, hundreds of models were developed in an attempt to explain their origins.

Discovery

Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the late 1960s by the U.S. Vela nuclear test detection satellites. The Velas were built to detect gamma radiation pulses emitted by nuclear weapon tests in space. The United States suspected that the USSR might attempt to conduct secret nuclear tests after signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963. While most satellites orbited at about 500 miles above Earth's surface, the Vela satellites orbited at an altitude of 65,000 miles. At this height, the satellites orbited above the Van Allen radiation belt, which reduced the noise in the sensors. The extra height also meant that the satellites could detect explosions behind the moon, a location where the United States government suspected the Soviet Union would try to conceal nuclear weapon tests. The Vela system generally had four satellites operational at any given time such that a gamma-ray signal could be detected at multiple locations. This made it possible to localize the source of the signal to a relatively compact region of space. While these characteristics were incorporated into the Vela system to improve the detection of nuclear weapons, these same characteristics were what made the satellites capable of detecting gamma-ray bursts.

On July 2, 1967, at 14:19 UTC, the Vela 4 and Vela 3 satellites detected a flash of gamma radiation that were unlike any known nuclear weapons signatures. Nuclear bombs produce a very brief, intense burst of gamma rays less than one millionth of a second. The radiation then steadily fades as the unstable nuclei decay. The signal detected by the Vela satellites had neither the intense initial flash nor the gradual fading, but instead there were two distinct peaks in the light curve. Solar flares and new supernovas were the two other possible explanations for the event, but neither had occurred on that day. Unclear on what had happened, but not considering the matter particularly urgent, the team at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, led by Ray Klebesadel, filed the data away for later investigation.

Vela 5 was launched on May 23, 1969. Because the sensitivity and time resolution on these satellites were significantly more accurate than the instruments on Vela 4, the Los Alamos team expected these new satellites to detect more gamma-ray bursts. Despite an enormous amount of background signals picked up by the new detectors, the research team found twelve events which had not coincided with any solar flares or supernovas. Some of the new detections also showed the same double-peak pattern that had been observed by Vela 4.

Although their instrumentation offered no improvement over those on Vela 5, the Vela 6 satellites were launched on April 8, 1970, with the intention of determining the direction from which the gamma rays were arriving. The orbits for the Vela 6 satellites were chosen to be as far away from Vela 5 as possible, generally on the order of 10000 kilometers apart. This separation meant that, despite gamma rays traveling at the speed of light, a signal would be detected at slightly different times by different satellites. By analyzing the arrival times, Klebesadel and his team successfully traced sixteen gamma-ray bursts. The random distribution of bursts across the sky made it clear that the bursts were not coming from the sun, moon, or other planets in our solar system.

In 1973, Ray Klebesadel, Roy Olson, and Ian Strong of the University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory published Observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts of Cosmic Origin, identifying a cosmic source for the previously unexplained observations of gamma-rays. Shortly thereafter, Klebesadel presented his findings at the 140th meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Although he was interviewed only by The National Enquirer, news of the discovery quickly spread through the scientific community. Between 1973 and 2001 more than 5300 papers were published on GRBs.

Early research missions

Shortly after the discovery of gamma-ray bursts, a general consensus arose within the astronomical community that in order to determine what caused them, they would have to be identified with astronomical objects at other wavelengths, particularly visible light, as this approach had been successfully applied to the fields of radio X-ray astronomy. This method would require far more accurate positions of several gamma-ray bursts than the Vela system could provide. Greater accuracy required the detectors to be spaced farther apart. Instead of launching satellites only into Earth's orbit, it was deemed necessary to spread the detectors throughout the solar system.

By the end of 1978, the first Inter-Planetary Network (IPN) had been completed. In addition to the Vela satellites, the IPN included 5 new space probes: the Russian Prognoz 7, in orbit around the earth, the German Helios 2, in elliptical orbit around the Sun, and NASA's Pioneer Venus Orbiter, Venera 11, and Venera 12, each of which orbited Venus. The research team at the Russian Institute for Space Research in Moscow, led by Kevin Hurley, was able to use the data collected by the IPN to accurately determine the position of gamma-ray bursts with an accuracy of a few minutes of arc. However, even when using the most powerful telescopes available, nothing of interest could be found within the determined regions.

