polonium halos

Physicists like me understand the nature of distributions. Astrophysicists like me understand this very well in our measurements of stellar and cosmological spectra. Why? I have little interest in Gentry. I want to know why your autocad Po214 circle is well outside the very obvious Po214 halo, even allowing for your 'maximum diameter' measurement. Any clues?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

The alpha particle penetration is the same for all particles coming from the same isotope. The reason all rings are not "perfect" and there is some variation in them and you have a width to the rings is because the radiocenter has a physical size. The isotopes are emitting from different physical locations within the radiocenter. In fluorite, most of the radiocenters are less that .001mm in diameter. That's why there is a range to the staining, and that is why Gentry talks about this extensively in his published reports.Large radiocenters in Biotie will produce darker stains, wider rings, and larger rings. This must all be a part of the measurement considerations. That's why Gentry identifies light medium and dark halos in his size measurements. In fluorite most of the radiocenters are small. The white area that you are seeing is a space of .0006mm or less by the CAD. That would be predicted by the radiocenter size.Now why don't we start discussing Po214 halos and Po210 halos? Do you or RAZD have a magical rock penetrating gas for these also?

Is there an echo in here? Anyway, this means that the maximum radii of the halo at a particular angular location would correspond to the furthest extent of the extended source from its mean centre in that same angular direction.So why would you mark to the maximum of the halo?

Businessmen like me who wok in the field of science understand the nature of distributions also. You mean you actually measure stellar and cosmological spectra? You have my praise. Some people just look at the cosmos, and make all kinds of assertions without any evidence.Gentry, Henderson, Sparks, and Meiers all measure the halos and they agree on the results. Brawley, Wakefield, and RAZD haven't measured a thing. They just looked at the halos and made all kinds of assertions.

I assume it is because the lowest alpha energy isotope causes the stained inner circle. This circle only has an outside diameter that is definable. In the case of U238 halos they measure the OD of the U238 stain. In the case of Po halos, they measure the OD of the Po210 stain. Then they do likewise for all other isotopes.

Can you show documentation of this? For the reasons I have previously explained, and your own description of the broadening process, this makes absolutely no sense. But even if it is done, it is obvious that this will not align with the theoretical radii calculated. The calculated radii shoudl align with (or close to) the centre of the observed halos, irrespective of any practical difficulties with teh actual measurement.With this in mind, RAZD's autocad Po214 circle shows a much better match than yours, and in no way can be said to be wrong - and most certainly not fraudulently wrong. Will you retract your accusations?

Just to add some colour to this: 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 The Po214 autocad circle looks spot on. The Po218 autocad circle could be argued as being slightly short of the apparent maximum, by a few pixels, but nothing outside the error of visual measurement. ABE: Actually having looked at this again, I take this back. It looks perfect Whatever the status of the "Po210/Rn222" halo, RAZD's autocad lines are far more accurate than AoK's. Anyone disagree?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Actually the second is also AlphaOmegaKid's image - he posted two. His mistake was to start with the ring/s where there is dispute. The proper procedure is to set up your rings based on the outer bands - the ones that you KNOW are from single isotope decay, with no possibility of confusion, and then see what the inner ones measure.He is also being a little free with who measured what:Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective: Table 1. What you see is a lot of NR (not resolved) and only two people - Gentry and Schilling (not the pitcher) - measuring 222Rn and 210Po and they disagree on how big 210Po is, and that ONLY in fluorite - for the 238U halo (where you KNOW there should be 222Rn).When you go over to the 218Po halos you see the numbers are different and it looks like some 222Rn data has been averaged in with the 210Po data by the growth in these numbers.This is why you should start with the (two outer) known bands and work in to what you actually have, then compare that to the recorded numbers.This is what I did, starting with the 238U halo picture from Gentry: As you can see, these numbers compare well with the published numbers, thus validating the process. You will see 3 small circles used on the 218Po band as the 214Po band is fairly indistinct - these were used to triangulate the center (3 points define a circle).Then I did the same thing with the 222Rn halo picture from Gentry: Here you see the outer two bands again in agreement with the published data, and the two inner bands slightly under the published data, but within the error margin, and there are still some places where the band coloration is outside the marked 222Rn band.As a double check, I then took the circles from the 238U picture and pasted them to the 222Rn picture: There was no scaling of these circles, they are exactly the same as shown on the 238U picture above. When you look closely you will see very good agreement with the two outer circles. The next two inner ones, for 222Rn and 210Po show more variation (as expected), BUT there is still band coloration outside the 222Rn circle from the 238U picture.Thus we have found 222Rn, it fits the band from 238U and there is still discoloration outside it. There is NOT a white gap all around between the discoloration and the circles for 222Rn, which would be the case if 222Rn was not in the picture. The only place where this occurs at all is the white area at ~10 oclock, where the outer bands are completely obliterated as well - probably a later intrusion.QED as they say, eh?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : 235U to 238UEdited by RAZD, : moved photos

---

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) • • •

Ah, ok, thanks for the correction. I think the obvious conclusion is that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Rn222 is involved, and Gentry's extreme views will need some extremely strong evidence to suggets that Rn222 was not present. Does he provide any in his peer-reviewed publications?

Actually, science says otherwise. Science says there is no dispute.In 1976 after most of Gentry's earlier publications, Meiers confirms Gentry's measurements in Biotite. And once again he says:

quote:

---

The greatest portion of halos, however, could be clearly identified as polonium halos.

