Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   polonium halos
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 188 of 265 (487348)
10-30-2008 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by peaceharris
10-30-2008 6:31 AM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
Thanks peaceharris.
It has been explained numerous times that uranium "embryonic" halos are possible according to "all the known physics". May I ask a moderator to intervene and ask RAZD to stop repeating this?
Curiously I have not seen it. If this is so, you would benefit admin and the rest of us by actually explaining it rather than just claim it was said.
Strangely the amount of time between the first decay event and the last is much longer than 4 days for any of the inner rings, and thus by the time you have half of the inner ring formed you would see almost as much formation of the 222Rn ring -- unless the Radon went away.
Anyway, the topic in this thread is more focused on Polonium halos found in rocks. Rocks are not like wood where there can be solutions moving. The halos in rocks are circular, not elliptical.
At least in the plane section they are seen in. Some are elliptical due to length different from width of the inclusions.
If people want to claim that Radon can leave the radiocenter and go somewhere else, why not prove it experimentally?
Because it is already observed, both in leaving the incomplete uranium halos, and in the decay evidence along fissures and cracks.
I bought a hydrogen balloon for my son some time ago. The gas diffused out in a few days. Radon atoms are much larger than helium atoms. Balloons are much more prone to diffusion than rocks. It is absurd to believe that diffusion of Radon-222 occurs within a few days in granite.
This will be a big comfort to people worried about radon gas in their basements. All they need to do is fill their basements with hydrogen eh? Of course any "fissure" or "crack" in your helium balloon would lead to much more rapid outflow yes? Hate to burst your balloon like that.
There is some truth to this statement, as many of the polonium halo photos show cracks. Many polonium halo photos have only a single ring. If the radiocenter started off as 222Rn center, there should be 4 rings.
There should be halos with all different kinds of rings -- single, double, triple and quadruple. Strangely there are, thus radon flow from uranium explains the halos.
Also, in some photos (in my opininon majority of the polonium halos do occur along cracks)
Not just your opinion, but one shared in published articles.
Polonium halos occur without any visible cracks:
Key word "visible" -- what you have are sample after sample after sample taken by cleaving the rocks along convenient fissures in the rocks. Mica is lifted with normal everyday cellophane tape, demonstrating (a) weak bonds, and (b) ready fissure planes. Once you have removed the layer you have removed the evidence of the fissure.
Look at the pictures by Gentry where you have a number of halos all on the same wafer thin sample that he has removed from mica by the tape method: why are they all on the same plane and not distributed up and down from it?
Do you suppose they all formed along a single fissure plane in a easy to split crystal for some arcane purpose or because it was a fissure that allowed the radon gas to penetrate the crystal.
Enjoy.

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 187 by peaceharris, posted 10-30-2008 6:31 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by peaceharris, posted 10-30-2008 9:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 192 of 265 (487404)
10-31-2008 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by peaceharris
10-30-2008 9:35 PM


