New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

This area is for discussions involving any fusion related radiation metrology issues. Neutrons are the key signature of fusion, but other radiations are of interest to the amateur fusioneer as well.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Latest activation on Wednesday. Notice the background doesn't seem to stabilize until about 90X5, 450 seconds after activation.

Richard Hull
Attachments
RhodiumActivation7-15-21.JPG
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Activation graph taken today is interesting.

I have been stoking the fires of fusion here and doing my Xcel graphs as usual. I have noted a failure of Rhodium104 to die a natural death at 5 half lives after activation. At first I thought I was activating the Al 27 GM tube shell. The extended above background looked like it, but its miserable cross section of 0.23 barns is just too low as compared to Rhodium 103’s 144 to make Rh104. I rechecked rhodium in the gospel, (table of the isotopes book ), and Lo and behold, Rh103 has an additional cross section of 11 for making Rh104m with a 4.4 min half-life. Unfortunately, it decays by isomeric transition which means gamma and not betas. However, once again, 47% of 104m emits a low energy x-ray of 51kv which the thin aluminum shell would indeed allow for detection directly into the counting gas. Thus I count mostly betas from Rh104 and then
am left with counting only weak x-rays from Rh104m and only about half of the 104m radiation is counted.

Before you might think I point out the late big peak, No! I am pointing to the green box which appears to hang above the average red line as being Rh104m decay long after Rh104 has gone through it predicted full 5 half-life decay represented by the blue line well below the average background!

I attach the graph with annotations. (click to enlarge to read)

Help me put this issue to bed with wise comments.

Richard Hull
Attachments
RhodiumActivation7-22-21 special.jpg
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Jon Rosenstiel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
Location: Southern California

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Jon Rosenstiel »

Richard,

Maybe not of much help, but interesting nonetheless.

Some years back when Carl's fusor was down Carl and I got together here in my lab in an effort to neutron activate 150 ml of rhodium plating bath. Carl's plan was to activate the plating bath and look for evidence of Cherenkov radiation produced by Rh-104's 2.4 MeV beta. We had no luck with the Cherenkov, but I did manage to get a nice gamma spec from Rh-104m.

In the below image Carl is attempting to activate a rhodium self-powered neutron detector. (Too little rhodium so that didn't pan out either)
https://www.oecd-nea.org/science/rsd/ic96/4-2.pdf

Jon Rosenstiel
Attachments
Gamma spec
Gamma spec
Carl at the controls. Rhodium plating bath in the foreground.
Carl at the controls. Rhodium plating bath in the foreground.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Wow, that plating solution must have had single milligram amount of chemical spread out throughout the liquid!! Nearly 5 million n/s TIER! I had probably 2000-3000 times the mass of Rhodium metal in one spot compared to what you guys were using. You did catch the 47% x-ray 51kv claimed by the table of the Isotopes. I see you also captured a 20kev x-ray not mentioned in the book. I certainly would have to include that in my Rh104m counting routine as an additive.

I think that 21kev and 51kev x-rays would defeat the thin aluminum shell and blast photo and Compton electrons into the GM tube's gas volume to be counted. I feel this backs up the Rh104m supposition following the death of the heavy beta emitting Rh104. I feel this is due to luck of the draw as the Russian GM tube was in intimate contact with metallic rhodium even though the TIER was in the region of only 3x10e5 n/s

Thanks for the heads up. I think that you had plenty of neutrons, obviously, but not much Rhodium in your and Carl's experiment. Good ole Carl....I miss th' boy.

I kept boasting of the Rh103 100% isotopic purity and x section of 144, only to later find out it had two cross sections 144 and 11 making two radioactive byproduct isotopes. At least they are additive in the counting right along side one another until the fast burning Rh104 dies out. What little Rh104m I make is also rather depleted at 30-40 on my x axis (150-200 seconds).

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Richard,
You might recall I posted about Rh 104m in the past. I mentioned that getting it to saturation could be tougher. That makes it a tougher nut to analyze. At the time you were primarily interested in the shorter lived beta emitter.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13867&hilit=Rhodiu ... =10#p90602
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Jim, I would suggest you take another gander at that chart. The numbers are based on mass of the target relative to Aluminum which they use as the standard at 1.0 gamma relative. Aluminum at a cross section of .235 and is much more difficult per unit mass-relative to activate than Rhodium!

So, to get the same relative gamma output under thermal neutron bombardment at "X flux" with 1 gram of Al you would only need .03 grams of Rhodium! or 1/33 gram of Rhodium. Some time, it pays to read the fine print asterisk below. I have often touted Dysprosium due to its massive cross section. Dy is .01 in the chart; you only need 10 milligrams of Dy to equal 1 full gram of Al. Unfortunately, Activated dysprosium has a long half life, (gotta' keep it in the oven a long time), and is only about 28% of the element with a cross section of 800 and 2000 respectively, which is stunning!

The chart is taken from real data I am sure, but just looking at cross sections Al/Rh .235/11 you get .02 for Rh104m. So if you want gammas related to the chart, go for something of really low value, deep below 1.0 in the chart's right hand column, but be ever mindful of the half life. We cannot do a .002-relative, with a 16 year half life.

In the end, I do indeed seem to have an Rh104m tail signature in my activation strictly due to the large volume of weak x-ray output that a GM can and will detect. I typically run near the quoted TIER in my chart for a 6 minute time period.

Thanks for re-referencing the chart! I copied it off to my reference data files and printed it out. A great quick check chart if gammas are what you are going for. Indium is great for gammas if you have the operational time or a heavy flux with your fusor. Even though I have a great gamma spectrometer, gammas are out for me due to the short half-life stuff I am limited to and the instrument being a 20 second hike from my fusor to the spectrometer. The fusor lab hits deep sub-freeazing temps in the winter, so the gamma spec is in the upstairs lab where stable temps are conducive to long life on the NaI:Tl crystal.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Richard,
My point is more basic. I pointed out that Rh activation was more complex than the single isotope activation you were exploring. Your response back then pushed it off as insignificant, and now I read that you are using the same isotope I pointed out previously to potentially explain a longer decay than you expected.

The chart I had provided comes from Ortec and was designed to help with activation analysis with gamma spectroscopy. It is only so relevant for a Geiger that looks at betas better than gammas, but as I pointed out originally, the Geiger will see some gammas including those from the other Rh activation product.That's all I was trying to say then and now. No need to refer me to the fine print 😀
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Thanks for clearing your original thrust up for me. The Russian tube is perfect for the Rh104m counting in intimate contact only due to the heavy output of its whimpy x-rays, I assume the claimed x-rays are nuclear in origin and not shell types. Wiki gives the following highly variable statement.

"Gamma rays and X-rays are both electromagnetic radiation, and since they overlap in the electromagnetic spectrum, the terminology varies between scientific disciplines. In some fields of physics, they are distinguished by their origin: Gamma rays are created by nuclear decay, while in the case of X-rays, the origin is outside the nucleus. In astrophysics, gamma rays are conventionally defined as having photon energies above 100 keV and are the subject of gamma ray astronomy, while radiation below 100 keV is classified as X-rays"

The reading of the fore text in the isotope book give little added info. However I see no L preceding the x-ray notation so I assume these are nuclear (gamma/x-rays).

I would, in the case of isotopes, to have all EM radiations from the nucleus classed as Gamma rays regardless of energies. X-rays should be of shell origin, for my tastes. In the end, regardless of verbiage, I am counting weak Rh104m electromagnetic photons and not any associated beta, (only 0.18%).

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

The fusor is doing better and the last run appears that the RH104m is very clearly above the noise/background average level.

Richard Hull
Attachments
RhodiumActivation7-27-21.JPG
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

This is a discussion of the graphs and complex two level decays. Silver and Rhodium have this complex decay scheme due to completely different reasons.
Silver has two distinct natural isotopes that each have high cross sections. These co-jointly activate and decay.
Rhodium has only one natural isotope with two different cross sections to create two new co-jointly produced isotopes. These new isotopes co-jointly activate and decay.

Now to fully explain the two rhodium activations and related decays.

This is a very complex issue and one that needs to be explained to some modicum of understanding.

1. Regardless of the neutron fluence, both RH104 and 104M grow or activate together based on their relative cross sections and half lives. Saturation at any flux, for any activation of any isotope demands a minimum of a 5 half-life exposure of the isotope to be activated in a stable neutron fluence. Saturation: the maximum radioactivity that can be induced in any isotope in any fixed thermal neutron fluence.

2. The Rh104m "grows in", (activates)much more slowly than the Rh104, again, due to its reduced cross section and its much longer activation time which is 6 times longer to activate to that lower level than Rh104 to any given neutron fluence.

3. Thus, if it takes 4minutes operating at lower levels of fluence to arrive at a ”peak activation level”, pressure, voltage, and current wise, both Rh104 and Rh104m are at some fairly low level of activation with Rh104m at a much lower level that Rh104.

4. At this 4 minute point, the system is run at top fluence for another 4 minute to peak the Rh104 to it absolute full saturation over this period, (5 half-lives). Only now is the fusor turned off and the counting actually begins.

5. Decay is now the ruling factor. Rh104m is no where near saturation, requiring 22 minutes at full peak fluence to saturate. This means that the Rh104m is just 0.9 half-lives towards a peak 5 half-life, 22 minute saturation. While Rh104 is absolutely at peak saturation.

6. Yes, from the very first, the fully saturated Rh104 betas and the not saturated Rh104m weak gammas are “summed” in the decay count!
7. This is a complex curve out to about to 200 seconds but is far more representative of the Rh104 decay due to saturation.
8. At ~200 seconds, all of the Rh104 is dead!! From 200 seconds on out to the 600 second data collection limit, Only the Rh104m decay is recorded.
9. Due to the lower level, non-saturated activation of the RH104m, its decay drifts into the background level after about 500 seconds or less.

It can be seen that a very long buildup time to peak, say 12 minutes, will almost saturate the Rh104m to some low level, but the extra 4 minute of operation at peak to saturate the Rh104 will still not saturate the RH104m to anywhere near saturation in the peak fluence in the small 4 minute longer run.

However, this longer time to peak will mean more counts from the Rh104m over the long 600 minute graph time due to the lower level saturation of the Rh104m over the 12 minute buildup run time. This will show up in the decay of the Rh104m going to be above the background even at the end of the graph’s 600 second display. This is a very rare occurrence as I can get the fusor up to peak in about 4-5 minutes with another 4minutes at peak needed to saturate the Rh104.

If all of the above seems confusing, it is the way of the world of radiation physics. Newbies will only understand it with study and application, at which point the concepts will be owned for life.

To the non-mathematical newbie.....When reading a graph make sure to read the legends on the two axis to observe what the numbers on them relate to.
Examples related to my graphs above..... At 40 on the X axis this is 40 x 5 = 200 seconds after the count began. At 90 on the y-axis, a 5 second total count of 90 counts were registered. This means that at that point 90 x 12 = 1080 cpm was the decay rate at that moment in time.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Finn Hammer
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:21 am
Real name: Finn Hammer
Contact:

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Finn Hammer »

Richard,

Thank you for a comprehensive detailing of the decay curves.

Edit:
I read the numbers wrong in the silver section of this analogy, and this lead to a lack of, well, analogy.
In short, I misstook the half life of Ag107m instead of from Ag108 and this removes the basis of any analogy.
Sorry for that, better luck next time.

Just disregard the rest of this post:
--------‐--------------------------------------------------------
In a way, (Although not at all) it is like activating a sandwich of 2 different metals, one with a large neutron capture cross section and a fast decay, like silver, together with another metal with a small neutron capture cross section but with a slow rate of decay, like copper.

In this analogy, I discard the 69% of Cu63 because it produces Cu64 with a 12.8 hour half life and thus does not come up to detectable levels within the short run times we use here, instead base the analogy on the 31% of Cu65, which turns into Cu66 with a 5 minutes halftime and a neutron capture cross section of 2.3 barns.

