Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

ok, I think I got it.

edge, The environmental protection agency says in respect to radon that an alpha particle is two neutrons and two protons are emitted throught the process of decay. I don't see the neutron being emitted only alpha particles in cold fussion. Its cold fussion not nucleur fission, etc...Alpha particle: Two neutrons and two protons bound as a single particle that is emitted from the nucleus of certain radioactive isotopes in the process of decay.http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/devprot5.html

Don't take this the wrong way... but you don't understand basic nuclear physics. I don't claim to understand it as well as some of the experts here....but I did have to take it to get my engineering degree.I recommend you start here:Basic Nuclear Science InformationTo get you going, here is an explanation of radioactivity

Hey Golfer.Edges link may have said that

quote:

---

First, any practical portable neutron source will not provide you with thermal neutrons

---

but did you read the whole article?
The problem with mobile sources is that they produce fast neutrons in the MeV range which need to be moderated or reduced to the eV range before they can be readily captured by an atomic neucleus.This passage was taken from Edge's link.

quote:

---

To obtain thermal energies (i.e., in the eV range), you will have to moderate these neutrons through collision interactions with hydrogenous material”such as water, heavy water, paraffin, high-density polyethylene, etc.

---

Note the mention of water as a suitable moderator. After all we are talking about radioactive sources in contact with an underground aquifer here. Once the fast neutron travels through a few feet of water, it is good and ready to be absorbed by any suitable neucleus.As for the source of the neutron, one possible source is also mentioned in Edge's link. Alpha particles (from Uranium perhaps)colliding with something such as berrylium and releasing a neutron. Seems kind of unlikely admittedly but there is a much more viable source of neutrons.Spontaneous fission!All heavy neuclei (mass 100 and greater) are prone to this to some degree although it is most common in neuclei greater than 230 in mass. Things like Thorium, Uranium and Plutonium are quite prone to this. We use this to initialize a nuclear chain reaction in a bomb or a reactor. There has to be a source of neutrons before the mass can go critical.In naturally occuring heavy elements, spontaneous fission can produce quite significant numbers of fast neutrons. This link provides a few details of this.

quote:

---

Uranium-238, for example, yields almost 60 neutrons per hour per gram.

---

Since Uranium is such a common element in the earth's crust (several 10s of parts per million typically), is it so hard to believe that underground water could come into contact with it?
Given the sensitivity of modern detection equipment, it wouldn't take very many neutron-N14 collisions to make enough C14 to screw up the radiometric dating to give artificially young ages.
It would seem to me to be almost impossible for this NOT to happen in underground water. All the necessary parts are there. Neutron source, Moderator and dissolved Nitrogen. Here is another link that describes spontaneous fission, just in case you want to read up on it some more.There is no doubt. The thermal neutrons ARE there.

Golfer Take a look at this useful link
Follow the chain of decay products from Uranium 235.It isn't as simple as just alpha decay. You also have to look at the decay products like Actinium, Thorium and Radon.Alpha decay, as you say consists of two neutrons and two protons being ejected from the nucleus of the parent. This "chunk" quickly grabs a couple of electrons to become Helium 4.
Then there is Beta decay which consists of a high energy electron.
There is Gamma decay which consists of the emission of one or more high energy gama rays at very specific frequencies as the isotope drops from a meta-stable state to a more stable one.
Some isotopes even decay by capturing an electron. An example of this is Radon 211 which can decay from Francium 211 by electron capture.Then again there is Spontaneous Fission in which a nucleous simply splits into smaller parts, releasing alphas, betas, gammas and neutrons in varying numbers.The extremely motile Radon is also able to undergo spontaneous fission and the stuff is everywhere, even in my basement.

PurpleYouko, I agree an spontaneous fission likely happens with enriched isotopes that have half lives of 2.65 years. In the natural sediments though your talking much longer half lives. If neutrons and protons are decaying into helium it appears to me to still be more of a cold fussion reaction. These decay rates are by 4 atomic weights, etc... Its not like tritium that you can hit with a hammer an get a release of neutrons. I agree neutrons are being released from radon but bonded to protons and consistently decaying by 4 atomic weights.To produce C14 you still need N14 to absorb a neutron and you need pore spaces of a foot or more so neutrons are not absorbed instead by the sediment particles.The link I had on Radon talked of two neutrons and two protons bonded and is expressed as the alpha decay particle being expelled out of the nucleous and gamma radiation. If you look at the decay rates the atomic weights reduce 4 for each decay, in agreement with neutrons combining with protons. This supports in the earth were seeing cold fussion not spontaneous fission. If it was spontaneous fission it should be decaying neutrons without protons like tritium. It always appears to be a proton in the works, with a reduced atomic weight of 4. This consistency supports cold fussion and not spontaneous fission, etc...How Radon Works | HowStuffWorksIts been noted that the soil bacteria are enriching the soil with C-15.Why are the soil bacteria enriching the soil with N15 instead of N14. Is it not because the isotope N14 is lighter? located in the upper atmosphere. You have all these Nitrogen fixing bacteria enriching the soil with N15. You have any evidence N14 is being fixed within the earth? Relative Abundance of Uranium IsotopesIsotope-------------- U-238----------U-235--------U-234
Natural Abundance (%)--99.27----------0.72---------0.0055
Half-life (years)------4.47 billion---700 million--246,000Uranium isotopes can be separated to increase the concentration of one isotope relative to another. This process is called "enrichment." The enriched fraction has increased U-235. Uranium-235 is better for nuclear power reactors, and for making nuclear weapons.http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.htmNitrogen-15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Nitrogen-15 is a stable, non-radioactive isotope of nitrogen. It is often used in agricultural and medical research, and is a product of Oxygen-15 beta decay in stars.Isotopes of nitrogen - WikipediaIsotopes
There are two stable isotopes: N-14 and N-15. By far the most common is N-14 (99.634%), which is produced in the CNO cycle in stars. The rest is N-15. Of the ten isotopes produced synthetically, one has a half life of nine minutes and the remaining isotopes have half lives on the order of seconds or less. Biologically-mediated reactions (e.g., assimilation, nitrification, and denitrification) strongly control nitrogen dynamics in the soil. These reactions almost always result in N-15 enrichment of the substrate and depletion of the product.Nitrogen - WikipediaThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-30-2005 08:40 PM