Re: 222Rn found -- as predicted.
What's point in reexplaining it? I have explained it before, and you have not understood.
Refer:
1. Message 21
Not about formation of "embryonic" 238U or 232Th halos. Whatever aka JohnFulton talking about coal.
Not about formation of "embryonic" 238U or 232Th halos. You talking about Gentry errors. The obvious one is that he has the geology totally bollixed as has been demonstrated.
Not about formation of "embryonic" 238U or 232Th halos. You repeating about Gentry errors and complaining about my comment, yet ignoring that Gentry does invoke rapid decay to cram the 238U halos into 6kyrs.
The same message as (3) - double dipping or did you mean Message 37 which is about "embryonic" 238U halos:
quote:
Gentry’s definition of embryonic can be derived from this statement in his report:
“Specifically, it was discovered that the halos (Fig. 1a) surrounding the -active sites are typically embryonic, that is, they do not generally exhibit the outer 214Po ring characteristic of fully developed U halos in minerals.”
He is basically saying that he can see the U halo but cannot see the 214Po ring, thus he has defined it as “embryonic”.
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.
Do you agree that Uranium halos which do not have the 214Po ring are not significantly more than 245 thousand years? Please answer this question, so that I can try to explain this concept more clearly.
Or do you think Gentry is blind . the 214Po halo exists but he can’t see it? If you think Gentry made a mistake, please use data to support your assertion, find the halos that have the 238U ring and the 214Po ring. Post the image in this forum and tell us how you identified each ring.
Gentry does not explain (in what was excerpted) how these "embryonic" halos form. Nor are your statements exactly accurate.
Decay occurs steadily from day one to today, at decreasing rates (exponential function), so that if you divide the time in half more than half of the decay will have occurred in the first half than in the second. You have enough decay events to form a robust and strong innermost ring for the single isotope 238U. Because of the difference in decay rates from 238U to other isotopes down to 206Pb, by the time you have passed the second half of the decay period that formed the robust and strong innermost ring, almost all of the products of the first half would have progressed down the chain to 206Pb. You should have more than half as much decay events for the rest of the chain, so you should have distinct bands for every isotope.
This is even more of a problem once you pass 234U, which forms the next band, and the decay rates keep getting smaller for later isotopes, thus guaranteeing that they too should have decayed enough to form visible bands by the time this band is formed to a robust and strong degree, as seen in the pictures. By the time you get to 226Ra, with a 1,602 year half-life, the subsequent decay rates are measured in days and should be occurring virtually instantaneously afterwards.
I have (still) not seen any explanation for the loss of these outer rings except the patently obvious one, of 222Rn (inert, gas, gets into anything) leaving the inclusions in question and decaying elsewhere. The failure to consider this is (to me) stunning.
Another one where you are arguing about the age of the 238U halos, but you have some problems there too:
quote:
I have created a table below to show the ratio of the number of alpha particles emitted from the decay Po214 to the number of alpha particles emitted from the decay U238. The first column is assuming that the initial ratios of the isotopes were in equilibrium with U238 initially. ”In equilibrium’ means that the amount of isotope present is proportional to the half life of that isotope. For example since the half life of 238U is 18200 times more than the half life of U234, the amount of U238 present is 18200 times more than that of U234.
The problem is that we are talking about an inclusion of 238U and the subsequent decay of the isotopes from 238U down to 206Pb. For every 238U atom that decayed the next isotope is produced and so on down the chain. If the 'equilibrium' state shows that there is no 222Rn, no 218Po, no 214Po and no 210Po that is because they all will have already decayed and should have made just as many band producing decay events as the 238U band producing decay events.
Or am I missing something.
Enjoy.

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 not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 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 1404 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 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 1404 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

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 212 of 265 (489912)
    11-30-2008 8:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 211 by jgbrawley
    11-30-2008 12:03 AM


    Thanks, JG Brawley
    Welcome to the fray, jgbrawley.
    It is always nice to hear direct from the authors, and I agree with your objection to AlphaOmegaKid's portrayal. He likes to combine the Ad lapidem fallacy with the Argument from intimidation fallacy as excuses to disregard evidence that is contrary to his beliefs.
    He is not entirely to blame, however, as this behavior is evidence of cognitive dissonance, where one is trying desperately to keep a false belief alive through denial and attempts to discredit the sources. There is a lot of anger in his posts as well.
    Message 210 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.
    And it need not work for every 222Rn atom that passes through the location in question. As long as there is a steady production of 222Rn there is opportunity for one to decay in just the right spot to match others, a spot that is only slightly more "attractive" for inert gas molecules (and the same holds for daughter isotopes if the 222Rn does not end up in an anchored 218Po atom). Because the decay half-life is so small compared to those of the 238U isotopes that form the uranium halos in the same rock, there is plenty of time to accumulate sufficient atoms to make a halo as dark as the uranium ones.
    Certainly when we are talking about the isotopes after 222Rn we have the question of ionic charge/s to the atoms and the attraction of certain ions to bond with the crystal lattice where there is an ionic imbalance. After they decay they end up neutral (206Pb) and the orignal ionic imbalance in the crystal lattice is restored, attracting the next polonium (or other isotope) to bond with the crystal.
    Gentry even provides evidence that this process is in fact occurring, when he states that the centers of polonium halos have disproportionately high levels of 206Pb, something that would be a natural result of a deposition process.
    You may also be interested in the sister thread Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
    Enjoy.
    ... as you are new here, some posting tips:
    type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
    quotes are easy
    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
    quote:
    quotes are easy
    also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
    For other formating tips see Posting Tips
    Edited by RAZD, : added end link
    Edited by RAZD, : added

    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 211 by jgbrawley, posted 11-30-2008 12:03 AM jgbrawley has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 213 by jgbrawley, posted 12-01-2008 7:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 215 of 265 (499159)
    02-16-2009 11:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 214 by Phydeaux
    02-16-2009 6:25 PM


    Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
    Welcome to the fray Phydeaux,
    I can certainly say this evidence for creation is still without a serious rebuttal.
    I can certainly say that either you have not read this thread, or you have not understood it.
    1) If radon did travel through these cracks, where is the trail?
    Does a leaf leave a trail in the air? You want footprints maybe?
    2) If radon did travel to the polonium cite, how did it do so through solid rock.
    When it was not solid. The rocks they are found in have uranium inclusions that entered the rock structure through fractures before it resolidified.
    3) (more of a fact) Polonium halos do not have a radon-222 ring.
    Curiously this picture proves you are wrong:
    Those match Gentries values for the four radii btw.
    4) If polonium-218 halos formed from a secondary source, why don't we find polonium-218 halos in coalified wood?
    Because it is a different crystal lattice that has different affinities for various elements.
    Because there is a longer time to get to the next ring after 218Po than to get from 222Rn to 218Po.
    Because you have a couple of β- decay events after 218Po that are not in the decay chain from 222Rn to 218Po, creating a different charged particle to be attracted to the crystal lattice.
    5) If polonium-218 halos did form from a secondary source, why do we find the ratios we expect in polonium-210 halos found in coalified wood, but not in polonium 218 halos.
    You sound confused here - are you talking about radii rather than ratios? One would only expect to find 214Po and 210Po rings after the time has passed for 218Po and 222Rn halos.
    Now that your "evidence" for creation has been refuted, do you want to see if you can refute the evidence for an old earth?
    see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
    http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? -->http://EvC Forum: Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?< !--UE-->
    see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
    Enjoy.
    ... as you are new here, some posting tips:
    type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
    quotes are easy
    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
    quote:
    quotes are easy
    also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
    For other formating tips see Posting Tips
    Edited by RAZD, : englitch

    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 214 by Phydeaux, posted 02-16-2009 6:25 PM Phydeaux has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 216 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 1:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 217 of 265 (499200)
    02-17-2009 7:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 216 by Phydeaux
    02-17-2009 1:35 AM


    Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
    "When it was not solid. The rocks they are found in have uranium inclusions that entered the rock structure through fractures before it resolidified."
    Oh yeah. I remember reading something about that. I'm not sure if this would be true of fluorite. I will need to look into that more. Thanks.
    I showed you how to use quotes on this forum. It isn't difficult, and it improves communication tremendously.
    I am not sure if eye balling a picture of a polonium halo, which has been damaged by Gentry's experiments, with a center darkened by electron microbeam analysis is going to be totally reliable. How exactly did you come up with this conclusion?
    So you are telling me that the damage to the center changes the rings themselves? Do you have evidence of this from other photos?
    Really, the problem you have is that there is evidence of 222Rn in that photo, and you can either deny it or accept it.
    This is the same photo matched with his photo of a uranium halo that shows distinct halos for 222Rn and 210Po:
    Those two rings match up in both photos just as well as the other rings common to both match up, and the only difference is the core rings from 238U to 234U in the decay chain.
    Curiously, what this one photo shows is that the concept that 222Rn cannot be the source for polonium halos is invalidated, and denial will not change that simple pervasive and conclusive fact.
    Kind of just sounds like a guess, but ok. Anything to back up this hypothesis?
    Strangely I don't feel like spending the time on it, the hypothesis that Po halos only come from "primordial" Po is invalid.
    Oh yeah. I remember reading something about that. I'm not sure if this would be true of fluorite.
    It is.
    Enjoy.

    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 216 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 1:35 AM Phydeaux has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 218 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 10:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 219 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 2:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 220 of 265 (499254)
    02-17-2009 8:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 219 by Phydeaux
    02-17-2009 2:48 PM


    Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
    Hi Phydeaux,
    You are only using single point to point measurements, not circles, and the center of one cannot be easily determined, and there is variation around the edges which can cause errors in your method.
    By comparison, I matched concentric circles to the rings to determine their proportions. They were then calibrated with the 23.50 μm value for 218Po, which is common to all halos, it is dense enough to measure easily, and it is not being subject to confusion with other decay isotope stages.
    The 214Po halo was used as a check to sizing of the circles to the damage bands: if the value for 214Po is too high then the picture was scaled up too much, while if the value for 214Po is too low then the picture not scaled up enough. It should be 34.6 μm for a good match, and the published values for 210Po is 19.5 μm and for 222Rn it is 20.5 μm.
    I did this first on a 238U halo in Flourite that shows a 222Rn band, to validate the method and compare results to the published data for all the discernible rings:
    Then I did this twice with this "polonium" halo in Flourite, first making every circle just inside the ring edges, where damage appeared at greatest density, in the same (validated) manner as was done on the 238U halo, and then again, with circles just outside the outer edge of the rings, to check the method for sensitivity in making the ring circles. The second is what you saw before.
    First (inside edge biased to match density of damage):
    You will notice that these numbers agree very well with the published numbers and show a 1.14 μm difference between 210Po (at 19.18μm) and 222Rn (at 20.32 μm).
    Very simply put, if there were no 222Rn in this halo, then there should be NO damage visible outside the 222Rn circle, which there (very visibly) is.
    Second (outside edge biased):
    This shows a 1.17 μm difference between 210Po (at 19.07 μm) and 222Rn (at 20.24 μm).
    Here again, simply put, if there were no 222Rn in this halo, then there should be NO damage visible between the 210Po circle and the 222Rn circle, due to the bias, which there (very visibly) is.
    Then, as a final check, I superimposed the rings from the 238U halo over this picture - you can see double rings where there was a slight variation between the circles used for the two halos - but clearly a match between 214Po rings, 218Po rings 210Po rings AND 222Rn rings from both pictures:
    This match between the circles drawn from the two different pictures in the same rock type, Flourite, shows that there indeed is a 222Rn band in this "polonium" halo, and it is better called a 222RN halo (according to the scientific nomenclature of these things).
    This last picture is the icing on the cake: if the method were erroneous there should not be the agreement between the two, and the degree of variation shown is well within limits of human error and cannot be explained by variation in the ring formations. I could just as easily use the numbers from the 238U halo for the rings in this 222Rn halo:
    • 19.50 μm for 210Po,
    • 20.54 μm for 222Rn,
    • 23.50 μm for 218Po (of course), and
    • 34.52 μm for 210Po.
    The results are consistent, so this validates the process: as long as you are consistent to where you measure the rings in your approach you should get similar results, as the results are not sensitive to bias inside or outside.
    The results also match the published values for these rings.
    Now I want you to do a mental exercise: imagine the 238U circles scaled so that the 210Po circle (19.50 μm) matched the circle measured for the 222Rn ring on this picture (20.32 μm) - what radius do you think the outer circles would then have?
    This is what AlphaOmegaKid did, and there were gaps between his circles and the outer rings - why do you suppose those gaps were there?
    this could have been an abnormality; perhaps due to Gentry's x-ray analysis.
    Not likely as the x-ray damage is the irregular black spot at the center, instead of purple - it is a different energy level. There is also no need to waste the time, energy, and cost of focusing the x-ray outside the immediate center.
    Conclusion: Although there is a slightly larger halo than is expected in the polonium-210 ring we have seen, this could have been an abnormality;
    Yet your method is prone to error - you have only measured one place on each ring to a point that is subjective in interpretation as the center of the halo, and you don't show one measurement in comaprison to another. It is a method that would be easy to fudge to fit the desired result.
    Polonium-218, by your method which I consider to be a bit primitive ...
    Curiously, your opinion has no effect on reality, nor does it change the measured values and the corroboration between the 222Rn halo and the 238U halo circles.
    Interestingly your method still has error in it that is not explained.
    Amusingly my method cannot be fudged to generate wanted results without this showing up in the last picture, where you can see and compare every one of the circles on the same picture.
    Either way, it does not match with the size of the radon-222 halo found in uranium halos.
    Denial is not just a river in Egypt eh? Strangely denial does not change the evidence.
    Superimposing the 238U circles over the 222Rn halo shows, without a doubt, that it does indeed match the 222Rn AND the 210Po circles as well as it matches the two outer rings, a match that is not possible without the existence of the 222Rn band in this halo.
    The only valid conclusion is that there was 222Rn involved in the formation of this halo, as that is the only conclusion that fits all the data. It fits it for the outer ring (34.52 μm for 210Po), it fits it for the next ring in (23.50 μm for 218Po) and it fits it for the two rings in question: 19.50 μm for 210Po, and 20.54 μm for 222Rn.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : englitch, clerty