To explain the existence of gamma-ray bursts, many speculative theories were advanced, most of which posited nearby galactic sources. Little progress was made, however, until the 1991 launch of the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and its Burst and Transient Source Explorer (BATSE) instrument, an extremely sensitive gamma-ray detector. This instrument provided crucial data indicating that GRBs are isotropic (not biased towards any particular direction in space, such as toward the galactic plane or the Galactic Center). Because the Milky Way galaxy has a very flat structure, if gamma-ray bursts were to originate from within the Milky Way, they would not be distributed isotropically across the sky, but instead concentrated in the plane of the Milky Way. Although the luminosity of the bursts suggested that they had to be originating within the Milky Way, the distribution provided very strong evidence to the contrary.

BATSE data also showed that GRBs fall into two distinct categories: short-duration, hard-spectrum bursts ("short bursts"), and long-duration, soft-spectrum bursts ("long bursts"). Short bursts are typically less than two seconds in duration and are dominated by higher-energy photons; long bursts are typically more than two seconds in duration and dominated by lower-energy photons. The separation is not absolute and the populations overlap observationally, but the distinction suggests two different classes of progenitors. However, some believe there is a third type of GRBs. The three kinds of GRBs are hypothesized to reflect three different origins: mergers of neutron star systems, mergers between white dwarfs and neutron stars, and the collapse of massive stars.

For decades after the discovery of GRBs, astronomers searched for a counterpart: any astronomical object in positional coincidence with a recently observed burst. Astronomers considered many distinct objects, including white dwarfs, pulsars, supernovae, globular clusters, quasars, Seyfert galaxies, and BL Lac objects. Researchers specifically looked for objects with unusual properties which might relate to gamma-ray bursts: high proper motion, polarization, orbital brightness modulation, fast time scale flickering, extreme colors, emission lines, or an unusual shape. From the discovery of GRBs through the 1980s, GRB 790305b was the only event to have been identified with a candidate source object: nebula N49 in the Large Magellanic Cloud. All other attempts failed due to poor resolution of the available detectors. The best hope seemed to lie in finding a fainter, fading, longer wavelength emission after the burst itself, the "afterglow" of a GRB.

As early as 1980, a research group headed by Livio Scarsi at the University of Rome began working on Satellite per Astronomia X, an X-ray astronomy research satellite. The project developed into a collaboration between the Italian Space Agency and the Netherlands Agency for Aerospace Programmes. Though the satellite was originally intended to serve the sole purpose of studying X-rays, Enrico Costa of the Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale suggested that the satellite's four protective shields could easily serve as gamma-ray burst detectors. After 10 years of delays and a final cost of approximately $350 million, the satellite, renamed BeppoSAX in honor of Giuseppe Occhialini, was launched on April 30, 1996.

In 1983, a team composed of Stan Woosley, Don Lamb, Ed Fenimore, Kevin Hurley, and George Ricker began discussing plans for a new GRB research satellite, the High Energy Transient Explorer (HETE). Although many satellites were already providing data on GRBs, HETE would be the first satellite devoted entirely to GRB research. The goal was for HETE to be able to localize gamma-ray bursts with much greater accuracy than the BATSE detectors. The team submitted a proposal to NASA in 1986 under which the satellite would be equipped with four gamma ray detectors, an X-ray camera, and four electronic cameras for detecting visible and ultraviolet light. The project was to cost $14.5 million, and the launch was originally planned for the summer of 1994. The Pegasus XL rocket, which launched HETE on November 4, 1996, did not release its two satellites, so the HETE and SAC-B, an Argentinian research satellite also on board, missions were attached to the reocket and unable to direct their solar panels towards the sun, and within one day of the launch, all radio contact with the satellites was lost. The eventual successor to the mission, HETE 2, was successfully launched on 9 October 2000. It observed its first GRB on 13 February 2001.

Observations and analysis

BeppoSAX detected its first gamma-ray burst GRB960720 on July 20, 1996 from an X-ray burst in one of the two Wide Field Cameras (WFCs), but it was only discovered in the data six weeks later, by a Dutch duty scientist systematically checking WFC-bursts coinciding in time with BATSE-triggers from the same direction. Follow-up radio observations with the Very Large Array by Dale Frail did not find an afterglow at the derived position from the deconvolved data, but a routine procedure for finding gamma-ray bursts with BeppoSAX could be established. This led to the detection of a gamma-ray burst on January 11, 1997, and one of its Wide Field Cameras also detected X-rays at the same moment coinciding with a BATSE-trigger. John Heise, Dutch project scientist for BeppoSAX's WFCs, quickly deconvolved the data from the WFCs using software by Jean in 't Zand, a Dutch former gamma-ray spectroscopist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, and in less than 24 hours, produced a sky position with an accuracy of about 10 arcminutes. Although this level of accuracy had already been surpassed by the interplanetary networks, they were unable to produce the data as quickly as Heise could. In the following days, Dale Frail, working with the Very Large Array, detected a single fading radio source within the error box, a BL Lac object. An article was written for Nature stating that this event proved that GRBs originated from active galaxies. However, Jean in 't Zand rewrote the WFC deconvolution software to produce a position with an accuracy of 3 arcminutes, and the BL Lac object was no longer within the reduced error box. Despite BeppoSAX having observed both X-rays and a GRB and the position being known within that same day, the source of the burst was not identified.

Success for the BeppoSAX team came in February 1997, less than one year after it had been launched. A BeppoSAX WFC detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB 970228), and when the X-ray camera onboard BeppoSAX was pointed towards the direction from which the burst had originated, it detected a fading X-ray emission. Ground-based telescopes later identified a fading optical counterpart as well. The location of this event having been identified, once the GRB faded, deep imaging was able to identify a faint, very distant host galaxy in the GRB's location. Within only a few weeks the long controversy about the distance scale ended: GRBs were extragalactic events originating inside faint galaxies at enormous distances. By finally establishing the distance scale, characterizing the environments in which GRBs occur, and providing a new window on GRBs both observationally and theoretically, this discovery revolutionized the study of GRBs.

Two major breakthroughs also occurred with the next event registered by BeppoSAX, GRB 970508. This event was localized within 4 hours of its discovery, allowing research teams to begin making observations much sooner than any previous burst. By comparing photographs of the error box taken on May 8 and May 9 (the day of the event and the day after), one object was found to have increased in brightness. Between May 10 and May, Charles Steidel recorded the spectrum of the variable object from the W. M. Keck Observatory. Mark Metzger analyzed the spectrum and determined a redshift of z=0.835, placing the burst at a distance of roughly 6 billion light years. This was the first accurate determination of the distance to a GRB, and it further proved that GRBs occur in extremely distant galaxies.

Prior to the localization of GRB 970228, opinions differed as to whether or not GRBs would emit detectable radio waves. Bohdan Paczyński and James Rhoads published an article in 1993 predicting radio afterglows, but Martin Rees and Peter Mészáros concluded that, due to the vast distances between GRBs and the earth, any radio waves produced would be too weak to be detected. Although GRB 970228 was accompanied by an optical afterglow, neither the Very Large Array nor the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope were able to detect a radio afterglow. However, five days after GRB 970508, Dale Frail, working with the Very Large Array in New Mexico, observed radio waves from the afterglow at wavelengths of 3.5 cm, 6 cm, and 21 cm. The total luminosity varied widely from hour to hour, but not simultaneously in all wavelengths. Jeremy Goodman of Princeton University explained the erratic fluctuations as being the result of scintillation caused by vibrations in the Earth's atmosphere, which no longer occurs when the source has an apparent size larger than 3 micro-arcseconds. After several weeks, the luminosity fluctuations had dissipated. Using this piece of information and the distance to the event, it was determined that the source of radio waves had expanded almost at the speed of light. Never before had accurate information been obtained regarding the physical characteristics of a gamma-ray burst explosion.

Also, because GRB 970508 was observed at many different wavelengths, it was possible to form a very complete spectrum for the event. Ralph Wijers and Titus Galama attempted to calculate various physical properties of the burst, including the total amount of energy in the burst and the density of the surrounding medium. Using an extensive system of equations, they were able to compute these values as 3×1052 ergs and 30,000 particles per cubic meter, respectively. Although the observation data was not accurate enough for their results to be considered particularly reliable, Wijers and Galama did show that, in principle, it would be possible to determine the physical characters of GRBs based on their spectra.

