Shield Alternating Layers of A and B: More Neutron Attenuation?

Badger4710
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Suppose a shield that is infinite in the y and z directions and of thickness 1 meter in the x direction is constructed of alternating layers of materials A and B. Will this shield attenuate a beam of neutrons with more or less or the same attenuation that it would if it were constructed of the same amount of the two materials, but mixed homogeneously? Prove your choice.

Relevant equation: I(x) = I0exp(-N*σ*x)
where I is intensity, N is the number density, and σ is the cross section.

I believe that it would be better to alternate the two pure materials. My thought process is that this way the beam ensures going through regions of just A and B. This way, if material A is better at attenuating the beam, it will ensure interactions with A. I'm hoping someone can validate my thought process or possibly give an alternate reasoning. Thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You will always have interactions with A.
Instead of arguing with words, you can use the formula to get the result.
 
What exactly do you mean just use the formula?
 
Badger4710 said:
Relevant equation: I(x) = I0exp(-N*σ*x)
That.

You can imagine alternating slices of A and B that get thinner and thinner and take the limit for 0 thickness.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top