    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 219 by Phydeaux, posted 02-17-2009 2:48 PM Phydeaux has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 221 by Phydeaux, posted 02-18-2009 11:21 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 226 of 265 (499525)
    02-19-2009 12:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 221 by Phydeaux
    02-18-2009 11:21 AM


    Re: Will you recognize when your argument is falsified?
    Hi Phideaux,
    I placed a one pixel sized red dot in the center from which I started every time. In the uranium halo the radiocenter containing lead is actually visible. As long as I start from the same spot, and measure in the same general direction it should be close enough to being correct. This was confirmed by the matching of the po-218 ring.
    No it just shows that that one line happens to obtain that result. To validate it you need to start from that same spot and measure lines in several directions. You have not done that, while my circles have, in effect measured lines all around the circumference, and hence my circles are more robust than your single line in accuracy. If you change the "center" of your line slightly you can get very different results because it will change the ratios between the circles.
    The results for the Po-210 ring in polonium halos is 19.8 μm. The results for the radon ring in uranium halos was 20.5 μm. I think it is silly that we are arguing over our measurements of a picture, when we have published results from scientist whom had better equipment. From Gentry's article in science 1974:
    So when I match each of those published polonium radii, AND have a ring that just HAPPENS to be within the margin of error for where he says the 222Rn ring is, is just luck eh?
    When I take the same process from a 238U halo that ALSO matches his published results for every ring, and superimpose it over the "polonium" halo an IT just HAPPENS to match precisely where he says the 222Rn ring as well as match each of the polonium rings is ALSO just luck eh?
    Why does that happen, Phydeaux? How do you explain it?
    All I see so far is denial.
    Enjoy.

    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 221 by Phydeaux, posted 02-18-2009 11:21 AM Phydeaux has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 227 by Phydeaux, posted 02-19-2009 11:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 228 by Admin, posted 02-19-2009 6:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 229 of 265 (499701)
    02-19-2009 8:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 227 by Phydeaux
    02-19-2009 11:53 AM


    later
    I'll get back to you on the weekend. I only have time to hit the highspots tonight, so I have to triage replies
    Edited by RAZD, : sub

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 227 by Phydeaux, posted 02-19-2009 11:53 AM Phydeaux has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 231 of 265 (499833)
    02-20-2009 11:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 230 by lyx2no
    02-20-2009 11:17 PM


    Re: Not Done Lurking
    Thanks lyx2no2,
    Razd's method for finding the ring sizes is much more accurate the yours. It's much easier to find the peak of a Gaussian distribution then the edge. Especially since there ain't one.
    This is a point that is obvious to you, me and cavediver, but it isn't obvious to creationists, because (a) they don't usually know about Gaussian or any other kinds of distributions, and (b) the authority they use states he measures edges.
    The problem, as you point out, is that when you look closely, there is no edge. Part of this is due to inclusion size, and part of it is due to variations in penetration in a non-homogeneous material. I also suspect, but haven't confirmed, that the α-energy is not a fixed quantum number, but shows some variation in testing around a peak value.
    which RAZD used in all instances following with the exception of Message 215 where he picked the argument back up after a longish pause. I'll bet you he used the wrong image and your argument's for nought.
    Actually, I used the worst example from my testing as it still showed that there had to be 222Rn in the halo: it shows damage at a distance that does not fit the "polonium only" model. I am planning to do a more thorough job this weekend, but don't know how much time I will have for it.
    Enjoy.