The next burst to have its redshift calculated was GRB 971214 with a redshift of 3.42, a distance of roughly 12 billion lightyears from Earth. Using the redshift and the accurate brightness measurements made by both BATSE and BeppoSAX, Shrinivas Kulkarni, who had recorded the redshift at the W. M. Keck Observatory, calculated the amount of energy released by the burst in half a minute to be 3×1053 ergs, several hundred times more energy than is released by the Sun in 10 billion years. The burst was proclaimed to be the most energetic explosion to have ever occurred since the Big Bang, earning it the nickname Big Bang 2. This explosion presented a dilemma for GRB theoreticians: either this burst produced more energy than could possibly be explained by any of the existing models, or the burst did not emit energy in all directions, but instead in very narrow beams which happened to have been pointing directly at Earth. While the beaming explanation would reduce the total energy output to a very small fraction of Kulkarni's calculation, it also implies that for every burst observed on Earth, several hundred occur which are not observed because their beams are not pointed towards Earth.

In November 2019, astronomers reported a notable gamma ray burst explosion, named GRB 190114C, initially detected in January 2019, that, so far, has been determined to have had the highest energy, 1 Tera electron volts (Tev), ever observed for such a cosmic event.

Current missions

Konus-Wind is flown on board Wind spacecraft. It was launched on 1 November 1994. Experiment consists of two identical gamma ray spectrometers mounted on opposite sites of the spacecraft so all sky is observed.

Swift Spacecraft

INTEGRAL, the European Space Agency's International Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory, was launched on October 17, 2002. It is the first observatory capable simultaneously observing objects at gamma ray, X-ray, and visible wavelengths.

NASA's Swift satellite launched in November 2004. It combines a sensitive gamma-ray detector with the ability to point on-board X-ray and optical telescopes towards the direction of a new burst in less than one minute after the burst is detected. Swift's discoveries include the first observations of short burst afterglows and vast amounts of data on the behavior of GRB afterglows at early stages during their evolution, even before the GRB's gamma-ray emission has stopped. The mission has also discovered large X-ray flares appearing within minutes to days after the end of the GRB.

On June 11, 2008 NASA's Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), later renamed the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, was launched. The mission objectives include "crack[ing] the mysteries of the stupendously powerful explosions known as gamma-ray bursts."

Another gamma-ray burst observation mission is AGILE. Discoveries of GRBs are made as they are detected via the Gamma-ray Burst Coordinates Network so that researchers may promptly focus their instruments on the source of the burst to observe the afterglows.

Neutron poison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison

In applications such as nuclear reactors, a neutron poison (also called a neutron absorber or a nuclear poison) is a substance with a large neutron absorption cross-section. In such applications, absorbing neutrons is normally an undesirable effect. However, neutron-absorbing materials, also called poisons, are intentionally inserted into some types of reactors in order to lower the high reactivity of their initial fresh fuel load. Some of these poisons deplete as they absorb neutrons during reactor operation, while others remain relatively constant.

The capture of neutrons by short half-life fission products is known as reactor poisoning; neutron capture by long-lived or stable fission products is called reactor slagging.

Transient fission product poisons

Some of the fission products generated during nuclear reactions have a high neutron absorption capacity, such as xenon-135 (microscopic cross-section σ = 2,000,000 barns (b); up to 3 million barns in reactor conditions) and samarium-149 (σ = 74,500 b). Because these two fission product poisons remove neutrons from the reactor, they will affect the thermal utilization factor and thus the reactivity. The poisoning of a reactor core by these fission products may become so serious that the chain reaction comes to a standstill.

Xenon-135 in particular tremendously affects the operation of a nuclear reactor because it is the most powerful known neutron poison. The inability of a reactor to be restarted due to the buildup of xenon-135 (reaches a maximum after about 10 hours) is sometimes referred to as xenon precluded start-up. The period of time in which the reactor is unable to override the effects of xenon-135 is called the xenon dead time or poison outage. During periods of steady state operation, at a constant neutron flux level, the xenon-135 concentration builds up to its equilibrium value for that reactor power in about 40 to 50 hours. When the reactor power is increased, xenon-135 concentration initially decreases because the burn up is increased at the new, higher power level. Thus, the dynamics of xenon poisoning are important for the stability of the flux pattern and geometrical power distribution, especially in physically large reactors.

