Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 1:26 AM
392 online now:
Coyote, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 388 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,966 Year: 16,572/21,208 Month: 2,461/3,593 Week: 574/882 Day: 6/86 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Potassium Argon Sensitivity Analysis
JonF
Member
Posts: 3637
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 31 of 64 (498934)
02-15-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Engineer
02-15-2009 12:09 PM


So what is the assumption for environmental radiation exposure over the past 4 billion years? Are you assuming it is a constant, or is this just a noise factor with small relative contribution anyway?

Sorry, you are wrong. Nothing that occurs on or in the Earth speeds up radioactive decay significantly.

And neutron flux doesn't speed up radioactive decay. Period. It does transmute elements, often into radioactive ones. If you want to claim otherwise, let's see a reference. You are damaging your credibility seriously by making this claim,

The neutron flux on Earth today is far from enough to have any noticeable effect. If the neutron flux were high enough in the past to have a significant effect, it would affect different methods differently and the consilience between methods, the big picture that you are studiously ignoring, would be disrupted.

In fact a high neutron flux would actually increase the age reported by some methods, such as 206Pb/207Pb, because of the difference in cross-sections for the various Pb+n reactions. See NEUTRON REACTIONS AND Pb-ISOTOPIC RATIOS and Addendum: Derivation of the Neutron Reaction Correction Equation

This is a common problem I must endure everyday in my profession -- selling a highly technical project to a usually non-technical group of high level executives that hold the purse-strings for funding.

I would start out by telling the non-technical executives how failure mechanics is useful to humankind -- how many lives it could have saved in certain situations -- by how it can save them from catastrophe and loses that their company has experienced. I would provide technical case studies where it has done so.

Next, I would propose my plan to reduce such failures, their cost, and provide their proposed benefits. Then I would stand behind my promises with accountabilities that they can measure with financial results.

Usually the executives are some of the most technically ignorant people around. They, however, must make the ultimate decisions and hold accountability. That's how it works in my world: good communication, good research, a good business case, and measurable results.

I had to do something similar to this for my most recently funded project where we have concrete floor-coating failures that must be fixed or risk environmental contamination. The mid-level executives demanded the technical research to back my claims. Nobody has a satisfactory explanation in my opinion and I have to swag technical judgment into the solution. My reputation is always on the line, I have not been defeated yet, and I thank the creator for my successes. I am unrelenting, but I know when to quit.

OK. Remember that bridge collapse in Minnesota on Aug 2, 2007? I think the engineers may have analyzed that wrong. I want to do my own analysis. Tell me how to do so. Now. In this forum. Include the data, please.

Do you see the similarity between my request and yours?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 12:09 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 1:37 PM JonF has responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2956 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 32 of 64 (498935)
02-15-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JonF
02-15-2009 1:18 PM


quote:
Sorry, you are wrong. Nothing that occurs on or in the Earth speeds up radioactive decay significantly.

And neutron flux doesn't speed up radioactive decay. Period. It does transmute elements, often into radioactive ones. If you want to claim otherwise, let's see a reference. You are damaging your credibility seriously by making this claim,


I thought I did that in the previous post where K40 converts to A40 through irradiation done in a nuclear reactor located on the earth. You might not call it "nuclear decay" per se but the end result is the same. The data comes from a geotechnology lab. So are you telling me this is wrong? I agree there could be a credibility issue developing, but only if you insist on there being one.

quote:
The neutron flux on Earth today is far from enough to have any noticeable effect.

Thank goodness it is. We wouldn't be here to talk about it otherwise.

quote:
If the neutron flux were high enough in the past to have a significant effect, it would affect different methods differently and the consilience between methods, the big picture that you are studiously ignoring, would be disrupted.

I can agree with that. Also it would kill off a lot of life.

quote:
In fact a high neutron flux would actually increase the age reported by some methods, such as 206Pb/207Pb, because of the difference in cross-sections for the various Pb+n reactions. See NEUTRON REACTIONS AND Pb-ISOTOPIC RATIOS and Addendum: Derivation of the Neutron Reaction Correction Equation

good point -- that serves as a cross-check.

quote:
OK. Remember that bridge collapse in Minnesota on Aug 2, 2007? I think the engineers may have analyzed that wrong. I want to do my own analysis. Tell me how to do so. Now. In this forum. Include the data, please.

This is typical of any engineering project, assuming nobody has done the analysis already. However, with dating methods the analysis has already been done.

quote:
Do you see the similarity between my request and yours?

Well not exactly. When I do an analysis and present the results to a non-technical audience it requires some explanation of how I got there. With a technicl audience it requires more. If I say, "Go do your own homework" they will tell me "Go find another job because that's what we were paying you for."

On this forum nobody is getting paid -- so I don't really have the expectation. I do appreciate your effort, and it's time somebody communicated it in the right way. I feel I might be doing this for you and others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 1:18 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 2:39 PM Engineer has responded
 Message 34 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 2:40 PM Engineer has not yet responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 2:45 PM Engineer has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3637
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 33 of 64 (498938)
02-15-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Engineer
02-15-2009 1:37 PM


I thought I did that in the previous post where K40 converts to A40 through irradiation done in a nuclear reactor located on the earth. You might not call it "nuclear decay" per se but the end result is the same.

It isn't nuclear decay. Most technical people appreciate the need for precise terminology.

On this forum nobody is getting paid -- so I don't really have the expectation.

Then why are you asking?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 1:37 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 2:48 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2956 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 34 of 64 (498939)
02-15-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Engineer
02-15-2009 1:37 PM


ok, so activation energy in radioactive decay is independent of any external influence that we know of in today's science. It is purely probabilistic and totally unpredictable. When somebody can predict it, then we could have a discussion in that context after that person receives a nobel prize in science.

Based on the information we have today, however, we must restrict ourselves to this limitation.

In conclusion, the age testing method must exclude the physical byproducts that can be produced by either internal acivation energy or external radiation. Uranium-PB has been proposed as such.

Thank you all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 1:37 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18653
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 35 of 64 (498940)
02-15-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Engineer
02-15-2009 1:37 PM


messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
Hi Engineer, it seems you have a problem with terminology and the reasons for it.

I thought I did that in the previous post where K40 converts to A40 through irradiation done in a nuclear reactor located on the earth.

Which does not change the half-life of either element\isotope, so no you did not show this.

You might not call it "nuclear decay" per se ...

The reason no educated informed honest person would not call it "nuclear decay" is because this does not match the definition of "nuclear decay" used in science.

If you are going to mix definition, all you accomplish is confusion, not clarity, and it certainly does not lead to credence in your argument that you don't know or use the proper terms in the way they are used in science.

Now we get to see if you can acknowledge making an error, or if you try to gloss over it or ignore it.

... but the end result is the same.

And the reason we KNOW your misuse of "radioactive decay" is not correct is because the results are NOT the same. As noted in Message 27:

quote:
You are confusing nuclear reactions with radioactive decay. These are independent of each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

235U + N → 236U → 92Kr + 141Ba + 3N

versus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chains

235U + 7.04x10^8 years on average → 231TH + α

Not the same


Not the same reaction, not the same result, not even close.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clarity

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 1:37 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 2:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2956 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 36 of 64 (498941)
02-15-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by JonF
02-15-2009 2:39 PM


quote:
It isn't nuclear decay. Most technical people appreciate the need for precise terminology.

Nuclear decay involves internal activation energy, but there are two ways to get A40 from K40. We can not assume all K40 comes from nuclear decay.

This might be a reasonable approximation, and in the end the other way of getting it doesn't matter. This might be synonymous to evaluating a P delta V term in a water pump equation, where in theory it is real but reality it's too small to even matter.

quote:
Then why are you asking?

patience.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 2:39 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2956 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 37 of 64 (498942)
02-15-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
02-15-2009 2:45 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
quote:
The reason no educated informed honest person would not call it "nuclear decay" is because this does not match the definition of "nuclear decay" used in science.

nuclear decay is based on internal activation energy in the nucleus and is not influenced by external radiation phenomena that we know of today. Whatever future discoveries there might be on predicting the activation energy has no bearing on this. Isn't this a better answer?

quote:
If you are going to mix definition, all you accomplish is confusion, not clarity, and it certainly does not lead to credence in your argument that you don't know or use the proper terms in the way they are used in science.

Personally I find it a little confusing to assume lava boiling out of a volcano supposedly has no argon in it. Maybe it's not enough to matter in many applications, but it does.

quote:
Now we get to see if you can acknowledge making an error, or if you try to gloss over it or ignore it.

I recognized it in my original statement, and I think you might have an axe to grind. The K40 can convert to A40 with an external irradiation influence.

Someone might call A40 the daughter of "nuclear decay" per se from K40, but it is not necessarily so, as irradiation produces the same result.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 2:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 02-15-2009 4:12 PM Engineer has responded
 Message 39 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 4:21 PM Engineer has responded
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 4:47 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1630 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 38 of 64 (498947)
02-15-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Engineer
02-15-2009 2:58 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
Someone might call A40 the daughter of "nuclear decay" per se from K40, but it is not necessarily so, as irradiation produces the same result.

What would you irradiate K40 with to get Ar40?

Edited by bluescat48, : missing word


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 2:58 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 4:24 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3637
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 39 of 64 (498948)
02-15-2009 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Engineer
02-15-2009 2:58 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
Nuclear decay involves internal activation energy, but there are two ways to get A40 from K40.

Name 'em. {ABE} With references.

Personally I find it a little confusing to assume lava boiling out of a volcano supposedly has no argon in it. Maybe it's not enough to matter in many applications, but it does.

It's been proven to be not enough to matter in pretty much all applications (given rational sample selection), by its agreement with independent methods that are not subject to that possible type of problem. You got any evidence to the contrary, trot it out. Personal incredulity doesn't cut the mustard.

Someone might call A40 the daughter of "nuclear decay" per se from K40, but it is not necessarily so, as irradiation produces the same result.

You are getting more and more confused. The irradiation produces 39Ar from 39K. We measure the ratio of 39Ar to 40Ar, we know the ratio of 39K to 40K, we therefore know the ratio of 40K to 40Ar.

40Ar is produced by radioactive decay of 40K. Maybe in supernovae, too, but not in reactors. End of story.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 2:58 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 4:30 PM JonF has responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2956 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 40 of 64 (498949)
02-15-2009 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bluescat48
02-15-2009 4:12 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
I made an error in definitions here, and have fixed it. Nuclear irradiation does not accelerate nuclear decay, it accelerates fission products, of which A40 can apparently be a fission product as well as a decay product of K40 as well as K41.

I got the data from here:

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/Methods/home.html#irrad

A40 can be an undesireable byproduct from irradiation of K40


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 02-15-2009 4:12 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2956 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 41 of 64 (498951)
02-15-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by JonF
02-15-2009 4:21 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
quote:
40Ar is produced by radioactive decay of 40K. Maybe in supernovae, too, but not in reactors. End of story.

Yes indeed I am getting very confused. I read this table from a geochronology test lab:

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/Methods/home.html#irrad

quote:
In addition to 39Ar production from 39K, several other 'interference' reactions occur during irradiation of the samples. Other isotopes of argon are produced from potassium, calcium, argon and chlorine. These are:

I read the table to say that A40 is an undesirable irradiation byproduct for both K40 and K41.

This isn't all that imporatant, but please correct me. I thought I could read a table.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 4:21 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 7:06 PM Engineer has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18653
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 42 of 64 (498952)
02-15-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Engineer
02-15-2009 2:58 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
I recognized it in my original statement, and I think you might have an axe to grind.

Excellent. You've got a steep learning curve here so being clear and concise is essential.

And yes, it's a pet peeve about saying what you mean and meaning what you say.

We have a lot of creationists here who think they can redefine words at will, and that people will somehow magically understand what they mean. Usually it is the result of ignorance\misinformation, but they also seem to resist the idea that science defines the terms in science, and that when they use different meanings they are talking about something else.

Thanks.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 2:58 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2956 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 43 of 64 (498955)
02-15-2009 5:18 PM


My background
Maybe this isn't the right place for it, but here's a little about me:

My guitaring:

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=801275

My barbecue hobby:

http://www.angelfire.com/folk/primecuts/

I hope this breaks the ice for a few people. I'm not here to give anyone a hard time. My half-life is over and I try to make the most of what's left before I get alzheimer's. I have a soul that I can not ignore.

I hate depression. Life is too short to waste.

If this can't be fun and educational then I have no use for it.

My best quote: Music is like a medicine for the soul and song the prescription.


  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3637
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 44 of 64 (498972)
02-15-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Engineer
02-15-2009 4:30 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
Yes indeed I am getting very confused. I read this table from a geochronology test lab:

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/Methods/home.html#irrad

By gum you're right! Well, ya learn something new every day.

That's an interesting page. Did you notice the clear and concise explanation of how these undesirable reactions are monitored? So they are no promblem.

Just as "excess argon" at solidification is not a problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 4:30 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 7:22 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2956 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 45 of 64 (498974)
02-15-2009 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by JonF
02-15-2009 7:06 PM


Re: messing with definitions is not scientific: it's a falsehood
I figured it was just a nit, but I'm trying to pay attention.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 02-15-2009 7:06 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017