polonium halos

AOKid, would you care to explain the difference between extrusive and intrusive rocks? What makes a rock granite, instead of obsidian?

I would bet anyone here with a little understanding of rock formation would say that it is very much on topic. Furthermore, your replies in this topic have shown a lack of understanding of basic geology. Maybe you shoud read that article AOKid
Try these too:
Intrusive - Wikipedia
Extrusive rock - WikipediaEdited by dokukaeru, : Added wiki quote

You dont respond to anything AOKid whether it is relevant or not, so much so that the "O" in your screenname should stand for hole.So AholeKid, is granite a course grained, fine grained, medium grained, perhaps no grained rock? What makes the crystal size larger? These question are relevant. Without an understanding of what makes granite or how it is formed, it is highly unlikely that you understand what RAZD has said about Po/Ra rings in the uranium decay chain.I think this is the same reason you try and attack the credibilty of Wakefield and others while at the same time presenting Gentry as an authority. Gentry favours your worldview, so he must be truthful. You fail to understand Gentry is not presenting any evidence or conclusion that the Po rings are from primordial Po and not from U. Every time RAZD shows you evidence to the contrary you baselessly claim it is false, or just ignore it.In Message 86 I thought you were finally going to get around to answering Wakefield's claims that RAZD present: but instead you presented this garbage in Message 91 and then claimed Wakefield cannot possibly be right because he is a self taught geologist. At the same time you largely ignored RAZD's Message 87, Message 88, Message 89, and Message 90. If you cannot answer these simple questions about intrusive/extrusive rock and granite formation: you certainly have no buisness arguing Gentry's asinine assertions of primordial po.Edited by dokukaeru, : No reason given.

You really should address Message 157Your circles are outside their intended mark. Why is this?Are you purposefully trying hide the radon-222 ring or is it incompetence?Anyone with even a little knowledge of this science can see this.I think it has been said but needs repeating. You are outside of the margin of error with that ring by at least .001 mm which just so happens to be the width from polonium-210 to radon-222.It is clear from the pictures that the dakest ring width of the polonium-218 is AT LEAST HALF the width of the polonium-210 and radon-222 ring.
I also wanted to point out that the width from RAZD's DRAWN radon-222 to polonium-210 fits inside the width of polonium-218 ring.AOKid, why do you think the closer you go to the center( where the radioactive source is), the darker it seems to get?

Your right, i didn't learn the decay chain of Uranium-238, it was Uranium-239...the fissile material used aboard fast-attack nuclear submarines. The penetrating distances i learned were into the substates of H2O, lead and plastics not granite. This was all along time ago when I was a wee-in. Some of it was refreshed a bit when i got my b.s. in integrated science education, but of course not all of it.
What is it you said you do again?

You really should address Message 157...or how about Ned's Message 177

​

Are your mismatched circles a result of you purposefully trying to hide the radon-222 ring or incompetence/ignorance?

​

I believe it is a bit of both, but I would rather you answer.

Thank you RAZD for the correction. Although I was only copying this portion from Cavediver, I should have been more careful and looked further into the thread to be sure. I stand corrected on that portion.I think AOKids ring corrections are still just as bad as I first stated and still deserve a truthful explanation.I'm also still waiting for him to explain his lack of understanding on the basic formation of granites brought up in Message 123 and Message 125RAZD, I thought the drawings you made in Message 89 were some of the best presented in this thread thus far.