Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
Re: Trinitite
|
Thanks Steve.? Geo ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM S Dubyk <sdubyk@...> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite I should have clarified that Unat is in the trinitite from the site soil incorporated in it, just a small amount. Serber's paper indicates that two metals were considered for the tamper, U and Au. Since there was likely a lot of DU available, I suspect that is what they used since it was a waste product. And since DU is already depleted in 235, and as you mentioned some of that was fissioned off, the ratio kind of makes sense now. I don't think they would have considered Unat for the tamper, they were pretty paranoid about excess neutrons flying around in the gadget prior to detonation. Steve From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of GEOelectronics@... <GEOelectronics@...> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:27 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite ? Here's another Trinitite mass spectrum analysis: ----- Original Message ----- From: GEOelectronics@... To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite "it could be the method by which intensity is reported." I must agree because this is the first mass spec report I've ever seen. ? Still looking for more online. But why Unat metal in the first place in the tamper? Why not their super depleted U? The Pu' way a super pure, why trash up the test results with U-235? Geo ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM S Dubyk <sdubyk@...> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:50:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite Still too low to explain the discrepancy. Must be something else involved, it could be the method by which intensity is reported. Steve From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of GEOelectronics@... <GEOelectronics@...> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 7:43 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite ? Steve, a lot of the U-25 was fished. Some report 30% of the total released energy from Trinity was due to plain ol' natural U-235. Geo ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM S Dubyk <sdubyk@...> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite What is interesting is the ratio of intensity of 235/238. Of course, nuclide production, decay activity and contribution of Unat must be considered but it still seems off. Steve From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of GEOelectronics@... <GEOelectronics@...> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 6:10 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite ? He did weigh the sample Steve, but then he digested it in Hydrofluoric and Nitric acid. after drying he must have measured it again? Anyhow I don't know but would guess yes they can do that. ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM S Dubyk <sdubyk@...> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:11:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite Is there any way to convert intensity to ppm or ppt? Steve From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of GEOelectronics@... <GEOelectronics@...> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 4:05 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite ? "Neptunium", a YouTuber did an ICPMS mass-spectrum? of Trinitite. From the data presented on isotope ratios these are of most interest to us: Analysis? ? ?Intensity ? U-235? ? ? ? ? ?1523.1 ? U-238? ? ? ?235679.6?? ? Pu-239? ? ? ? ?6312.2 ? Pu-240? ? ? ? ? ?167.5 ? Pu-241? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3.6? Good to know. He did multiple runs, they were statistically the same. We can start to make preliminary assumptions based on known T/2 of the isotopes and their daughters. Pu-239 by far the most abundant species.? Pu-241 is only T/2= 14.4 years so it's remarkable there is any left now. It decays 100% to Am-241 so we can get a calculation of it's T=0 quantity. Pu-243 would have decayed away in one day, but it's 100% progeny Am-243 lasts a long time, so we have to at least consider the one report that identifies Am-243 as possible, while at the same time investigate the alternatives. All-in-all we can probably claim a good half dozen X-Ray peaks to our personal Life-Lists, and either prove or debunk a few prior claims by others. Good hunting. Geo |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss