Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
64 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,076 Year: 4,188/6,534 Month: 402/900 Week: 108/150 Day: 1/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   polonium halos
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 256 of 265 (500035)
02-22-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Phydeaux
02-21-2009 11:12 PM


Re: That's Different Then

Click to enlarge

Yellow being the rock, red being the ring, and the orange being the part you claim is uncertain.


Not at all like the ring. The ring density is a Gaussian distribution. Like so:

You are ignoring a fundamental fact.

The position of the densest portion of a ring in an image is a function of the energy of the particles emitted.

The position of the edge of a ring in an image is a function of the energy of the particles emitted and the medium through which they traveled and the resolution of the image … and probabvly a few other things.

Unless you incude all those variables in your "determination" of the edge postion, your detemination is less accurate than looking for the distribution's peak.

So, in this case, which is more accurate; measuring the edge, or measuring the maximum point (point LOL) of coloration?

"This case" as you presented it is irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Phydeaux, posted 02-21-2009 11:12 PM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Phydeaux, posted 02-22-2009 5:14 PM JonF has taken no action

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 257 of 265 (500073)
02-22-2009 5:11 PM


I did my own ring measurements:


Click to enlarge

Then I placed it over the U halo:


Click to enlarge

I measured the diameter of the circle, so no need to worry about that. Here are the basic measurements for the rings I placed over the image:

polonium-214 34.5 µm.
polonium-218 23.5 µm.
radon-222 20.5 µm.
polonium-210 19.9 µm.

The polonium-210 halo is wider than the usual, but one of the measurements in the published results had the ring at 19.8.


Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 9:02 PM You replied

    
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 258 of 265 (500074)
02-22-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by JonF
02-22-2009 9:07 AM


Re: That's Different Then
So, you think the po-218 ring in the image I provided looks more like your image? I don't.

Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by JonF, posted 02-22-2009 9:07 AM JonF has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by lyx2no, posted 02-22-2009 5:27 PM You replied

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3945 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 259 of 265 (500075)
02-22-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Phydeaux
02-22-2009 5:14 PM


Re: That's Different Then
I don't.

Would you mind telling us what you do think?


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Phydeaux, posted 02-22-2009 5:14 PM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Phydeaux, posted 02-22-2009 5:39 PM lyx2no has taken no action

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 260 of 265 (500079)
02-22-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by lyx2no
02-22-2009 5:27 PM


Re: That's Different Then
Would you mind telling us what you do think?

I think the darkest area is very wide. I also think this halo is very hard to measure because we don't know the actual size, and the ring is not visible or uniform in some areas. Look at this image:

Where is darkest area on the polonium-218 ring?

Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.

Edited by Phydeaux, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by lyx2no, posted 02-22-2009 5:27 PM lyx2no has taken no action

    
RAZD
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 261 of 265 (500092)
02-22-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Phydeaux
02-22-2009 5:11 PM


Thanks Phideaux,

I did my own ring measurements:

I would expect you to so that you can see that I have not biased my measurements.

Can you tell me why your 214Po and 218Po circles are outside the 214Po and 218Po rings? (And why are your pictures a different hue?)

The 214Po circle does not match any of the 214Po ring and the 218Po halo only matches at the top of the 218Po ring, where there appears to be a much wider area of damage that extends the width of the diagonal band of coloration, and is outside the ring elsewhere.

This means you have missed the target, and you need to scale the picture up more. This will make your "210Po" measurement larger.

polonium-210 19.9 µm.

And you are already at the half-way point between 210Po and 222Rn while you have missed the two outer rings.

This is similar to my last picture in Message 255, when I intentionally forced the 210Po ring to match half-way between the 210Po and 222Rn ring, and demonstrating that you cannot eliminate 222Rn without missing the outer rings.

Then I placed it over the U halo:

While here you match these two outside rings, but your 210Po circle is outside the 210Po ring all the way around.

In other words you are not consistent and have biased your data.

I measured the diameter of the circle, so no need to worry about that. Here are the basic measurements for the rings I placed over the image:
The polonium-210 halo is wider than the usual, but one of the measurements in the published results had the ring at 19.8.

Do you remember where I said that the curve of α energy versus ring diameter was not a smooth curve? It was Message 255, and I have gone back to that and rotated it and blown it up for easier visibility:


Click to enlarge

As noted, I used this curve to generate radii for 230Th and 234U inside the 226Ra circle. These are the numbers in red above.