    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 230 by lyx2no, posted 02-20-2009 11:17 PM lyx2no has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 255 of 265 (500021)
    02-22-2009 2:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 236 by Phydeaux
    02-21-2009 4:24 AM


    Fresh Pictures using Gentry Radii
    Hi Phydeaux,
    I've finally got some down-time to use answeringyour several question on this thread.
    Message 236
    Btw, why are we using this photograph? It is definitely not the one with the clearest rings.
    (1) because this particular picture does show the same kind of distinction visible on the 235U halo for distinction between 222Rn and 210Po (see the yellow boxes)::
    (2) because it is one of the few halos in Flourite, the same crystal as the 235U halo where we can distinguish between the 222Rn and 210Po rings, and
    (3) the rings are different diameters in different cyrstals, so to compare it to the 235U rings, we must use a halo in Flourite.
    (4) the rings in Flourite are larger than the ones in Biotite, so there is better ability to measure small differences.
    First I wanted to say that I realize it would be preferable to measure from the center, but how can know what is the center from this photograph?
    We can match the rings to the published data, and then adjust the scale of the picture until we get a good fit for all rings on the 235U halo.
    Once we have done this, then we look to matching the polonium halo in the same manner for the two outer rings - rings that are not disputed - and see what we see for the inner rings.
    We start with the 238U decay chain:
    Then we select only the α decay events on the main decay sequence, and sort them from small to large, and add the radius data from Schilling (S) and Gentry (G) to derive a valid average value for each isotope:
    From this we can draw theoretical circles to exactly match the published data:
    This shows the α energy on the right, the halo radii on the left. I've also shown the curve of correlation between these values on the right, and I note that this is not a smooth curve, so there are irregularities in the data, but I've used this to project radii for 230Th and 234U inside the 226Ra circle.
    The next stage is to find the center of the halo and the scale of the pictures. To do this I used the simple approach that three points on the circumference define a circle, so I established 3 points on the 218Po ring, drew my circle through them and then scaled them, the circle and the picture so that the radius of the circle was 23.5. These are shown in green on the picture, while the red circles are the other α decay rings for 238U in Flourite.
    Here is the 238U Halo:
    Here is the 222Rn Halo:
    There is no question that there is damage visible outside the 210Po circle, and that some of the visible damage is outside the 222Rn circle. This should not be the case if there were no 222Rn in the halo.
    However, just to be sure I rescaled the picture by 19.4/20.0 - half the distance between the 210Po and the 222Rn circles, so that you could argue that it was all 210Po with no 222Rn -- except that the two outer circles BOTH miss the halo rings for these isotopes:
    The 218Po halo scales at 22.8 μm not 23.5 μm and the 214Po halo scales at 33.5 μm instead of 34.6 μm, and this clearly is NOT a match to the rings in the picture, so the inner rings cannot be forced to eliminate 222Rn from being in the picture without also missing the two outer rings.
    To conclude: the picture originally has the appearance of two rings at the locations for 210Po and 222Rn, and when the rings are measured, the results accurately measure the outer rings at 34.6 μm for the 214Po ring and 23.5 μm for the 218Po ring, and there is visible damage beyond the 222Rn circle at 20.5 μm, while in the visible gap areas of the picture, the inner damage lines up with the 210Po circle.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : minor correction: I used 19.4 rather than 19.5 for 210Po as that is the average value between Schindler and Gentry for this ring.

    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 236 by Phydeaux, posted 02-21-2009 4:24 AM Phydeaux 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