Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   polonium halos
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 196 of 265 (487456)
10-31-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by dokukaeru
10-31-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Stiil no evidence of Rn222 halos
Hi dokukaeru, thanks for joining in with this.
cavediver writes:
Just to add some colour to this:
I should just point out that when I said I was adding 'colour', I meant in the colloquial sense - i.e. I was adding pictures to highlight the information I was presenting in my text. I did not alter the images in any way other than to present zooms of the areas of interest. Earlier, AoK accused me of lightening the images, which I certainly did not do. But I can now see from where his confusion may have arisen.
Edited by cavediver, : A rather important 'not' was missing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by dokukaeru, posted 10-31-2008 4:39 PM dokukaeru has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 197 of 265 (487461)
10-31-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by dokukaeru
10-31-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Stiil no evidence of Rn222 halos
Anyone with even a little knowledge of this science can see this.
Well that elliminates you from this discussion.
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.
Then show this empirically. Otherwise your argument is lame as always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by dokukaeru, posted 10-31-2008 4:39 PM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by dokukaeru, posted 10-31-2008 6:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 198 of 265 (487469)
10-31-2008 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by AlphaOmegakid
10-31-2008 5:42 PM


AOKid why not address the real issues?
AO r.u. Kidding? writes:
Anyone with even a little knowledge of this science can see this.
Well that elliminates you from this discussion.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-31-2008 5:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 199 of 265 (487536)
11-01-2008 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by AlphaOmegakid
10-31-2008 2:55 PM


Stiil no evidence to keep Rn222 our of the halos
Hello AlphaOmegaKid.
I hope you slipped up with the U235 bit. I assume you mean U238/234.
Yep, 238U, what happens when I post late. Thanks, I've corrected it.
Again, I have already asked for this evidence and you haven't presented any. Staining along a fissure or crack may be a result of alpha decay, but you cannot determine what isotope created the decay stain. Please show this evidence.
It would not all be 222Rn, of course, but there is no way you can logically claim that 222Rn would not be present: the rocks are infected with 238U and one of the decay products, 222Rn is an inert gas that is well-known for pervading rocks through virtually invisible fissures and fracture planes. The decay along the cracks and fissures is obviously the result of SOME radioactive elements in the fluids and gases permeating these cracks and fissures. Thus you have means, method and opportunity. There would also be decay from the daughter isotopes of 222Rn, whether the atoms involved bonded to the sides, but continue to flow along the cracks and fissures. You could also have radioactive decay from any other radioactive isotope carried by the fluids and gases in these cracks and fissures.
The anecdotal evidence from the cracks, fissure, and conduits says there is a secondary formation.
Are you claiming that these cracks, fissures and conduits do not exist? Curiously you have cited evidence of their existence. Again, the evidence also comes from people that are better geologists than Gentry. For instance there is a paper published in the peer reviewed geology journal Lythos. From Dr. Collins (email):
quote:
The resistance to my models about the origin of Po halos has largely come from creationists because my own geologic community has not supported my model for the origin of some kinds of granite by chemical replacement processes on a large scale (pluton size). However, I am finally winning this battle after more than 45 years, that some granite bodies can form by this process. Two prominent geologists (Arthur Sylvester from UCSB and Andrew Putnis from Germany) have now supported my models, Sylvester and I presented an abstract at the 32nd International Geological Congress in August, 2008, at Oslo, Norway, in which we show that a biotite-hornblende granodiorite in the Vradal pluton in Norway has been chemically replaced by the introduction of K and Si to form a megacrystal K-feldspar granite there. Putnis was the session leader in which this abstract was presented. He also authored a paper in Lithos (a refereed geology journal) in which he also showed that granite bodies on large scales are formed by K-replacement processes in Norway, Sweden, Brazil, and California. So, it will just be a matter of time before the resistance to my models will be overcome. Science moves slowly when dogma has been established for many years. It is like moving cemeteries sometimes.
Bold-italic for emphasis. The Lithos paper in question is
"Hematite in porous red-clouded feldspars: Evidence of large-scale crustal fluid-rock interaction"
Lithos, Volume 95, Issues 1-2, April 2007, Pages 10-18
Andrew Putnis, Ruth Hinrichs, Christine V. Putnis, Ute Golla-Schindler and Lorence G. Collins
doi:10.1016/j.lithos.2006.07.004
Received 31 October 2005; accepted 7 July 2006
Available online 22 August 2006 at www.sciencedirect.com
quote:
Abstract
Transmission electron microscopy shows that red-clouded alkali feldspars from granitic rocks contain numerous open pores up to several hundred nanometres in cross-section, and that almost every pore contains rosettes or needles of crystalline hematite. In the samples described here, the hematite forms at the reaction interfaces at which plagioclase feldspar is replaced by alkali feldspar. These observations, together with the fact that the origin of the porosity can be explained by the mechanism of sub-solidus mineral-fluid replacement processes, indicate that hematite is a direct product of fluid-rock interaction and is not a solid state exsolution product from the feldspar.
Demonstrating that the type of rock where these halos are found are formed by secondary processes. Processes that do not occur at high temperatures and where chemical bonds are involved, the same kinds of chemical bonds that can cause decay isotope atoms to bond to the crystal lattice.
Your comments here are anecdotal.
Of course they are anecdotal, as are ALL comments posted on an internet debate forum. That is what debate is.
The question, though, is not whether they are anecdotal, but whether they are logically consistent with the evidence and the known facts, including the behavior of all the isotopes along the decay chains, the known differences in types of rocks and their permeability to flows at different times of formation, that rocks are not just formed once, but often go through many transformations.
You have to consider all the evidence with open-minded skepticism if you want to pursue the truth. Being adamant about one position does not do that. Claiming that what is published in peer-reviewed articles is more valid than other information published by scientists doesn't do that. Gentry has made documented mistakes on the geology, mistakes that seriously affect his (not peer reviewed) conclusions regarding the age of the rocks and thereby the halos, mistakes which he fails to acknowledge or correct. Wakefield's geology is better than Gentry's, and it is backed up by others. Failing to acknowledge these demonstrated and known errors is not considering all the evidence.
You keep trying to find reasons to dismiss arguments rather than answer them, and that is not open-minded skepticism.
You've got to be joking, Right? You have been arguing for many pages now that these aren't Po218 halos but are Rn222 halos. Do I need to go back and quote you????
What I have said is that where you have wider bands for the third band in from the outside, that you likely have 222Rn overlapping 210Po. In the one halo discussed above we (some of us anyway) can see four bands, 214Po on the outside, 218Po next, then 222Rn and 210Po.
214Po halos (without 218Po bands) and 210Po halos (without 214Po or 218Po bands) would not logically have 222Rn bands and missing 218Po (or 214Po) bands. There are also some 218Po halos (as noted above, and posted with the same circles that show there are differences between 218Po and 222Rn halos).
The 3-band halos with wide inner bands are logically 222Rn halos, because none of the other bands are that wide and band width does not change with alpha energy. The evidence of one halo with the wider band and one without proves\validates\demonstrates the 222Rn in the former one. Or do you have some mechanism that can make the last ring formed wider than the previous rings?
Logically it is a simple process: the decay chain goes from 226Ra to 222Rn, which is free to leave the original source inclusion. This creates a supply of atoms within the fluids and other gases penetrating the fissures and fracture planes of crystal rocks. The decay progresses from 222Rn through 206Pb is just a continuation of the 238U decay chain:
      238U
(4.468x10^9 yr half-life)
↓→ α (4.270 MeV)
234Th
(24.10 day half-life)
↓→ β- (0.273 MeV)
234Pa
(6.70 hr half-life)
↓→ β- (2.197 MeV)
234U
(245,500 yr half-life)
↓→ α (4.859 MeV)
230Th
(75,380 yr half-life)
↓→ α (4.770 MeV)
226Ra
(1602 yr half-life)
↓→ α (4.871 MeV)

222Rn (inert gas)
(3.8235 day half-life)
↓→ α (5.590 MeV)

218Po
(3.10 min half-life)→ → → (0.02%)
↓→ α (6.115 MeV) ↓→ β- (0.265 MeV)
214Pb 218At
(26.8 min half-life) (1.5 sec half-life) → → → (0.10%)
↓→ β- (1.024 MeV) ↓→ α (6.874 MeV) ↓→ β- (2.883 MeV)
214Bi ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← 214Bi 218Rn
(19.9 min half-life) → → → (0.02%) (35 μs half-life)
↓→ β- (3.272 MeV) ↓→ α (5.617 MeV) ↓→ α (7.263 MeV)
214Po &larr &larr &larr &larr &larr &larr( 210Tl )← ← ← ← ← ← 214Po
(0.1643 μs half-life) (1.30 min half-life)
↓→ α (7.883 MeV) ↓→ β- (5.484 MeV)
210Pb ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← 210Pb
(22.3 yr half-life)
↓→ β- (0.064 MeV)
210Bi
(5.013 day half-life) → → (0.00013%)
↓→ β- (1.426 MeV) ↓→ α (5.982 MeV)
210Po 206Tl
(138.376 day half-life) (4.199 min half-life)
↓→ α (5.407 MeV) ↓→ β- (1.533 MeV)
206Pb ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← 206Pb
(stable)
Once you break the physical location link of the radioactive isotope and the original inclusion, you then have a free-floating atom looking for a home. Any one of these atoms at any time in its progression from 222Rn to 206Pb can lodge within the crystal at any point, or they can wash out of the rock altogether. The longer half-life of 210Pb compared to all the isotopes from 222Rn down to 206Pb provides more opportunity for the atom to set up house-keeping in congenial locations than the rest, thus amply explaining the high incidence of 210Po halos, as the very short half life (46.7 min total) from 218Po to 214Po explains the rarity of the 214Po halos.
Once an atom has taken up residence, whether within the crystal lattice or in a small pocket, it will proceed to decay through the remaining stages. 222Rn is an inert gas and will not bond chemically to anything, however all the subsequent daughter isotopes (including the β- decay ones) can bond chemically, and thus can be adsorbed into the crystal lattice. The evidence that this occurs is the presence of abnormally high amounts of 206Pb in the centers of the halos, demonstrating that a purification "distillation" type process is involved, rather than an original inclusion (as is typical for 238U and 232Th halos).
That's a new one. Did you try to slip that one in? Please present this evidence.
You haven't been paying attention then. The evidence is the abnormally high 206Pb levels in the halo centers, demonstrating that the radioactive isotopes have accumulated by a deposition process at this location, instead of being from an original inclusion that would contain more impurities, among them more 207Pb.
Again, you don't have any empirical evidence here. All the emperical evidence says that these are Po218 halos by the directly measured ring diameters which have been repeated and agreed by mutiple scientists.
Again you are mixing terminology and making mistatements in an attempt to dismiss the argument rather than deal with the reality of it. I seriously doubt that "multiple scientist" have measured this particular halo, which is from his book collection and not any of the peer reviewed articles as far as I can determine.
And this measurement of the diameters of the photo by this process is indeed empirical:
em·pir·i·cal -adj. 1.
... a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
... b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)
Your first picture, using the published values for 210Po, 214Po and 218Po are empirical evidence of your failure to confront the evidence, as the outer circles are completely outside the discoloration bands. This is empirical evidence that this is not a good fit from this data to the picture.
Your second picture, using the published values for 210Po, 214Po, 218Po and 222Rn are empirical evidence of your failure to confront the evidence, as the outer circles are a good match to the discoloration bands. In addition you can see a good match for the 210Po circle to the inner band of discoloration inside the 222Rn circle. This is empirical evidence that this is a good fit from this data to the picture.
That there is a 222Rn band in this picture is empirically confirmed by the experimental process of superimposing the 238U circles over this picture and observing how the 222Rn and 210Po circles match the discoloration bands.
This is empirical (experiment + observation) evidence that 222Rn is in this halo.
Now Gentry knew that people like you would continue to present such anecdotal evidence of secondary formation. And he found an excellent case with coalified wood. This will be the topic of my next post.
This talk of 238U halos is getting off topic for Polonium halos, and we don't want to overrun the number of posts that are allowed. I suggest a new thread for coalified wood halos, and using the Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? to discuss 238U halos (following peaceharris's lead).
Then we can bring applicable results back here to continue their relationship with polonium halos and the relative abundance and contribution of 222Rn to the whole process.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : colors
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : added end 2P
Edited by RAZD, : moved photo

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 194 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-31-2008 2:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2008 3:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 200 of 265 (487560)
11-01-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by peaceharris
10-30-2008 9:35 PM


isotope equilibriums and decay probabilities
hey peaceharris,
I want to expand on my earlier answer to see it I have this right.
4. Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth. (Message 34 of Thread Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) and old earth AND (b) constant physics? in Forum Dates and Dating)
Where I think you actually mean your message Message 37:
quote:
If you look at the decay chain of 238U, you will realize that all of its intermediate descendants have a half life less than the half life of 234U. The half life of 234U is 245 thousand years.
If a sample is significantly more than 245 thousand years, all intermediate members will reach equilibrium, that is for every atom of 238U that decays, there is one atom of 234U that also decays. For every 234U atom that decays, there will also be one 214Po that decays.
If you cannot see the 214Po ring, but can see the 238U ring, what does that mean? It means that there have been lots of 238U atoms that have decayed, but most of these decayed descendants have not yet become 214Po atoms. This implies that the sample is not significantly more than 245 thousand years.
Isn't the equilibrium level determined from the ration of half-lives to the total of all half-lives? If this is the amount that should remain in the sample when equilibrium is reached then 1-equilibrium should be the amount that decays?
Thus for every atom of 238U that decays, (1-HF234Th/HFsum) atoms of the 234Th should also have decayed (leaving the equilibrium amount undecayed). Using this process I calculate that if we have 1 billion (10^9) 238U atoms decay (enough to form an innermost ring) decayed that the following numbers of the isotopes should also have decayed:

Isotope decay half-life,yrs number that decay

238U :: :: 4.4680x10^+09 :: 1,000,000,000 (original ring)
234Th :: - :: 6.5984x10^-02 :: 1,000,000,000
234Pa :: - :: 7.6479x10^-05 :: 1,000,000,000
234U :: :: 2.4550x10^+05 :: 999,945,058
230Th :: :: 7.5380x10^+04 :: 999,928,189
226Ra :: :: 1.6020x10^+03 :: 999,927,830
222Rn :: :: 1.0468x10^-02 :: 999,927,830
218Po :: :: 5.8976x10^-07 :: 999,927,830
218Po :: - :: 5.8976x10^-07 :: 999,927,830
218At :: :: 4.7533x10^-08 :: 999,927,830
218At :: - :: 4.7533x10^-08 :: 999,927,830
218Rn :: :: 1.1091x10^-12 :: 999,927,830
214Pb :: - :: 5.0986x10^-06 :: 999,927,830
214Bi :: :: 3.7859x10^-06 :: 999,927,830
214Bi :: - :: 3.7859x10^-06 :: 999,927,830
214Po :: :: 5.2065x10^-15 :: 999,927,830
210Tl :: - :: 2.4732x10^-07 :: 999,927,830
210Pb :: - :: 2.2300x10^+01 :: 999,927,825
210Bi :: :: 1.3725x10^-02 :: 999,927,825
210Bi :: - :: 1.3725x10^-02 :: 999,927,825
210Po :: :: 3.7886x10^-01 :: 999,927,825
206Tl :: - :: 7.9884x10^-07 :: 999,927,825
206Pb :: - :: ::

Total all half-lives = 4,468,322,504.783 years
The smaller the half-life of an isotope, the more likely it will decay as soon as it is made as a product of parent isotope decay, and this is especially visible in the last half of the chart from 226Ra on down.
Can you tell me what I have wrong here?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : yrs
Edited by RAZD, : corumn
Edited by RAZD, : undecayed?
Edited by RAZD, : clarity, i hope

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 190 by peaceharris, posted 10-30-2008 9:35 PM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by peaceharris, posted 11-03-2008 4:43 AM RAZD has replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 201 of 265 (487660)
11-03-2008 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
11-01-2008 10:30 PM


Re: isotope equilibriums and decay probabilities
RAZD writes:
Thus for every atom of 238U that decays, (1-HF234Th/HFsum) atoms of the 234Th should also have decayed
The definition of equilibrium is for every atom of 238U that decays, there is 1 atom of 234Th that decays.
In the case of 238U, your formula is quite correct since HF_sum is much greater than HF_234Th.
I have replied in more detail in Message 46

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2008 10:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2008 3:50 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 202 of 265 (487698)
11-03-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by RAZD
11-01-2008 3:53 PM


Still no evidence of Rn222 decay
It would not all be 222Rn, of course, but there is no way you can logically claim that 222Rn would not be present:
Oh yes there is! In fact, you can empirically test for this. That's what Gentry did. He tested by measuring the alpha recoil pit density around surrounding areas of Po halos. There was no evidence of Rn222 or any other type of U238 istope decay. It was dramatically absent from the rocks. This fossil evidence does in fact claim that Rn222 was not present.
the rocks are infected with 238U and one of the decay products, 222Rn is an inert gas that is well-known for pervading rocks through virtually invisible fissures and fracture planes.
"Infected with U238"???? Then why no evidence of fission tracks? Gentry tested for this. Meiers did also. No evidence of fission tracks or alpha recoil pits near or around Po halos.
"Rn222 is an inert gas well-known for pervading rocks"???
Actually it is the opposite. U238 in the rocks decays. Those areas in the rocks that are open to cracks and fissures allow Radon gas to escape the rocks. All gases flow from the direction of high resistance (small cracks) towards low resistance (larger cracks). Radon gas eventually ends up in the soil and ground water and then works its way to the atmosphere. Radon gas is not well known for "pervading" from soils and ground waters into solid rock except at very large fissures and cracks in the outer layers of rocks.
The decay along the cracks and fissures is obviously the result of SOME radioactive elements in the fluids and gases permeating these cracks and fissures.
Yes and that staining is obvious and the cracks and fissures are obvious. With all of Gentry's photos the largest crack or conduit is no larger than .002mm. And there is no visible staining along these conduits nor are there any fission tracks, nor are there any alpha recoil pits. In fact they are dramatically absent. This is strong evidence that no secondary flow process was taking place.
Thus you have means, method and opportunity. There would also be decay from the daughter isotopes of 222Rn, whether the atoms involved bonded to the sides, but continue to flow along the cracks and fissures. You could also have radioactive decay from any other radioactive isotope carried by the fluids and gases in these cracks and fissures.
Thus the empitical evidence in regards to secondary flow show that there was no means, method, or opportunity. If there was, then there would be "obvious" evidence in the fossil record of fission tracks and alpha recoil pits. But they are dramatically absent in the vicinity of the Po halos. This is strong evidence of pimordial origin rather than secondary origin.
Demonstrating that the type of rock where these halos are found are formed by secondary processes. Processes that do not occur at high temperatures and where chemical bonds are involved, the same kinds of chemical bonds that can cause decay isotope atoms to bond to the crystal lattice.
Wow! That's interecting. This article is about red-clouded alkalai feldspars from granitic rocks and hematite. It's not about biotite, fluorite and chordite. That's where Po halos are found. I don't know of any found in hematite. Do You?
This is a red clouded herring.
Of course they are anecdotal, as are ALL comments posted on an internet debate forum. That is what debate is.
No. One must provide evidence to back up their claims in these science forums if I understand correctly. Normally I would assume that this would mean scientific evidence. However since an evo is presenting, my assumption is wrong, and anecdotal evidence is allowed to be given equal weight with empirical evidence. But in real science that wouldn't be allowed. That's why none of your arguments of Rn222 halos is peer reviewed, because it would be rejected if there wasn't empirical evidence.
You have to consider all the evidence with open-minded skepticism if you want to pursue the truth.
You clearly haven't. You have ignored the empirical evidence that shows no secondary flow was taking place.
Being adamant about one position does not do that.
That's what you are doing. Gentry however, did just the opposite. He tested for evidence of secondary flow knowing full well that if he found any, it would destroy his hypothesis. This is what good scientists do.
Gentry has made documented mistakes on the geology
You can't cite one.
Wakefield's geology is better than Gentry's, and it is backed up by others.
You mean Wakefield's amateur geology. His amateur geology that leads him to make this emphatic statement....
quote:
Let me make one thing very clear at this point. The Silver Crater and the Fission Mine dikes are not granites at all. The composition and mode of origin is totally wrong for a granite and Gentry has made a major error in identifying the source rocks of his biotite as granites. In his book Gentry erroneously criticizes Dalrymple for comparing the textures of basaltic lava and granite (Gentry, 1986,p. 130), yet Gentry can't tell the difference between granite and calcite vein-dike rock.
Well the AlphaOmekid put on his amateur geology hat and immediately found that there is granite pegmatites at the Silver Crater mine in Ontario Canada. In fact, from the Geological Survey of Canada Miscellaneous Report 39.....
quote:
In granite pegmatite.
"Silver Crater Mines Limited explored the deposite between 1954 and 1957. The work consisted of several pits and trenches and an adit driven 91.5 m into a hill overlooking Nogies Creek."
Now Wakefield claims metamorphic creation of the rocks, but he presents not one picture of such rocks. Yet Gentry does and you can see some of the granites here....
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 11
Yet Wakefield wants us to belive that Gentrys rocks were these...
Now for you to believe Wakefield, you are going to have to ingnore the evidence that there is granite pegmatites from the Silver Crater mine and you are going to have to believe that Gentry's pictured rocks are not granite pegmatites but are calcite vein dike rocks.
Wakefield has no credibility in any of his work. His anecdotal evidence is meaningless in comparrison to Gentry's empirical evidence.
By the way, I guess Meiers (a degreed and published geologist was also confused about these rocks being granites.?!?!?!?!? He also used Biotie samples from the Faraday Province in Ontario Canada.
You keep trying to find reasons to dismiss arguments rather than answer them, and that is not open-minded skepticism.
I opened my mind. I did five minutes of research on the Silver Crater mine, and I found Wakefield to be ignorant of the facts. Yet Meiers a real geologist does not once question Gentry's geology nor his discovery of Po halos. That's why all your "evidence" is nothing more than evo babbling. None of it is credible.
What I have said is that where you have wider bands for the third band in from the outside, that you likely have 222Rn overlapping 210Po.
Then this would be defined as a Rn222 halo, and it's measured diameter would be .0205. But there is no empirical evidence of these measurements. In fact Meiers tests Gentry's measurements and finds them correct. He measured the Po210 diameters at .0195 mm which is in agreement to Gentry's. All the fuzziness or so called wide bands in this inner ring would have measured at less that .0195mm. This elliminates the possibility of Rn222 in any way shape or form being a part of the halo. So here we have two scientists agreeing on biotite samples from the same area, but only an evo amateur scientist says they aren't granites at all. tch tch. eh?
214Po halos (without 218Po bands) and 210Po halos (without 214Po or 218Po bands) would not logically have 222Rn bands and missing 218Po (or 214Po) bands.
Then how did the Po214 halos form?
The 3-band halos with wide inner bands are logically 222Rn halos
There you go again with that fallacy. The only way possible that they could be Rn222 halos is if they measured .0205mm. No one has ever empirically claimed that. In fact just the opposite. Scientists have claimed just the opposite. They have claimed that the evidence is irrefutable by size measurements that these halos are anything other than Po218 halos.
The logic you are using is "fuzzy" logic. Which ignores the true evidence.
Once you break the physical location link of the radioactive isotope and the original inclusion, you then have a free-floating atom looking for a home. Any one of these atoms at any time in its progression from 222Rn to 206Pb can lodge within the crystal at any point
And they wander out of the rocks and not into the rocks. The wander towards the path of least resistance. If they lodge, then they decay there. If Rn222 lodged anywhere it would create Rn222 halo which would have an inner ring diameter of .0205. But there is no evidence of this. If they decayed into Po218 and the Po218 lodged, then there would be evidence of alpha decay. And there is none.
Again you are mixing terminology and making mistatements in an attempt to dismiss the argument rather than deal with the reality of it.
No, I dismissing your arguments with empirical data. Direct microscopic measurement data from multiple sources. Direct empirical evidence showing a lack of fission tracks which would be prevalent in any kind of flow situation. Empirical evidence showing a lack of alpha recoil pits in the area of Po halos. All of this is evidence against any kind of isotope flow.
There is no reality of Rn222 halos. Only wishful thinking. And there the evidence is against any kind of flow related theory.
I seriously doubt that "multiple scientist" have measured this particular halo, which is from his book collection and not any of the peer reviewed articles as far as I can determine.
This is a red herring. Multiple scientists have taken direct measurements of thousands of Po halos. And they agree that by those measurements, they exist.
And this measurement of the diameters of the photo by this process is indeed empirical:
NOT!
This is empirical (experiment + observation) evidence that 222Rn is in this halo.
NOT!
And this is empirical evidence that Jesus is alive and has risen from the dead.....
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2008 3:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by dokukaeru, posted 11-03-2008 6:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 204 by Joe T, posted 11-03-2008 7:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 203 of 265 (487705)
11-03-2008 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2008 3:27 PM


Re: Still no evidence of Rn222 decay
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.
NosyNed writes:
AoK, we can all look at the pictures supplied. We can SEE that your circles don't match the halos. Perhaps instead of just ranting you might explain why they don't.
Cavediver writes:
and
These indisputably show your autocad circles as very wide of their intended mark, *even if* supposedly being marked to the outer edge of the observed halo.
Why is this?
This is in contrast to RAZD's images:
and

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2008 3:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2008 8:56 PM dokukaeru has replied

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 204 of 265 (487708)
11-03-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2008 3:27 PM


Re: Still no evidence of Rn222 decay
quote:
By the way, I guess Meiers (a degreed and published geologist was also confused about these rocks being granites.?!?!?!?!? He also used Biotie samples from the Faraday Province in Ontario Canada.
Just to be clear, Dr Meier (not Meiers) who you cited earlier is a chemist and is not a geologist (Meier, H. and W. Hecker. 1976. Radioactive halos as possible indicators for geochemical processes in magmatites. Geochemical Journal 10:185-195.)
quote:
I opened my mind. I did five minutes of research on the Silver Crater mine, and I found Wakefield to be ignorant of the facts. Yet Meiers a real geologist does not once question Gentry's geology nor his discovery of Po halos. That's why all your "evidence" is nothing more than evo babbling. None of it is credible.
Again, Dr. Meier is not a geologist, but a well respected chemist. I am neither a geologist or chemist, so maybe you can tell me something from the paper you cite that supports Gentry’s geology or his interpretation of the Po Halos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2008 3:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 205 of 265 (487714)
11-03-2008 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by dokukaeru
11-03-2008 6:30 PM


... a correction, and more on the evidence for 222Rn
hey dokukaeru,
Just to be clear:
This is in contrast to RAZD'sAlphaOmegaKid's 2nd images:
and
These are from a second picture done by AlphaOmegaKid, not me.
Also note on this picture that you can see a second "wave" of discoloration at the innermost line, similar to where these overlap on the 238U halo below.
My version was done differently: instead of making the circles to match the published data, I matched circles to the images and then found the best match for the two outside rings compared to the published data. You can tell them apart by solid lines on his and dashed lines on mine.
This is my image:
Message 158
Here is where I have also superimposed the circles found to match the 238U halo:
This is the 238U halo in question:
I've also redone the image to move the 23.5 circle to the outer limits of the discoloration there in order to make the inner circles smaller:
And I still get 20.24 for the 222Rn band, within the margin of error for 222Rn and still too big for 210Po; and I still get 19.07 for the 210Po band, within the margin of error for 210Po; but the outer ring is 34.08 -- small for this band, when the first version above is a better fit to the published data. Thus the first picture is a better overall fit to the outer rings.
This is also further out than was done on the 238U picture where all the data matched the published numbers.
This tells me that there is discoloration outside the limits for 210Po, and the best explanation for that is 222Rn decay.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : correction
Edited by RAZD, : changed photo links

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 203 by dokukaeru, posted 11-03-2008 6:30 PM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by dokukaeru, posted 11-12-2008 12:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 206 of 265 (488523)
11-12-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD
11-03-2008 8:56 PM


Re: ... a correction, and more on the evidence for 222Rn
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 125
RAZD, I thought the drawings you made in Message 89 were some of the best presented in this thread thus far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2008 8:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by roxrkool, posted 11-12-2008 5:41 PM dokukaeru has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 207 of 265 (488537)
11-12-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by dokukaeru
11-12-2008 12:49 PM


Re: ... a correction, and more on the evidence for 222Rn
I agree. AO's smugness is unwarranted considering his casual dismissal of the Putnis et al. paper. This is a clear indication that OA is incapable of recognizing potentially-significant lines of evidence -- probably because they do not support his position.
In addition, not even the very best geologist in the world can confirm that the image AO linked to is granite. In fact, it looks more like the medium- to coarse-grained, clinopyroxene- and biotite-bearing syenite I have sitting on my desk. However, with a good petrographic description, most geologists CAN determine the presence and/or degree of metamorphism. And aren't those 'granites' from New Hampshire? I'm confused. Perhaps AO is referring to other photos...
I'm not even sure what AO is attempting to convey with the picture of the apatite/fluorapatite(?). Is that from Silver Crater?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by dokukaeru, posted 11-12-2008 12:49 PM dokukaeru has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 208 of 265 (489733)
11-29-2008 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by peaceharris
11-03-2008 4:43 AM


mobility of 222Rn still the best explanation for halos
Well, peaceharris,
Now that we have investigated the decay of 238U inclusions with and without equilibrium levels, and we find that the decay for some "embryonic" halos cannot be adequately explained by normal decay without 222Rn leaving the 238U inclusion site,
And we have evidence of 222Rn in at least one "polonium" halo,
In summary we have:
  • Uranium halos with insufficient decay damage after 226Ra in the decay chain ...
  • the very next isotope, 222Rn, is an inert gas, with nothing to bond it to the original inclusion ...
  • evidence of lots of "free" decay events (not tied to any inclusion particle or specific location) along fissures throughout these rocks ...
  • a rock crystal lattice that can chemically absorb certain atoms into it's structure, including daughter isotopes below 222Rn ...
  • places where later generation isotopes are observed and that produce halos (222Rn, 218Po, 214Po and 210Po), and ...
  • halos for 222Rn, 218Po, 214Po and 210Po in the same relative proportion as their net equilibrium levels ...
  • higher than normal end product of this one decay chain, 206Pb, levels in all those later generation halos than would be normal for a natural inclusion (but normal for an isotope deposition process),
  • levels of the end product of this one decay chain, 206Pb, much lower in the 238U inclusions (indicating a different process formed the different inclusion particles) ...
  • halos only in rocks that show evidence of secondary formation processes that occur at lower temperatures and that cause opening in the crystal lattice if not wholesale replacement of atoms throughout the crystal.
    As I have said before, means, motive and opportunity - these halos are explained by normal physics, involving decay of 238U and the gas isotope 222Rn providing the link between 238U inclusions and "polonium" halos.
    No need to invoke special physics, or any reason to consider a young age for these rocks.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : completed

    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 201 by peaceharris, posted 11-03-2008 4:43 AM peaceharris has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 209 of 265 (489736)
    11-29-2008 4:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 160 by AlphaOmegakid
    10-29-2008 12:00 PM


    Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
    note - I moved the pictures from where they were hosted before, so they show as blanks in your quotes. They are now at:
    1st was http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/235U-halo.jpg
    now http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6700/238uhaloia3.jpg
    2nd was http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/222Rn-halo1.jpg
    now http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/152/222rnhalo1pc5.jpg
    3rd was http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/222Rn-halo2.jpg
    now http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9701/222rnhalo2dh4.jpg
    The pictures have not been changed, just the location.
    Both halos show decay damage at the 222Rn radius, the 238U halo (the first picture), and the 222Rn halo (the second picture) and the third picture shows the radii from the first picture overlaid on the second, showing that these are 222Rn rings in both pictures.
    Enjoy
    Edited by RAZD, : fixed thumbnail links

    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 160 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-29-2008 12:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 211 by jgbrawley, posted 11-30-2008 12:03 AM RAZD has replied

      
    jgbrawley
    Junior Member (Idle past 5596 days)
    Posts: 3
    From: Missouri, USA
    Joined: 11-29-2008


    Message 210 of 265 (489779)
    11-29-2008 11:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 141 by AlphaOmegakid
    10-28-2008 3:38 PM


    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
    I was poking around on the web after some years, and ran across this message, in which I find myself accused (by implication?, or baldfacedly?) of lying.
    I most certainly *did* "talk my way inside" at Oak Ridge. I was unannounced and unexpected, just showed up one day and described what I was on about. Mr. Dickens was called by the receptionist, and he came out and took me into his office, where we had lunch.
    It's difficult enough to do a useful piece of scientific field and microscope work, and to put all that up on a website for the perusal of anyone interested, without having to correct a mind apparently *so* closed that it (he? she?) refuses to believe plain English writing. I'm rather taken aback by this.
    As to the fuzziness of the Po-210/Rn-222 ring, remember that the Radon atom contributing to the ring would be *in motion* when it decayed, but the subsequent daughters --218Po, 214Po, and 210Po, would not be, the Po having become electronegative once it was no longer Radon.
    'Nuff said; I just wanted to respond to someone accusing me of lying in my paper on the Po halo issue.
    jgbrawley@charter.net

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 141 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-28-2008 3:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024