Then I relaxed the curve at the 210Po point to see what a smoother curve would generate for this radius, then I did the same thing with the original curve relaxed at the 222Rn point:

Curve estimated 210Po value = 19.55 μm:


Click to enlarge

Curve estimated 222Rn value = 20.35 μm:


Click to enlarge

My conclusion from this is that the natural separation of these rings is less than what we see in the published data: in each case the estimate moves by 0.15 μm: toward the other ring. This, of course, makes distinguishing one ring from the other more difficult (as in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rings of the 238U halo where the overall distance between 2 and 4 is 0.47 μm, or half the distance from 210Po to 222Rn). One explanation for the disparity is that early damage affects penetration of later damage, however this would apply across the board due to the short half-lives involved, so I rule this out. Another reason could just be that the results are empirical data and there is a statistical spread, with many more measurements of some rings than of others, and variation from rock to rock.

However, I don't see reason to expect a larger separation, rather I see reason to expect a smaller separation, thus making your problem with the outer rings even more acute.

As it sits, neither of your circle sets match the pictures, nor are they consistent from one to the other.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : correct picture


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 257 by Phydeaux, posted 02-22-2009 5:11 PM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Phydeaux, posted 02-23-2009 1:32 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 262 of 265 (500101)
02-23-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by RAZD
02-22-2009 9:02 PM


Can you tell me why your 214Po and 218Po circles are outside the 214Po and 218Po rings? (And why are your pictures a different hue?)

I put it out side the ring because I think it will be more correct that way; as I have explained before. It shouldn't make a difference so long as I am consistent and do the same with all the rings. The picture is a different color because I scanned it in from the book for hope of better quality, or at least more pixels.

The 214Po circle does not match any of the 214Po ring

I changed it to correct the mistake I thought you made before. I think it is easier to compare inverted:


Click to enlarge

This is the image where I pointed out what I think was a mistake:


Click to enlarge

I didn't realize this until now, but my 214 and 218 rings are actually almost the same as yours were in the image above except for the left side I corrected, so it seems that you did think the rings fit at one time, but changed it only to make all the rings correct because you didn't have the left side set up right.

the 218Po halo only matches at the top of the 218Po ring, where there appears to be a much wider area of damage that extends the width of the diagonal band of coloration, and is outside the ring elsewhere.

Yes, and that's what makes measuring this image like this so hard; the rings are totally screwed up. I tried to make it follow the path of the most common area of damage; ignoring abnormalities like that wide and very dark spot. I probably could move the rings up a little bit, and have a better match. If only Gentry included a 10 µm. bar...

Another thing that is weird is that the 210 ring seems to have more of an oval type shape. Maybe it has something to do with the testing Gentry did. The black mark going upwards makes me think this, but there is no way we can ever know.

While here you match these two outside rings, but your 210Po circle is outside the 210Po ring all the way around.

In other words you are not consistent and have biased your data.

I said the 210Po ring was not what I would have expected. I was not trying to trick anyone or anything.

I think my measurements can be argued to be just as good as yours if not better, but that is exactly the problem. We really don't know what the size of the halo is, and the smallest change and different calibrations can make a big difference. I would stick with the published results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 9:02 PM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2009 3:38 AM You replied

    
RAZD
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 263 of 265 (500107)
02-23-2009 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Phydeaux
02-23-2009 1:32 AM


Not surprised
Thanks Phydeaux,

I put it out side the ring because I think it will be more correct that way; as I have explained before. It shouldn't make a difference so long as I am consistent and do the same with all the rings.

I see you have changed your pictures. Curiously that leaves me skeptical of your unaltered argument, for you've changed the rings but not the data?

I changed it to correct the mistake I thought you made before.

So the picture I made before, the one that makes a "best case" for no 222Rn, the one that does show that there is still damage outside the 210Po ring, that is correct now?

The picture is a different color because I scanned it in from the book for hope of better quality, or at least more pixels.

The pictures I've used are downloaded from Gentry's website. I would expect him to have the same or higher resolution pictures there compared to what you could get scanning an image that is printed to fit a book.

http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-rc-8.htm
http://www.halos.com/images/ctm-rc-8-b.jpg

I didn't realize this until now, but my 214 and 218 rings are actually almost the same as yours were in the image above except for the left side I corrected, so it seems that you did think the rings fit at one time, but changed it only to make all the rings correct because you didn't have the left side set up right.

And in that picture of mine there is 222Rn damage between the outside of the 210Po circle and the 222Rn circle. Here it is again:


Click to enlarge

This was done using the extreme side of the damage rings to anticipate your questioning of where to measure the rings. Assuming a margin of error of 1/3 of the gap between 210Po and 222Rn, or +/- 3 μm, we have a range of likely measurements from 19.1 to 19.7 μm for 210Po and from 20.2 to 20.8 μm for 222Rn.

