Jump to content


Photo

Nuclear Decay Acclerator


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2 replies to this topic

#1 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 September 2011 - 07:04 PM

I was doing some review on half lives. I can deal with the general chemistry, but i really wish I had advanced in math (my limitation). Maybe Fred, being an engineer, can understand it. But this a claim of an invention to decontaminate nuclear waste by accelerating nuclear decay.

Abstract:Apparatus and method for decontaminating radioactive materials by stimulating the atomic system of radioactive materials. The stimulus is kept applied to the radioactive materials for a predetermined time. In this way, the rate of decay of the radioactivity of the materials is greatly accelerated and the materials are thereby decontaminated at a rate much faster than normal. The stimulus can be applied to the radioactive materials placing them within the sphere or terminal of a Van de Graaff generator and allowing them to be subjected to the electrical potential of the generator, such as in the range of 50 kilovolts to 500 kilovolts, for at least a period of 30 minutes or more.

...Generally speaking, the scientific community believes that the decay rate of a radioactive nucleus is immutable. However, it is possible to change the decay rate by changing the environment of the emitter. This prior art shows that the decay rate of beta decay and of internal conversion can be changed slightly by varying the chemical composition of an emitter. The present invention is concerned primarily with alpha decay, not investigated by the work of Segre and Wiegand et al, a copy of which was previously made of record. Further the environment change is due to an electrostatic generator. It is not a change in the ambient environment...

...SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed to apparatus and a method for decontaminating radioactive materials. The stimulus is kept applied to the radioactive materials for a predetermined time. In this way, the rate of decay of the radioactivity of the materials is greatly accelerated and the materials are thereby decontaminated at a rate much faster than normal.

The stimulus can be applied to the radioactive materials by placing such materials within the sphere or terminal of a Van de Graaff generator where they are subjected to the electrical potential of the generator, such as in the range of 50 kilovolts to 500 kilovolts, for at least a period of 30 minutes or more.

... The purpose of the present invention is to stimulate charged particles inside the atomic system of a radioactive material thereby rapidly accelerating the rate of decay of alpha, beta and gamma particles from the material and thereby decontaminating the material.

The decontamination is accomplished in the apparatus of FIG. 1 by the application of a stimulus in the form of a negative electrical charge potential in close proximity to the nucleus of a sample of radioactive material. A large negative potential has the effect of lowering the energy barrier which retains the positively charged particles, such as alpha particles, within the nucleus. As the negative charge potential is placed upon the atomic nuclei, the rate of emission of alpha, beta and gamma particles is increased to thereby accelerate decontamination of the radioactive materials.


Check http://www.freepaten...om/5076971.html

#2 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 19 September 2011 - 05:08 PM

As a general rule, patents don't mean that an idea is scientifically valid. Patents are mostly about whether an idea is new, not whether it can function in the real world. There have been patents issued for perpetual motion machines, anti-gravity devices, etc. A patent examiner will check the basic concepts but they are not using anywhere near the same scrutiny as peer review.

While this particular idea may or may not work as described, it doesn't appear to help the creationist cause either way.

Creationist arguments about speeding up radioactive decay usually have at least 1 of 3 flaws:

1.) Apply a experiment about a particular element or decay type to other elements or decay types which were not tested and are not expected to behave the same way.

2) Take a experiment showing a extremely small change such as a fraction of a percent and claim that changes on the order of a million percent are therefore possible.

3) Take the results of an experiment that uses conditions that could not occur outside of a lab (i.e. extremely high temps or pressures or voltages) and argue that the results could occur while ignoring the conditions needed to produce those results.

Since this device involves applying charges of hundreds of thousands of volts for relatively long durations, and since voltages of this magnitude are rare outside of lightning bolts which last a fraction of a second and not hours or weeks, trying to use this as evidence for a young earth falls into category 3 at least.

Just to be clear, it is very well known that some decay rates can be changed under certain conditions. Scientists don't worry about this when dating objects because changing a decay rate either involves extreme conditions (i.e. pressures like the center of jupiter or temperatures high enough to have melted the earth) or produce such a small change that it wouldn't affect the dating of the object. For practical purposes it's safe to treat decay rates as constant.

#3 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 20 September 2011 - 01:47 AM

As a general rule, patents don't mean that an idea is scientifically valid. Patents are mostly about whether an idea is new, not whether it can function in the real world. There have been patents issued for perpetual motion machines, anti-gravity devices, etc. A patent examiner will check the basic concepts but they are not using anywhere near the same scrutiny as peer review.

While this particular idea may or may not work as described, it doesn't appear to help the creationist cause either way.

Creationist arguments about speeding up radioactive decay usually have at least 1 of 3 flaws:

1.) Apply a experiment about a particular element or decay type to other elements or decay types which were not tested and are not expected to behave the same way.

2) Take a experiment showing a extremely small change such as a fraction of a percent and claim that changes on the order of a million percent are therefore possible.

3) Take the results of an experiment that uses conditions that could not occur outside of a lab (i.e. extremely high temps or pressures or voltages) and argue that the results could occur while ignoring the conditions needed to produce those results.

Since this device involves applying charges of hundreds of thousands of volts for relatively long durations, and since voltages of this magnitude are rare outside of lightning bolts which last a fraction of a second and not hours or weeks, trying to use this as evidence for a young earth falls into category 3 at least.

Just to be clear, it is very well known that some decay rates can be changed under certain conditions. Scientists don't worry about this when dating objects because changing a decay rate either involves extreme conditions (i.e. pressures like the center of jupiter or temperatures high enough to have melted the earth) or produce such a small change that it wouldn't affect the dating of the object. For practical purposes it's safe to treat decay rates as constant.

The thread is food for thought, rather than a scienitific claim. There are other valid creationist arguements against dating methods. Just as there are mulitple hypotheses, and even suggestive scenarios in science, this is something that a creationist particle physicist might look into--that's all.

I don't have time now, but I saw another article suggesting that cavitation (i.e. pressure) might induce decay.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users