---

​

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

It can be found here: http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/1004/10040185.PDFMeirs actually measured these halos. He actually presented EVIDENCE. Gentry actually measured these halos. He actually presented EVIDENCE.Now just as a reminder, RAZD, cavediver, Brawley, and Wakefield, who are the only people claiming these are Rn222 halos have not presented one actual measurement to support their claim. Their claim is baseless. Oh since you haven't produced one measurement or one cited measurement, nor have you ever witnessed a halo under a measuring microscope, now you are going to define how these halos should be measured.Oh, but what is this? You are not actually measuring a thing. You are scaling rings to a drawing. This is not measuring. It is a bogus claim. I will repeat....RAZD, cavediver, Brawley, and Wakefield, who are the only people claiming these are Rn222 halos have not presented one actual measurement to support their claim. Their claim is baseless. Ok, let me see if I understand. You established your datum off the largest ring (Po214 R34.52 microns) which you can't even see in this picture?????? Oh, I see! you realized that you couldn't see it, so you chose the next ring which violated your aforementioned procedure. Then you established a three point best fit circle on a ring that is less than 40% visible. I wonder what the validity of of that circle is??????? The first thing I noticed about your picture is the outside ring is cropped off in two places. The second is that if you are establishing your other circles off of this, then what three points did you use to establish it. They must not have been very good, because your datum ring should match perfectly. It doesn't match at all at 8 o'clock and it is small at 2 o'clock. Your datum circle doesn't even match the ring for Po214.Now look at the Po218 circle. It is obviously way too small all the way around. This ring is very visible, and you are not within the error margin. Several spots around your circle exceed .001mm delta. This ring doesn't match at all.Now interestingly the Rn222 circle does match the Po210 ring just like it did in my fraudulent version of this halo. And the Po210 circle has no ring definable anywhere.So to summarize, just like in my fraudlent version of the Po218 halo in Fluorite, the outer circle for Po214 which is supposed to be your datum doesn't match. The Po218 circle is out of sinc by at least .001mm. And there is no discernable Po210 ring. So once again the fraud continues to be a fraud. What were you double checking? That your figures still don't figure?You say that there was no scaling in these pictures. I believe you. But there should have been. The U halo was was captured at approximately 880 x's magnification. The Po218 halo in Fluorite was captured at approximately 725 x's magnification. That's only a 21% ERROR. Unfortunately, you really screwed this one up. Sorry. Still, not one shred of evidence of Rn222.QED FRAUD as I say, eh?Meiers (a geologist after confirming Gentry's measurments eight years after Gentry's first publications) states:

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

It's about time we have a little discussion about anecdotal evidence.Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia What RAZD has been producing is anecdotal evidence of Rn222 halos. This suggestion comes from one non-scientific individual John Brawley of TalkOrigins fame. This information is passed on through the TalkOrigins network and is not documented scientifically. Wakefield then picked up this anecdotal evidence and ran with it by adding it to his website. Then somehow RAZD found it. All three individuals provide "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis." Not one has measured a single halo and documented it which would then make it empirical evidence.But what did Gentry do? He used sophisticated microscopes to document the measurements of hundreds of thousands of halos. That evidence is not anecdotal, but empirical. The documented radii of these halos, provides solid evidence that they are Po halos. The documented empirical evidence is unchallenged that these measurements show that Rn222 was not involved.But Gentry didn't stop there. In his first publication he tested the hypothesis of secondary origin. Again, he provide empirical evidence from fission track analysis and from alpha recoil pit analysis that again these halos showed no evidence of secondary isotope origin which includes Rn222. Then Gentry used the Ion microprobe to show that these halos couldn't have been created from a uranium source, because no remnants were present in the halos. However, he didn't stop there. He tested the halos with Scanning electron microscope-x-ray fluorescence spectra and once again showed empirical evidence that agreed with the diametrical measurements. And He didn't stop there. He searched for known, verifiable sources of secondary uranium supply, and he found that in coalified wood. The evidence here also showed no Po218 or Po214 halos, because the half life was too short. However there was an abundance of Po210 halos. Rn222 gas would have been orders of magnitude more abundant in this case than in the granites. But still no Po218 halos or Rn222 halos. Again he provided empirical evidence.So what do we have from RAZD. We have anecdotal evidence (unscientific evidence) that he thinks the Po218 ring is actually Rn222. This can be scientifically verified empirically in a matter of minutes. But he hasn't done it. Nor has Wakefield. Nor has Brawley who supposedly used good microscopes for his fraudulent project. So RAZD has ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCEHe only has anecdotal evidence. tch tch eh?

Sorry, I didn't get a reply to this:Just to add some colour to this: 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?

See Message 152Sorry, I didn't get a reply to this: You mean you actually measure stellar and cosmological spectra? You have my praise. Some people just look at the cosmos, and make all kinds of assertions without any evidence.Gentry, Henderson, Sparks, and Meiers all measure the halos and they agree on the results. Brawley, Wakefield, and RAZD haven't measured a thing. They just looked at the halos and made all kinds of assertions.PS.As an astrophysicist do you condone RAZD's use of anecdotal evidence and trying to allude that it is scientifc or empirical in any way??Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Yes, of course. Not for a long time, sadly, but it used to be life before I moved into theoretical and mathematical phsyics. In fact, I would do everything from prep the scope, guide the observation (while freezing my nuts off), perform the CCD subtractions, extract the spectra, and then start analysis. Fun days... Great - it is your autocad circles with which I have such strong disagreement, presented in a post that spoke of RAZD's lying and fraud. Can you explain why your autocad circles were so far off the Po halos? Was it a simple attempt to discredit RAZD by fraudulent means, whilst falsly accusing him of dishonesty? Enquiring minds wish to know what Jesus thinks of your rather obvious tactics?

But Message 152 simply states that the source is not point-like, but extended, which will naturally lead to a broadening of the halos. Clearly measuring to the outer edge of the halo will produce an incorrect radius, as this radius is produced by source that is the most displaced from the origin of the halo!And in your case, your circles are not at the outer edge, but substantially beyond it, as is obvious in the image below. Why is this?