Because 95% of the xenon-135 production is from iodine-135 decay, which has a 6- to 7-hour half-life, the production of xenon-135 remains constant; at this point, the xenon-135 concentration reaches a minimum. The concentration then increases to the equilibrium for the new power level in the same time, roughly 40 to 50 hours. The magnitude and the rate of change of concentration during the initial 4 to 6 hour period following the power change is dependent upon the initial power level and on the amount of change in power level; the xenon-135 concentration change is greater for a larger change in power level. When reactor power is decreased, the process is reversed.

Because samarium-149 is not radioactive and is not removed by decay, it presents problems somewhat different from those encountered with xenon-135. The equilibrium concentration (and thus the poisoning effect) builds to an equilibrium value during reactor operation in about 500 hours (about three weeks), and since samarium-149 is stable, the concentration remains essentially constant during reactor operation. Another problematic isotope that builds up is gadolinium-157, with microscopic cross-section of σ = 200,000 b.

Accumulating fission product poisons

There are numerous other fission products that, as a result of their concentration and thermal neutron absorption cross section, have a poisoning effect on reactor operation. Individually, they are of little consequence, but taken together they have a significant effect. These are often characterized as lumped fission product poisons and accumulate at an average rate of 50 barns per fission event in the reactor. The buildup of fission product poisons in the fuel eventually leads to loss of efficiency, and in some cases to instability. In practice, buildup of reactor poisons in nuclear fuel is what determines the lifetime of nuclear fuel in a reactor: long before all possible fissions have taken place, buildup of long-lived neutron-absorbing fission products damps out the chain reaction. This is the reason that nuclear reprocessing is a useful activity: solid spent nuclear fuel contains about 97% of the original fissionable material present in newly manufactured nuclear fuel. Chemical separation of the fission products restores the fuel so that it can be used again.

Other potential approaches to fission product removal include solid but porous fuel which allows escape of fission products and liquid or gaseous fuel (molten salt reactor, aqueous homogeneous reactor). These ease the problem of fission product accumulation in the fuel, but pose the additional problem of safely removing and storing the fission products. Some fission products are themselves stable or quickly decay to stable nuclides. Of the (roughly half a dozen each) medium lived and long-lived fission products, some, like 99
Tc
, are proposed for nuclear transmutation precisely because of their non-negligible capture cross section.

Other fission products with relatively high absorption cross sections include 83Kr, 95Mo, 143Nd, 147Pm. Above this mass, even many even-mass number isotopes have large absorption cross sections, allowing one nucleus to serially absorb multiple neutrons. Fission of heavier actinides produces more of the heavier fission products in the lanthanide range, so the total neutron absorption cross section of fission products is higher.

In a fast reactor the fission product poison situation may differ significantly because neutron absorption cross sections can differ for thermal neutrons and fast neutrons. In the RBEC-M Lead-Bismuth Cooled Fast Reactor, the fission products with neutron capture more than 5% of total fission products capture are, in order, 133Cs, 101Ru, 103Rh, 99Tc, 105Pd and 107Pd in the core, with 149Sm replacing 107Pd for 6th place in the breeding blanket.

Decay poisons

In addition to fission product poisons, other materials in the reactor decay to materials that act as neutron poisons. An example of this is the decay of Tritium to Helium-3. Since Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years, normally this decay does not significantly affect reactor operations because the rate of decay of Tritium is so slow. However, if Tritium is produced in a reactor and then allowed to remain in the reactor during a prolonged shutdown of several months, a sufficient amount of tritium may decay to helium-3 to add a significant amount of negative reactivity. Any Helium-3 produced in the reactor during a shutdown period will be removed during subsequent operation by a neutron-proton reaction. Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors will produce small but notable amounts of Tritium through neutron capture in the heavy water moderator, which will likewise decay to Helium-3. Given the high market value of both Tritium and Helium-3, Tritium is periodically removed from the moderator/coolant of some CANDU reactors and sold at a profit. Water boration (the addition of boric acid to the moderator/coolant) which is commonly employed in pressurized light water reactors also produces non-negligible amounts of Tritium via the successive reactions 10
5
B
(n, α)7
3
Li
and 7
3
Li
(n,α n)3
1
T
or (in the presence of fast neutrons) 7
3
Li
(n,2n)6
3
Li
and subsequently 6
3
Li
(n,α)3
1
T
. Fast neutrons also produce Tritium directly from boron via 10
5
B
(n,2α)3
1
T
. All nuclear fission reactors produce a certain quantity of Tritium via ternary fission.

Control poisons

During operation of a reactor the amount of fuel contained in the core decreases monotonically. If the reactor is to operate for a long period of time, fuel in excess of that needed for exact criticality must be added when the reactor is fueled. The positive reactivity due to the excess fuel must be balanced with negative reactivity from neutron-absorbing material. Movable control rods containing neutron-absorbing material is one method, but control rods alone to balance the excess reactivity may be impractical for a particular core design as there may be insufficient room for the rods or their mechanisms, namely in submarines, where space is particularly at a premium.

Burnable poisons

To control large amounts of excess fuel reactivity without control rods, burnable poisons are loaded into the core. Burnable poisons are materials that have a high neutron absorption cross section that are converted into materials of relatively low absorption cross section as the result of neutron absorption. Due to the burn-up of the poison material, the negative reactivity of the burnable poison decreases over core life. Ideally, these poisons should decrease their negative reactivity at the same rate that the fuel's excess positive reactivity is depleted. Fixed burnable poisons are generally used in the form of compounds of boron or gadolinium that are shaped into separate lattice pins or plates, or introduced as additives to the fuel. Since they can usually be distributed more uniformly than control rods, these poisons are less disruptive to the core's power distribution. Fixed burnable poisons may also be discretely loaded in specific locations in the core in order to shape or control flux profiles to prevent excessive flux and power peaking near certain regions of the reactor. Current practice however is to use fixed non-burnable poisons in this service.

Non-burnable poison

A non-burnable poison is one that maintains a constant negative reactivity worth over the life of the core. While no neutron poison is strictly non-burnable, certain materials can be treated as non-burnable poisons under certain conditions. One example is hafnium. It has five stable isotopes, 176
Hf
through 180
Hf
, which can all absorb neutrons, so the first four are chemically unchanged by absorbing neutrons. (A final absorption produces 181
Hf
, which beta-decays to 181
Ta
.) This absorption chain results in a long-lived burnable poison which approximates non-burnable characteristics.

Soluble poisons

Soluble poisons, also called chemical shim, produce a spatially uniform neutron absorption when dissolved in the water coolant. The most common soluble poison in commercial pressurized water reactors (PWR) is boric acid, which is often referred to as soluble boron. The boric acid in the coolant decreases the thermal utilization factor, causing a decrease in reactivity. By varying the concentration of boric acid in the coolant, a process referred to as boration and dilution, the reactivity of the core can be easily varied. If the boron concentration is increased (boration), the coolant/moderator absorbs more neutrons, adding negative reactivity. If the boron concentration is reduced (dilution), positive reactivity is added. The changing of boron concentration in a PWR is a slow process and is used primarily to compensate for fuel burnout or poison buildup. The variation in boron concentration allows control rod use to be minimized, which results in a flatter flux profile over the core than can be produced by rod insertion. The flatter flux profile occurs because there are no regions of depressed flux like those that would be produced in the vicinity of inserted control rods. This system is not in widespread use because the chemicals make the moderator temperature reactivity coefficient less negative. All commercial PWR types operating in the US (Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, and Babcock & Wilcox) employ soluble boron to control excess reactivity. US Navy reactors and Boiling Water Reactors do not.

Soluble poisons are also used in emergency shutdown systems. During SCRAM the operators can inject solutions containing neutron poisons directly into the reactor coolant. Various aqueous solutions, including borax and gadolinium nitrate (Gd(NO3)3·xH2O), are used.

Delayed-choice quantum eraser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser A delayed-cho...