In this analogy, the 2 silver isotopes Ag107 and Ag109 which both have comparatively large neutron capture cross sections, 35 vs.89 barns, and relatively short decay half lives of 44 sec. vs. 39 sec. and due to the close coincidence in decay time, they will look almost identical on the graph.

With a run time at max. flux of 45x5=225 sec. the silver isotopes have been brought up to the full level of saturation that the present flux enables, whereas the copper is only within 13% of the saturation which it would take 25 minutes to reach.

Measuring the combined decay profile would yield a similar profile as the Rhodium decay, where the silver decays to near zero in 225 seconds after which the copper dominates for another 22 minutes.


As a note to your axis labelling, I find it unnecessarily complicated that you label the x-axis in multitudes of 5, (so that 4 divisions of five denoted as 20 really means 100) I would like to see the time in seconds directly.
Similarly on the Y axis: why not just label it in CPM directly? Just my 7 cents.

Cheers, Finn Hammer
Last edited by Finn Hammer on Thu Aug 05, 2021 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

I find this diagram helpful in understanding Rh activation and decay. The Rh 104m stuff muddies the waters because of it does not release betas (at first) meaning that even if your detector sees the gammas it likely won't do it with the same efficiency. Ultimately Rh 104m becomes Rh 104 and then will decay with betas. This latter part probably won't be seen unless you activated with big flux and/or your background is very small. I know that deep in the caverns of my brain is the knowledge to write up the time function curves for activity of each isotope, but I am afraid of what else I might find in there if I go looking.
Attachments
1628126761727_image.png
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Thanks for posting this update, Jim. This decay diagram is far more elucidating than the complex diagrams at the rear portion of the table of the isotopes. It was hard to get it in my head that as RH104 was being made, (my super hot 2.4 MeV beta emitter), the 104m was also being made, but as noted, to a far lesser degree. What was tough for me was that the Rh104m would also decay into Rh104. Due to the weakness of activation of the 11 cross section of Rh104m, the muddiness is bad, but not terrible so far as my graphs of 10minutes, (600 seconds), are concerned. The trail-on betas from Rh104m decaying to Rh104 would be far fewer than the 144 cross section of promptly produced Rh104 would be. Still, it is rather bizarre. It turns out far more bizarre than silver's double decay. Rhodium remains the number one fast 100% isotopically pure activation metal of choice.

It is to be noted that at the death of Rh104m there would be a barely detectable beta only signature of Rh104 going on for another 210 seconds until this tiny Rh104 emission would cease. (to be detectable to any counting agency)

It is important to remember that, due to the exponential nature of radioactive decay, in theory only, no radioactive would ever cease to decay. The half-life is a convenient, measurable, calculable value convenient to our linear brains. Nature loves and nurtures the exponential while shunning the linear.

This is about as complex a story of activation and decay as one might encounter with a low grade neutron source which might be actually observable at the amateur level.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Re: Finn's posting....The silvers have far different decay times for the product isotopes of Ag108 of 2.4 minutes, (144 seconds) and Ag110 of 24.4 seconds. I think you are looking at the metastables which cannot be produced via neutron activation of silver. (look at the method of production column for the two silver metastables). Sometimes if the item immediately below the stable activation element is a metastable it can't be produced by neutron activation. In the case of the silver metastables they are only produced by the decay of a cadmium or Ag metastable radioactive isotope. There are catch 22s in this biz. In the case of stable silver 109 there is a cross section of 3 to neutron bombardment to Ag 110m with the incredibly long half time of 255 days! Needless to say, this nice beta emitter will not be activated or seen at the normal exposure times by the amateur. As a point of amusement, you will note that like rhodium, the production of Ag110m will see it decay to Ag110 the original product of Ag109 with the high cross section.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

With Rhodium I wonder if activating only to saturation of Rh 104 would help clean up the muddied decay back end. In others words, after 5 half lives of Rh 104, stop activating and prevent Rh 104m from catching up to it's potential relevance.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

With my current setup it would be tough as the Rhodium covered GM tube is buried in the block moderator. I would have to dismantle the block moderator half way, take out the HDPE block with the tube and rhodium in it. Next, run the fusor up to peak over some number of minutes and quickly with the HV at 44kv, replace the tube and rhodium, reassemble the block moderator around it and run the system for 4-5 minutes at peak. Then shut down and count.