For this picture to not have 222Rn the 210Po halo measurement has to be at 20.24 μm circle shown for 222Rn. That is outside the margin of error for 210Po, but inside the margin of error for 222Rn, so logically this has to be 222Rn.

Put another way, I should be able to draw a circle at the outside margin of error - 19.7 μm - and contain all the damage at the center of the halo, and you didn't and I can't.

Strangely I also measure the 210Po ring on that picture at 19.07 μm, which is inside the margin of error for 210Po:


Click to enlarge

So on that picture I measure the three polonium rings correctly, according to you, and I still have some left over damage that fits 222Rn much better than it fits 210Po.

I probably could move the rings up a little bit, and have a better match.

I find the rings to be a little elliptical taller than wide.

I said the 210Po ring was not what I would have expected. I was not trying to trick anyone or anything.

I think my measurements can be argued to be just as good as yours if not better, but that is exactly the problem. We really don't know what the size of the halo is, and the smallest change and different calibrations can make a big difference. I would stick with the published results.

Just that you were inconsistent and have now changed your pictures.

Not surprisingly, you conclusion is what I expect from someone pre-committed to the idea that these halos are something special.

If only Gentry included a 10 μm. bar...

Yep, wonder why he didn't ... wouldn't he want people to replicate his measurements rather than just look at them in awe?

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 262 by Phydeaux, posted 02-23-2009 1:32 AM Phydeaux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Phydeaux, posted 02-23-2009 10:57 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
Phydeaux
Junior Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-17-2009


Message 264 of 265 (500131)
02-23-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
02-23-2009 3:38 AM


Re: Not surprised
I see you have changed your pictures. Curiously that leaves me skeptical of your unaltered argument, for you've changed the rings but not the data?

Huh? All I did was invert the colors.

So the picture I made before, the one that makes a "best case" for no 222Rn, the one that does show that there is still damage outside the 210Po ring, that is correct now?

The changes I made on the left side changed the sizes for everything. I am not necessarily arguing that it is correct, but that it could be argued either way. I do think mine is more correct though.

The pictures I've used are downloaded from Gentry's website. I would expect him to have the same or higher resolution pictures there compared to what you could get scanning an image that is printed to fit a book.

I think gentry was thinking of 56k users when he uploaded those. :P I don't think the quality differs enough to talk about. I just like that it has more pixels.

I find the rings to be a little elliptical taller than wide.

Mostly on the polonium-210 ring.

Yep, wonder why he didn't ... wouldn't he want people to replicate his measurements rather than just look at them in awe?

Well, polonium halos are not rare or anything. If anyone really wanted to, they could go find them and measure them.

Edit add:

I just wanted to add that your measurements for the other rings in your latest picture with the many colors when the 214 ring is calibrated at 34.5 is as follows:

218Po 23.36 µm.
222Rn 20.36 µm.
210Po 19.36 µm.

Edited by Phydeaux, : added one thing


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2009 3:38 AM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2009 10:19 PM You have taken no action

    
RAZD
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 265 of 265 (500197)
02-23-2009 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Phydeaux
02-23-2009 10:57 AM


You may make me an edge believer ...
Edit add:
I just wanted to add that your measurements for the other rings in your latest picture with the many colors when the 214 ring is calibrated at 34.5 is as follows:
218Po 23.36 μm.
222Rn 20.36 μm.
210Po 19.36 μm.

Well, my point was to make the result as favorable for those who don't accept the 222Rn presence, not to make the case stronger for 222Rn.

When I scale it by 34.5/34.08 I get


Isotope data circle scaled ratio

210Po 19.4 19.07 19.31 99.5%
222Rn 20.5 20.24 20.49 99.9%
218Po 23.5 23.5 23.79 101.2%
214Po 34.5 34.08 34.5 100.0%

Note that 34.5 μm is Schindler's radius, and that he also has 19.3 for 210Po, making that one 100.03% of the published data, in essence only leaving the 218Po ring as a slight anomaly. So I thought I would see what this looked like, and scaled the picture and circles to match this outer ring value. To make the circles fit the decay pattern the same way for 222Rn and 218Po as they do for the 210Po and 214Po rings, I made some adjustments to these in-between circles, and added radial lines so you con compare the relative position of circle and ring along each radial.

And I then get this picture:


Click to enlarge

And these values:


Isotope data circle ratio

210Po 19.3 19.3 100.0%
222Rn 20.5 20.3 99.0%
218Po 23.5 23.7 100.9%
214Po 34.5 34.5 100.0%

And I would have to say that a maximum 1% error means this is a pretty good fit all around for 222Rn halo evidence.

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 264 by Phydeaux, posted 02-23-2009 10:57 AM Phydeaux has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022