#1384

Let's hash this out in a separate sub-topic

First up is an excerpt from the best HPGe scan of Trinitite I could find, done by Jon Rosenstiel for the Pittauerova/Kolb et al paper attached.

If U-238 is responsible for the U L X-Rays by the decay down to U-234, then where are the other signs? of that short decay chain? We should see Th and Pa X-Rays and a very prominent 1001keV Gamma Ray from same U-234 being created by Pa-234m decay:

Geo

Pittauerova_trinitite.pdf

Trinitie-HIGH-AND-LOW-J-Rosentiel-1.png

U-238_Decay_and_Progeny_X-Rays.png

#1385

Now add picture and .mca of one of my best runs on the Blob- from 2014 and an Amptek SDD-1-2-3.

Same data but looking only at the 0 to 25 keV section.

TowerMetal-Blob-Self-XRF-Fe-SDD-U-L-X-Rays-0-25-kev-Closeup.png

TowerMetal-Blob-Self-XRF-Fe-SDD-U-L-X-Rays.png

TrinityGlobSide2 _2_.mca

TowerMetal-Blob-Self-XRF-Fe-SDD-U-L-X-Rays-0-25-kev-Closeup.png

#1386

开云体育

Geo,

I wouldn’t call the 1.001MeV Pa234m gamma prominent by any respects as it has a yield of only 0.8% while the Th-234 gamma yield is 4.8%.? The Th-234 will have a lower limit of detection for a given weight of material due to its higher yield. Now if the U-238 is shielded by soil or other factors then the Pa234m 1.001 line would be a better choice to look at.

Dud

?

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where's the Uranium?

?

Let's hash this out in a separate sub-topic

First up is an excerpt from the best HPGe scan of Trinitite I could find, done by Jon Rosenstiel for the Pittauerova/Kolb et al paper attached.

If U-238 is responsible for the U L X-Rays by the decay down to U-234, then where are the other signs? of that short decay chain? We should see Th and Pa X-Rays and a very prominent 1001keV Gamma Ray from same U-234 being created by Pa-234m decay:

Geo

#1387

Good point Dudley- they are also not in evidence.

Th-234

Gamma Emissions:

Intensity Energy Decay
(%)? ? ? ? ? (keV) Mode

4.8000? ? ? 63.29 b-
2.8100? ? ? 92.38 b-
2.7700? ? ? 92.80 b-

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: Dude <dfemer@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where's the Uranium?

Geo,

I
wouldn’t call the 1.001MeV Pa234m gamma prominent by any respects as it has a yield
of only 0.8% while the Th-234 gamma yield is 4.8%.? The Th-234 will have a
lower limit of detection for a given weight of material due to its higher yield.
Now if the U-238 is shielded by soil or other factors then the Pa234m 1.001 line
would be a better choice to look at.

Dud

?

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where's the Uranium?

?

Let's hash this out in a separate sub-topic

First up is an excerpt from the best HPGe scan of Trinitite I could find, done
by Jon Rosenstiel for the Pittauerova/Kolb et al paper attached.

If U-238 is responsible for the U L X-Rays by the decay down to U-234, then
where are the other signs? of that short decay chain? We should see Th and
Pa X-Rays and a very prominent 1001keV Gamma Ray from same U-234 being created
by Pa-234m decay:

Geo

#1388

Show quoted text

<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: GEOelectronics@...<br>To: [email protected]<br>Sent: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:14:37 -0400 (EDT)<br>Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where's the Uranium?<br><br><html><head><style>/*<![CDATA[*/body {<br>	height: 100.0%;<br>	color: rgb(0,0,0);<br>	font-size: 12.0pt;<br>	font-family: arial , helvetica , sans-serif;<br>}<br>/*]]>*/</style></head><body><div>Good point Dudley- they are also not in evidence.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Th-234</div><div>Gamma Emissions:</div><div>Intensity Energy Decay <br />(%)? ? ? ? ? (keV) Mode</div><div>4.8000? ? ? 63.29 b-<br />2.8100? ? ? 92.38 b-<br />2.7700? ? ? 92.80 b-<br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div>----- Original Message -----<br />From: Dude &lt;dfemer&#64;cox.net&gt;<br />To: XRF&#64;groups.io<br />Sent: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:55:01 -0400 (EDT)<br />Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where&#39;s the Uranium?<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><style>/*<![CDATA[*/p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {<br>}<br>/*]]>*/</style></div><div class="Section1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&#39;arial&#39; , &#39;sans-serif&#39;;color:black">Geo,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&#39;arial&#39; , &#39;sans-serif&#39;;color:black">I<br />wouldn’t call the 1.001MeV Pa234m gamma prominent by any respects as it has a yield<br />of only 0.8% while the Th-234 gamma yield is 4.8%.? The Th-234 will have a<br />lower limit of detection for a given weight of material due to its higher yield.<br />Now if the U-238 is shielded by soil or other factors then the Pa234m 1.001 line<br />would be a better choice to look at.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&#39;arial&#39; , &#39;sans-serif&#39;;color:black">Dud<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&#39;arial&#39; , &#39;sans-serif&#39;;color:black">?</span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:&#39;tahoma&#39; , &#39;sans-serif&#39;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:&#39;tahoma&#39; , &#39;sans-serif&#39;"> XRF&#64;groups.io<br />[mailto:XRF&#64;groups.io] <b>On Behalf Of </b>GEOelectronics&#64;rallstech.net<br /><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:53 PM<br /><b>To:</b> XRF&#64;groups.io<br /><b>Subject:</b> [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where&#39;s the Uranium?</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">?</p><p class="MsoNormal">Let&#39;s hash this out in a separate sub-topic<br /><br /><br />First up is an excerpt from the best HPGe scan of Trinitite I could find, done<br />by Jon Rosenstiel for the Pittauerova/Kolb et al paper attached.<br /><br /><img id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.png&#64;01D6A17F.C5167470" alt="Trinitie-HIGH-AND-LOW-J-Rosentiel-1.png" data-mce-src="cid:image001.png&#64;01D6A17F.C5167470" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />If U-238 is responsible for the U L X-Rays by the decay down to U-234, then<br />where are the other signs? of that short decay chain? We should see Th and<br />Pa X-Rays and a very prominent 1001keV Gamma Ray from same U-234 being created<br />by Pa-234m decay:<br /><br /><br /><br /><img id="_x0000_i1026" src="cid:image002.png&#64;01D6A17F.C5167470" alt="U-238_Decay_and_Progeny_X-Rays.png" data-mce-src="cid:image002.png&#64;01D6A17F.C5167470" /><br /><br /><br />Geo</p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></body></html><div style="color:white"></div> <br><br><br>

#1389

Let's go one step further- Th-234 decay to Pa-234m to U-234?

X-Ray yield at 13.618:

Pa-234m

X-Ray Emissions:

Intensity Energy Assignment
(%)? ? ? ? (keV)

0.2500 13.618 U La1

1/4%? No way all those U L X-Rays are from U-238 decay.

Geo

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: GEOelectronics@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:14:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where's the Uranium?

Good point Dudley- they are also not in evidence.

Th-234

Gamma Emissions:

Intensity Energy Decay
(%)? ? ? ? ? (keV) Mode

4.8000? ? ? 63.29 b-
2.8100? ? ? 92.38 b-
2.7700? ? ? 92.80 b-

----- Original Message -----
From: Dude <dfemer@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where's the Uranium?

Geo,

I
wouldn’t call the 1.001MeV Pa234m gamma prominent by any respects as it has a yield
of only 0.8% while the Th-234 gamma yield is 4.8%.? The Th-234 will have a
lower limit of detection for a given weight of material due to its higher yield.
Now if the U-238 is shielded by soil or other factors then the Pa234m 1.001 line
would be a better choice to look at.

Dud

?

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GEOelectronics@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where's the Uranium?

?

Let's hash this out in a separate sub-topic

First up is an excerpt from the best HPGe scan of Trinitite I could find, done
by Jon Rosenstiel for the Pittauerova/Kolb et al paper attached.

If U-238 is responsible for the U L X-Rays by the decay down to U-234, then
where are the other signs? of that short decay chain? We should see Th and
Pa X-Rays and a very prominent 1001keV Gamma Ray from same U-234 being created
by Pa-234m decay:

Geo

#1390

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 07:38 PM, <GEOelectronics@...> wrote:

Pa-234m

X-Ray Emissions:

Intensity Energy Assignment
(%)? ? ? ? (keV)

0.2500 13.618 U La1

Geo,

Where did you get this information?

Thanks,

Mike L.

#1391

Raddecay 4.0 Mike.

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike L. <loughlin3@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 07:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [XRF] Trinitite Sub Topic 1 Where's the Uranium?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 07:38 PM, <GEOelectronics@...> wrote:

Pa-234m
X-Ray Emissions:
Intensity Energy Assignment
(%)? ? ? ? (keV)
0.2500 13.618 U La1

Geo,

Where did you get this information?

Thanks,

Mike L.

#1406
Edited

Low-Level Determination of Plutonium by Gamma and?L X-ray Spectroscopy

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Heino Nitsche, Raymond C. Gatti, Shan C. Lee

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? University of California

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Earth Sciences Division

April1991

?

Accepted for publication in the Journal of?Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry.

This work was supported by the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Office as part of the U.S.?Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Project through the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Yucca?Mountain Site Characterization Project is managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain?Project. This work was performed at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which is operated by the University?of California for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.

ABSTRACT

We have developed an analytical method for detection of 239pu in aqueous samples at?concentrations as low as 10e-10M. This nuclear counting technique utilizes the uranium L X-rays,?which follow the alpha decay of plutonium. Because L X-rays are specific for the element and not for?the individual isotope, the isotopic composition of the plutonium sample must be known. The?counting efficiency in the 11-23 keV range is determined from a plutonium standard, and the?concentration of the sample is then calculated from the L X-ray count and the isotopic composition.

The total L X-ray count is corrected for possible contributions from? other radionuclides present as?impurities by measuring the low-energy gamma spectrum for each contaminant to establish specific?photon/X-ray ratios. The ratios are important when 241Pu and 242pu are measured, because the?respective decay chain members produce non-U L X-rays. This new method can replace the use of

labor-intensive radiochemical separation techniques and elaborate activation methods for analysis of?239pu in aqueous samples. It is also applicable for assaying plutonium in liquid wastes that pose?possible hazards to the environment.

Bingo.
Geo