I would have to have a monolithic moderator like my large 3He moderator where it is easy to slip the tube in and out during operation. I might just try it, but the closeness to the fusor will be lost and the numbers would be down across the board. Still, that would be better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Richard,
...or alternatively shadow your rhodium with a sleeve of cadmium until the activation time. Yank out the cadmium and activate.
User avatar
Finn Hammer
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:21 am
Real name: Finn Hammer
Contact:

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Finn Hammer »

Jim, Richard, all,

Forgive me for chiming in on a subject which is way over my head, but I am really trying to understand.

I notice something in Jim's chart which is not obvious in Table 1 from "Table of Isotopes"

From Jim's chart, it is demonstrated, that Rhodium 103 is elevated to Rh104 by a cross section of 133, and to Rh104m by a cross section of 11.

Jim's chart
Jim's chart

The Rh104m isotope decays to Rh104 via gamma radiation by a process called Isomeric Transition, which as far as I can tell, is caused by rearrangement of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, to attain a lower energetic state. They "tug in", so to speak.

Then the Rh104 decays to Palladium104. 98.1% goes directly via Beta- radiation, the rest arrives at slightly elevated states, from where they emit gamma radiation to also land at Palladium104.

Woops, one step up in atomic number, same atomic weight, what happened?

Udklip.JPG
Udklip.JPG (23.05 KiB) Viewed 5596 times

There are 45 protons and 58 neutrons in Rh103
There are 45 protons and 59 neutrons in Rh104
There are 46 protons and 58 neutrons in Pd104 (stable)

So the newly captured neutron is converted to a Proton, to the benefit of the ejected electron which is detected as Beta radiation.

Udklip2.JPG

Whenever we activate an element that returns from it's emancipated state by emitting Beta- radiation, we cause it's transformation into the next element up the ladder of atomic numbers.

Lets have a look at Silver.

Udklip3.JPG
Udklip3.JPG (21.98 KiB) Viewed 5596 times

There are 47 protons and 60 neutrons in Ag107
There are 47 protons and 61 neutrons in Ag108
There are 48 protons and 60 neutrons in Cd108 ((as good as) stable)

There are 47 protons and 62 neutrons in Ag109
There are 47 protons and 63 neutrons in Ag110
There are 48 protons and 62 neutrons in Cd110 (stable)

Does this have any relevance, am I regurgitating common knowledge?

All of this is new to me, and certainly the fact that when activating elements by neutron bombardment, we are not cycling them between the same states, but actually transforming them into the next element up the ladder.

We are alchymists!

Cheers, Finn Hammer
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Dennis P Brown »

The weak force is a fascinating beast and powers many fusion processes.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Law #1....A neutron is not made up of a an electron and a proton! Law #2 - There are no electrons in the nucleus......

Lo and behold!....When any radioactive elemental isotope beta decays there is an electron released from within the nucleus. What?! Lo and behold #2 A neutron disappears and a proton appears. What?! This bumps the new, beta decayed isotope up one notch in atomic number. Amazing ain't it! You are not allowed to believe a neutron is a combination of a proton and electron resulting in a zero charge or neutral particle.

We observe no atom can be made after hydrogen without a neutron or 2 or 10 or 45 of 'em or more!! No heavy radioactive element in the entire periodic chart out near the end, that doesn't self fission will emit a single neutron! They are jealously guarded. All radioactives would happily emit an electron (beta), a photon (gamma and x-rays) and an entire helium nucleus, but never a neutron. The neutron is the key within the nucleus for atom building and ultimately their destruction.

Neutron manufacture on most any scale in the universe are fused in an idealized solar plasma of protons and electrons. Remember, once again, never think a neutron is a union of a proton and an electron. It is considered "wrong think" and certainly "wrong speak" (Neutrons are made up of quarks, take their word for it or forever remain an outcast in nuclear physics)

The neutron is the first radioactive isotope on most modern periodic charts! A lone flying neutron has a half life of 12-13 minutes. Once outside of its protective nuclear cocoon via fission or collision, the neutron then decays into a proton and an electron with a virtually massless, hyper velocity neutrino needed to balance the energy-mass books. Remember, again, the neutron is not a union of a proton and an electron.

The neutron, with a charge of zero and having the mass a bit greater than a proton will, in a gravitational field, follow a ballistic trajectory just like a rifle bullet until it decays rejoining the world as a hydrogen atom at STP having swiped or shared a needed electron and a high velocity electron.

The upshot is, a beta decay bumps the daughter product up one atomic number. Nuclear alchemy? Yes indeed. It's fact Jack!

There is so much out there in nuclearland.... IT, EC, beta decay, alpha decay, photon decay and alteration, auger electrons, etc. Plenty of spreads and toppings to choose from for you nuclear sliced bread. Quite a smorgasbord....

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Yes, the electron can't be confined in a nucleus or at least under normal conditions. The weak force converts one type of quark into another, and the excessive energy shakes the fabric of space and time so an electron (with a lot of K.E.) is created as well as a neutrino. The reverse process can occur but only within collapsing star cores when neutron stars are created and where their electrons and protons are converted into neutrons. A neutron star is just a huge pile of neutrons (maybe a sea of electrons here and there as well as ...maybe ... a sea of quarks in the center.) Nature is strange and wonderous and that we can peak a glimpse into these secrets is just incredible.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Trying to help Finn understand some of the intricacies of activation has led the thread into theoretical nuclear discussions.

The neutron like all quantum ruled particles has a sphere of influence or existence. Up close and personal, the neutron is not neutral, but presents lobed charge regions that move about with both localized positive and negative charges presenting constantly. Back off far enough and it appears neutral.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Finn Hammer
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:21 am
Real name: Finn Hammer
Contact:

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Finn Hammer »

Richard, all,

Let's end it here, and my apologies for hijacking the thread.
Back to Rhodium activation!

Cheers, Finn Hammer
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Finn, if anyone hi-jacked this thread it was me but I do feel that being a site that does try to bring useful information to people here, discussions about the underlying physics is part of the forum's function. I should add, thanks' to Richard's thread here, that I have finally (about time, one would think) realized why I failed at activation even though I had far more neutrons then needed. So after following this thread I am determined to correct that mistake and see what occurs.

In any case, back to regular scheduled programming ... ;)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: New Rhodium counter system and moderator for fusor V

Post by Richard Hull »

Finn is a hard worker and a doer. I appreciate that. He wants to learn. I really like that. I will bend over backwards and interrupt my own thread to see to it he is pointed in the right direction. Activation and interpreting the tables and charts are all part of the continuing fusion effort that I talk about all the time. Making a fusor and doing fusion should be a starting point in the nuclear physics effort. Improving the fusor, understanding it better, using the fusion as a study in activation are all follow-on goals that should interest any person spending the long-buck with the verve to do and learn more.

Anytime Finn, anytime... Interruptions that forward learning are to be sought out, and welcomed.

By the way, EC (electron capture), makes a neutron in the nucleus and sends the new isotope "down chart" as a proton disappears. Down one atomic number. But....Remember, a neutron is not a proton and an electron. An orbital electron is swiped from the shell and sucked into the nucleus, (captured). Remember, there are no electrons in the nucleus. This EC process is done when a nucleus is unstable due to too few neutrons or is overloaded with protons. Take your pick on which rules the roost here as to the real cause. ( think the neutron is the king here...too few)

Does this tell us, (dare we say it), the neutrons are the source of glue that hold the atom together? No...No....No!!!!! It is the strong force, #!@^**%!&. If the strong force is so strong as to overpower the proton-proton repulsion in the nucleus why do we need the neutrons? "Sit down and shut up and listen up to what I say, you poor dumb student!" Students who ask questions are always to be desired. They change science and expand it.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “Neutrons, Radiation, and Detection (& FAQs)”