1: %%%%%%%%%% espcrc1.tex %%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % $Id: espcrc1.tex 1.2 2000/07/24 09:12:51 spepping Exp spepping $
4: %
5: \documentclass[fleqn,12pt]{article}
6: %\usepackage{espcrc1}
7:
8: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09
9: % \documentstyle[12pt,twoside,fleqn,espcrc1]{article}
10:
11: % if you want to include PostScript figures
12: %\usepackage{graphicx}
13: % if you have landscape tables
14: %\usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
15:
16: % put your own definitions here:
17: % \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
18: % \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
19: % ...
20: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
21: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
22: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
23:
24: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
25: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}
26:
27: % declarations for front matter
28: \title{Neutrino Geophysics at Baksan I:
29: Possible Detection of Georeactor Antineutrinos}
30:
31: \author{G. Domogatski$^1$, V. Kopeikin$^2$, L. Mikaelyan$^2$, V. Sinev$^2$ \\
32: \\
33: $^{1}$Institute for Nuclear Research RAS, Moscow, \\
34: $^{2}$Russian Research Center "Kurchatov Institute"}
35:
36: \begin{document}
37:
38: % typeset front matter
39: \maketitle
40:
41: %\tableofcontents
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: J.M. Herndon in 90-s proposed a natural nuclear fission georeactor at the center of the Earth
45: with a power output of 3-10 TW as an energy source to sustain the Earth magnetic field.
46: R.S. Raghavan in 2002 y. pointed out that under certain condition antineutrinos generated in
47: georeactor can be detected using massive scintillation detectors. We consider the underground
48: Baksan Neutrino Observatory (4800 m.w.e.) as a possible site for developments in
49: Geoneutrino physics. Here the intrinsic background level of less than one event/year in a
50: liquid scintillation $\sim$1000 target ton detector can be achieved and the main source of
51: background is the antineutrino flux from power reactors. We find that this flux is
52: $\sim$10 times lower than at KamLAND detector site and two times lower than at Gran Sasso
53: laboratory and thus at Baksan the georeactor hypothesis can be conclusively tested. We also
54: discuss possible search for composition of georector burning nuclear fuel by analysis of the
55: antineutrino energy spectrum.
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \section*{Introduction}
59:
60: In this paper we consider possibilities to detect at BNO (Baksan Neutrino Observatory of Institute
61: for Nuclear Research RAS) antineutrinos from georeactor using liquid scintillation spectrometer of $\sim$1000 ton target mass. The same
62: spectrometer can detect $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ coming from terrestrial $^{238}$U and $^{232}$Th decays;
63: the latter problem will be considered in the next publication. We mention also that here search for
64: astrophysical antineutrino flux can be done.
65:
66: The Earth magnetic field varies in intensity and irregularly reverses polarity with an average interval
67: between reversals of about 200 000 years. This requires some variable or intermittent energy source.
68: This source is understood as georeactor, i.e. as naturally varying self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction
69: burning at the center of the Earth. The georeactor started $\sim$4.5 billon years ago when
70: $^{235}$U/$^{238}$U enrichment was about 30\%. In the georector $^{239}$Pu is formed by
71: neutron capture in $^{238}$U followed by two short-lived beta-decays: $^{238}$U$(n,{\gamma})$
72: $\rightarrow$ $^{239}$U(${\beta}^{-}$) $\rightarrow$ $^{239}$Np(${\beta}^{-}$) $\rightarrow$
73: $^{239}$Pu. The neutron flux in the reactor is extremely low and, in contrast with man-made high
74: flux Power reactors, $^{239}$Pu does not contribute to the fission power and decays in $^{235}$U:
75: $^{239}$Pu(${\alpha}, T_{1/2} = 2.4\times 10^{4}$ y) $\rightarrow$ $^{235}$U. Thus the
76: georeactor operates in a breeder regime and reproduces $^{235}$U through $^{238}$U
77: $\rightarrow$ $^{239}$Pu $\rightarrow$ $^{235}$U cycle. An average thermal power output of the
78: Uranium based reactor is assumed to amount of 3$-$6 TW. Had Thorium been included the power
79: could be higher. Variations of georeactor power originate from self-poisoning due to accumulation
80: of fission products and subsequent removal of these products by diffusion or some other mechanism.
