RE: 436.37 peak

["Lieskovsky, Miro" <MLieskovsky@nbpower.com>]

David,
No K-40 identified? That is a wrong start, especially if other natural lines
were present.

Can you elaborate on the type, efficiency/size, energy gain, (and housing)
of the detector? 
 
Miro
-----Original Message-----
From: dpharrison@aep.com [mailto:dpharrison@aep.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:42 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: 436.37 peak




Would this still be so if the K-40 peak of 1460 wasn't identified?




"Oldewage, Hans D" <HDOLDEW@sandia.gov> on 03/15/2000 10:36:31 AM

Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu

To:   Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
cc:    (bcc: David P Harrison/BC2/AEPIN)

Subject:  Re: 436.37 peak




I would lean towards a double escape peak (I believe this is the correct
term) from K-40 (1460 keV - 1.022 keV = 438 keV).

=====================
Hans Oldewage
Sandia National Laboratories
505-845-7728
hdoldew@sandia.gov


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html






************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html