That's even more incoherent that usual. Consider a sediment particle - coal, perhaps - with a nitrogen atom in it. What about that as a target? Yes, it's because N14 is lighter, but not because of any atmospheric distribution. N14 and N15 are very well mixed in air. Bacteria use N14 and N15 at different rates precisely, and only, because of the difference in atomic mass - the heavy nitrogen is typically slower to go through any one reaction. Kinda like I was slower than I was when I weighed 40 pounds less than now.

Coragyps, I agree that is likely all the N14 you have to target, for C14 to be produced within the earth.P.S. All thats been proven is N14 in the atmosphere is being converted to C14.

But not in coal beds, eh? Even though you have uranium, you have water, you have radon and nitrogen; the same reaction will not occur there.On top of that, you have no explanation for concordance of radiocarbon and varve dates or radiocarbon and tree ring dates. Those are just coincidences. Right, Golfer. I believe you.

edge, Where have I ever said I was in complete disagreement with the upper varves agreements with tree rings. Its the floating lower varves that were in disagreement, you know liquefaction, anaerobic digestion, humic acid colloids, etc...The problem of the self shielding particle is another problem in respect to the N14 atom. If the alpha particle has been expressed as neutron and proton particle, then the alpha particle has all the appearances of a controlled fussion reaction.Its not like your blasting the neutrons out of the atom, its more of a fussion (a steady decay happenings) from the inside out. Does not Cold Fussion more aptly explain whats happening, more like a controlled nucleur fussion reaction.Is not decay more correctly expressed by neutrons fused to protons being expelled with a burst of energy (gamma, beta). If Radon which decays quite quickly was not producing alpha particles, you would have serious neutron radiation. Is not tritium a serious neutron radiation problem, formed by spontaneous fission (dirty nucleur bomb).If cold fussion reactions are known, perhaps we should close all nucleur plants and build radon gas Cold nucleur fussion reactors.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-30-2005 11:28 PM

Yawn....Umm, Golfer, we are talking background values here. Besides, we haven't really talked about contamination, yet.You have not addressed the concordance of radiocarbon dates with varve dates. THis should be impossible under your scenario.Neither have you addressed the fact that in every case, the derived date is at the limit of radicarbon dating. To most of us this would raise a red flag that maybe the techniqued is not appropriate.You still are wasting our time, G.

edge, In respect to Lake Suietsu Varves it really was a poorly documented study. You really should not take it serious till the mineral profiles are completed. We also need the topgraphy of the lake and its watershed topography soil profiles. You would expect nothing else from a Creationists study.P.S. Even without a mineral profile the humic problems were never addressed. Like you said why would scientists ever date sediments that had potential of leachate contamination. Maybe they were not scientists, but evolutionists.

Golfer, just because it's not in the paper doesn't mean it wasn't completed as part of the overall study. Technical papers actually represent minute portions of much larger studies.There is nothing wrong with questioning the scope of a study and the quality of the data. That is what you are supposed to do, and in fact, after reading the paper, I was left with several questions. However, were I considering using data from that paper, I would email one of the authors and ask for clarification of my questions.So in my opinion, it's premature to criticize the authors before you know the actual scope of the study. It's bad form. I have no idea what this means. Please explain.

Hmm, perhaps not.I notice in Message 159, you wrote: No, it doesn't have to be 100% potassium. If it were, the potassium would likely oxidize pretty quickly, and that "rock" wouldn't last long. Other elements in the rock would not affect the ratio of potassium 40 to argon 40.What you need is a stable rock, containing some measurable amount of a chemically stable potassium compound. You need the rock to be such that argon cannot escape from the rock. What you measure, is the amount of potassium 40 still present in the rock, and the amount of argon 40. It is the ratio of potassium 40 to argon 40 that indicates how much of the potassium has decayed.For example, if there are about equal amounts of potassium 40 and argon 40, then half of the original potassium 40 has decayed. Hence the age of the rock is about the half-life of potassium 40 (1.3 billion years).The assumption being made is that the argon 40 all comes from potassium 40 decay. Since argon 40 is a gas, it is unlikely that any significant amount would be trapped in the rock at the time the rock solidified. The method is applied to igneous rock (rock that solidified from a lava flow, for example), and gives the age of the rock since the time it solidified.It doesn't matter what else is in the rock, provided that there are no other sources of argon 40, and no ways that some of the argon 40 could have escaped.

What I said was not quite what I meant (I was getting sleepy). What I meant was that when the clock starts ticking, there wasn't any Argon. Argon, I suppose, has to be a derivative of Potassium.