81: This is a short and very schematic summary of georeactor concept proposed in a number of
82: publications by J.M. Herndon. [1].
83:
84: Nuclear fission chain reaction can occur in nature. In 1956 P. Kuroda showed that thick seams of
85: uranium ore might, 2 billion years ago, have been able to support chain reactions and function
86: as a natural nuclear reactors [2]. 16 years later remains of a natural nuclear fission reactor were actually
87: found in the mine at Oklo in the Republic of Gabon in Africa [3].
88:
89: Herndon's idea about georeactor located at the center of the Earth, if validated, will open a new era
90: in planetary physics. However it is not clear whether further geophysical, chemical etc studies can in
91: foreseeable future give a decisive confirmation (or disproof) of this reactor. Particle physics can give
92: another approach to the problem. In 2002 y R.S. Raghavan pointed out that under certain conditions
93: a direct and conclusive test could be obtained by detection of antineutrinos from georeactor [4].
94:
95: Below we consider:
96: \begin{itemize}
97: \item Georeactor: expected $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ rate and spectrum.
98: \item Detector design and backgrounds.
99: \end{itemize}
100:
101: In the last section we compare $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ energy spectra emitted in $^{235}$U, $^{238}$U
102: and $^{233}$U fission and discuss possibilities to search for georeactor fuel composition using
103: $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ spectroscopy.
104:
105: \section{Georeactor: expected $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ rate and spectrum}
106:
107: Georeactor antineutrinos are detected in liquid scintillation spectrometer via the inverse beta-decay
108: reaction
109:
110: \begin{equation}
111: \bar{{\nu}_e}+p \rightarrow n + e^{+}
112: \end{equation}
113:
114: The visible positron energy $E_e$ is related to the $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ energy as
115:
116: \begin{equation}
117: E_{e} = E - 1.80 + E_{annihil} - r_{n} \approx E - 0.8,
118: \end{equation}
119:
120: where 1.80 MeV is the threshold of the reaction and $r_n$ is the neutron recoil energy.
121: The signature of neutrino event is $e^{+}$ and 2.2 MeV neutron signals correlated in time and space.
122:
123: Calculated antineutrino interaction rate $N_{{\nu}GR}$ for georeactor power $W$ =3$-$10 TW and
124: $N_{p} = 10^{32}$ target protons $N_{{\nu}GR}$ = (33$-$110) / year is found for no-oscillation
125: case and detection efficiency $\epsilon$ = 100\%, the Earth radius $R_{Earth}$ = 6370 km and
126: typical PWR reactor parameters:
127: \begin{eqnarray}
128: N_{{\nu}GR} \approx (33-110) /{\rm year \ with \ } 10^{32} {\rm protons, \ 3-10 \ TW}, \\ \nonumber
129: {\epsilon} = 100\% \ {\rm and \ no \ oscillation},
130: \end{eqnarray}
131:
132: which is exactly what has been found in [4]. Had $^{235}$U neutrino fission parameters been used, the
133: rate would be $\sim$10\% higher.
134:
135: Positron visible energy spectrum is shown in Fig. 1.
136:
137: \section{Detector design and backgrounds}
138:
139: The sensitivity of low energy antineutrino detection depends on detector size and level of background.
140: In the past 10 years the sensitivity was increased, in two steps (CHOOZ, KamLAND), by a factor of
141: $\sim10^8$ and approached $\sim$1 event per year per $\sim$1000 ton LS target.
142:
143: The main features of future BNO detector design and location can be:
144:
145: a) Three-concentric zone detector design (Fig. 2). The central $\sim$14 m diameter zone one is $10^{32}$
146: H atom liquid scintillator target contained in a spherical transparent balloon. Zone two is a buffer of
147: non-scintillation oil contained in a $\sim$19 m diameter stainless steel vessel; on the inner surface of the
148: vessel are mounted PMTs with $\sim$30\% photo-cathode coverage. A transparent acrylic barrier
149: protects radon emanations from penetrating in the LS of zone one. The zone three is $\sim$22
150: m-diameter water Cherenkov detector which protects the inner parts from neutrons and
151: $\gamma$-rays coming from the surrounding rock and gives veto signals for cosmic muons.
152:
153: b) Deep underground position of the detector to reduce muon-induced backgrounds. BNO is located
154: at the site with 4 800 mwe rock overburden, which is much deeper than KamLAND's 2700 mwe
155: position.
156:
157: c) Highest purification of zone 1 (LS) and zone 2 (oil) (U, Th and K concentrations as low as $10^{-17}$
158: g/g).
159:
160: Experience accumulated in KamLAND experiment [5] shows that with a) - c) conditions intrinsic
161: detector background at BNO of less than 1/year in a LS target with $10^{32}$ H atoms can be achieved.
162:
163: Most important condition for successful detection of georeactor antineutrinos is not too high
164: antineutrino flux coming from Power reactors. Using data from [6] the $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ interaction
165: no-oscillation rate $N_{{\nu}PWR}$ is (see Table):
166:
167: \begin{table}[htb]
168: \caption{Antineutrino backgrounds at BAKSAN from Power reactors}
169: \label{table}
170: \vspace{10pt}
171: %\newcommand{\m}{\hphantom{$-$}}
172: %\newcommand{\cc}[1]{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}
173: %\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{2pc} % enlarge column spacing
174: %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % enlarge line spacing
175: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
176: \hline
177: Country & Number & Thermal & Distance & Energy & Rate$^{*}$ \\
178: or Plant & of cores & Power, GW & from BNO, & flux$^{*}$, & per 10$^{32}$ p \\
179: & & & km & J/cm$^2$/year & year$^{-1}$ \\
180: \hline
181: Rostov & 1 & 3 & 463 & 2.99 & 5.34 \\
182: Kursk & 4& 12.8 & 1070 & 2.38 & 4.26 \\
183: Smolemsk & 3 & 9.6 & 1500 & 0.91 & 1.6 \\
184: Balakovo & 4 & 12 & 1035 & 2.37 & 4.27 \\
185: Tver & 2 & 6 & 1600 & 0.5 & 0.89 \\
186: Novovoronezh & 3 & 5.75 & 945 & 1.37 & 2.46 \\
187: Rovno & 3 & 5.75 & 1550 & 0.51 & 0.9 \\
188: Khmelnitsky & 1 & 3 & 1395 & 0.33 & 0.59 \\
189: Chernobyl & 1 & 3.2 & 1278 & 0.39 & 0.7 \\
190: Zaporozhie & 6 & 18 & 612 & 10.3 & 18.33 \\
191: Yuzhno- & 3 & 9 & 1035 & 1.79 & 3.2 \\
192: ukrainskaya & & & & & \\
193: Great & 35 & 38.5 & & 0.71 & 1.28 \\
194: Britain & & & & & \\
195: France & 58 & 204.8 & & 5.05 & 9.04 \\
196: Germany & 19 & 69.5 & & 2.28 & 4.07 \\
197: Baltic & & 69.7 && 2.68 & 4.79 \\
198: countries & & & & & \\
199: Nearest & & 62.4 & & 2.63 & 4.7 \\
200: European & & & & & \\
201: countries & & & & & \\
202: Armenia & 1 & 1.375 & 400 & 1.83 & 3.28 \\
203: Bucher$^{**}$ & 1 & 3 & 1760 & 0.21 & 0.37 \\
204: Pakistan & 1 & 0.375 & 3130 & 0.01 & 0.017 \\
205: India & 10 & 5.8 & 4320 & 0.08 & 0.14 \\
206: \hline
207: Total & & & & 39.35 & 70.5 \\
208: \hline
209: \end{tabular}\\[2pt]
210: {\small $^{*}$ Average power is assumed 0.85 of its maximal value.}\\
211: {\small $^{**}$ Bucher Power Plant is under construction now.}
212: \end{table}
213:
214:
215: \begin{eqnarray}
216: N_{{\nu}PWR} = 70.5 /{\rm year \ with \ } 10^{32} {\rm protons}, \\ \nonumber
217: {\epsilon} = 100\% \ {\rm and \ no \ oscillation},
218: \end{eqnarray}
219:
220: This rate is $\sim$10 times smaller than at Kamioka site and two times smaller than at Gran Sasso
221: (For KamLAND and Gran Sasso data see ref. [4]). Using known PWR powers and their distances
222: from BNO this rate can be calculated with $\sim$3\% systematic uncertainty.
223:
224: Antineutrino interaction rates (3, 4) are obtained for no oscillation case and 100\% detection efficiency.
