|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
I was wondering if there was a way to convert Argon-40 into Potassium-40, in a lab.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Anyone care to answer my enquery even slightly?
Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Argon-40 seems to take more energy to make from Pottasium-40. Decays of Argon-40 to Potassium-40 could be made by supercooling. I don't know if rapid protons would be necessary.
Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
quote:It is a logical conclusion. Supercooling has been known to do the reverse of "electron" capture. The Wikipedia chart has some example of Argon "decaying" into Potassium. I also doubt heat and pressure together will ever be tried. It would ruin the lab equipment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
quote:While I don't agree, that would be a very useful statement. Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
You're sounding pretty wacky. Reference, please. I am not your peer. Look it up yourself.
A quick look at Wikipedia and I can't see any such chart. Link to the chart, please. It's under Argon.
.. Heat and pressure together have been tried many times. Once you've got a suitable pressure vessel, dab on a little insulation and you've got a heat and pressure vessel. Yeah, in other words, you think ceramic rock is enough. That's a load of crap. Edited by OS, : No reason given. Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Nope. Essentially all of the K->Ar decays emit a 1.460 MeV gamma ray and a neutrino. Therefore [the] process emits energy. Takes energy or releases energy. I would have to see it, but hiting something with a rapid neutron doesn't give a lot of energy. I suspect it is something else. Yup, nutjob. Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Where under "argon?" I think you're making things up. While not atomic number 40, there are Argon isotopes which turn into Potassium. There's an isotope chart for Argon. Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Are you suggesting that the decay of Potassium-40 is reversible? It seems only implied, so far. And reversibility at the same rate sounds to me, atomically unlikely. But if you want to get into tree rings and ice core samples as proof; you should be disappointed by it. Tree rings are the training ground of radiocarbon daters, and ice core samples is impossibly stupid; I mean total nutjob, as in worse than making a wacky assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Whic has nothing to do with his claim that supercooling would turn 40Ar into 40K. Try again, I didn't make that claim. I was investigating possibilities. Did you notice Ar-41 and Ar-42 also? Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Ye I don't see any description of the reverse decay you say is there. Ar-40 is supposedly an exception, and it is also supposedly the most stable isotope-- I think.
There is also that pesky energy problem that works in the opposite direction as your post suggested. The energy should be less in the opposite direction. The tricky things with isotopes is how does the proton count change. With some, it is the colder the faster. I suspect C14 maybe this way. Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Implied by what? By the Argon isotope chart under "Argon" in Wikipedia.
Cool. Let's hear about why those things are nutjobs. Tree rings don't determine the age of trees. Carbon-14 does, and I believe carbon-14 date don't match tree ring dating. Ice melts, and the artic's icecap is constantly shifting. You can't prove it caused a flood or dates anything. Current research in this area is done at taxpayers expense, whereas most radiometric dating isn't. Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
I should have logically said the colder the slower.
An exception to what general principle? Ar-39, Ar-41, and Ar-42 can decay into potassium isotopes of the same number.
Carbon 14 decays by emitting a beta particle and gamma radiation, both of which carry away energy. The process is exothermic. Your suspicion is wrong. Yet there are also other issues like water, and that you can't carbon date any corpse accurately. Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Would you care to show how the science of dendrochronology has it all wrong? With objective evidence rather than bald assertion? 1. Quit lying that it is a science. 2. Quite [quit] pretending it is used to calibrate lambda for Radiocarbon Dating. Edited by OS, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OS Member (Idle past 3300 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
Have a good whine, and we'll watch the scientists laugh at you as you dig yourself deeper and deeper into the 85 pile. Just remember what I said about dedrenchronlogy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024