225: With realistic ${\epsilon}$ = 80\% and LMA oscillation parameters the detection rates are two times
226: lower. Nevertheless in $\sim$2 years of data taking a 3 TW georeactor can be conclusively confirmed.
227:
228: \section{On analysis of fuel composition in georeactor}
229:
230: Imagine that the georeactor hypothesis is confirmed. The next step could be efforts to obtain direct
231: information on composition of the nuclear fuel, which no doubt, would be of primary geophysical
232: importance.
233:
234: The shape of reactor $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ energy spectrum depends on contributions of fissile isotopes to
235: the total chain reaction rate. Thus measurement of the $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ spectrum provides information
236: on nuclear fuel composition. This idea was first proposed years ago [7] and later was confirmed in
237: experiments at reactors [8].
238:
239: In water-cooled thermal neutron power reactors with (initial) $^{235}$U/$^{238}$U enrichment
240: $\sim$4\% fast neutron fission of $^{238}$U contributes typically 7.5\% to the total reactor fission
241: rate. In the fast neutron georeactor the $^{238}$U contribution can be expected to be much higher
242: (no information on this subject is given in [1]). Calculated ratio of reaction (1) positron spectra
243: induced by $^{238}$U and $^{235}$U fission antineutrinos (Fig. 3) considerably departs from
244: unity. Thus, using shape analysis and with larger statistics, contribution of $^{238}$U fission can be estimated.
245:
246: We continue speculations on the georeactor nuclear fuel composition. Suppose that initially ($\sim$4.5
247: billion years ago) large amount of $^{232}$Th was present in the georeactor core. Then $^{233}$U is
248: formed through neutron capture and two beta decays:
249: $^{232}$Th$(n, {\gamma}) \rightarrow ^{233}$Th(${\beta}) \rightarrow ^{233}$Pa(${\beta}) \rightarrow ^{233}$U.
250: $^{233}$U with its large fission cross section would largely contribute to the total georeactor fission
251: rate.
252:
253: We have calculated the $^{233}$U fission $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ energy spectrum (V. Kopeikin et al., to
254: be published) and found that it is much softer than $^{235}$U fission $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ energy
255: spectrum (Fig. 3). Thus, if contribution of $^{233}$U fission is sufficiently large, this can be found
256: in experiments considered here. We note also that if $^{233}$U and $^{238}$U equally contribute
257: to georeactor fission power, the resulting positron spectrum can look very much like that of $^{235}$U.
258:
259: \section*{Conclusions}
260:
261: Hypothesis of 3 TW georeactor burning inside the Earth can be conclusively tested at Baksan
262: with a few years of data taking using $\sim$1000 target ton liquid scintillation detector. With longer
263: time/larger LS mass a search for dominant nuclear fuel components can be done.
264:
265: \section*{Acknowledgments }
266: We are grateful to Professors O.G. Ryazhskaya, J.M. Herndon and Yu. Kamyshkov for fruitful
267: discussions. This study is supported by RFBR grant 03-02-16055 and Russian Federation
268: President's grant 1246.2003.2.
269:
270: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
271: \bibitem{Hern} J.M. Herndon, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 (2003) 3047; \\
272: D.F. Hollenbach, J.M. Herndon, ibid. 98 (2001) 11085; \\
273: Herndon J.M., J. Geomagn. Geoelectr. 45 (1993) 423.
274: \bibitem{Kurod} P. K. Kuroda (1956) J. Chem. Phys. 25, 781.
275: \bibitem{Neuil} M. Neuilly et al., (1972) C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 275 D, 1847.
276: \bibitem{Ragh} R.S. Raghavan, arXiv:hep-ex/0208038.
277: \bibitem{kaml} KamLAND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 021802.
278: \bibitem{http} http://www.insc.anl.gov/.
279: \bibitem{mikael} L. A. Mikaelyan, Proceedings of International Conference NEUTRINO'77, Baksan, 1977
280: (Nauka, Moscow, 1978) Vol. 2, p. 383.
281: \bibitem{kopei} Yu.V. Klimov et al., Atomic Energy, v. 76, No. 2, p. 123, 1994; \\
282: V. I. Kopeikin, L. A. Mikaelyan, V. V. Sinev, Yad. Fiz. 60, 230 (1997) [Phys. At. Nucl. 60, 172 (1997)].
283: \end{thebibliography}
284:
285: \appendix
286:
287: \end{document}
288: