Search for isotope in Topics


Any Way to Easily Obtain Deuterium?

I've had an interest in how physicists obtain deuterium for their experiments (especially those dealing with nuclear fusion).  I know it comes in small quantities in water, in the form of deuterium oxide ('heavy water') .  It also comes in the form of 'heavy methane' also.  I've looked at several patents dealing with extracting deuterium from such sources.  Is their any do-it-yourself (DIY) techniques that could use every day materials to obtain deuterium?

Topic by bigboy4006    |  last reply


Nuclear powered throwies keep Boston on terror alert for sixth decade, seventh on horizon.

OK, so it's an attention-grabbing headline, but the potential is now there.Radio-isotope batteries (the same things that have kept the Voyager craft alive since the seventies) can hold a million times as much charge as a standard chemical bettery the same size.As radioactive isotopes decay, the charged particles they emit are trapped by semiconductors and turned into useful current.  Past versions of the battery have used solid semiconductors, which suffer damage from the radiation, so need to be large to survive as long as the isotope.  Now, a team from the University of Missouri has developed a liquid semiconductor that can survive the damage whilst having much less bulk, and have put together batteries the size of a coin.  They are working on much smaller versions, capable of powering micro- or nano-scale devices.Just imagine the possibilities...University of Missouri - Nuclear battery linksBBC Story

Topic by Kiteman    |  last reply


betavoltaic cell anyone?

Has anyone built a betavoltaic cell? Tell us about it! I could imagine someone collecting the isotopes from old smoke detectors,painting them onto an old solar cell and making electricity in the dark. I'd try it myself if I wasn't such a lazy old fart.

Topic by etimm    |  last reply


The Future Of Nuclear Energy

p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0.0in; font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Times New Roman , serif; } p.Standard, li.Standard, div.Standard { margin: 0.0in; font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Times New Roman , serif; } *.MsoChpDefault { font-size: 12.0pt; } *.MsoPapDefault { } div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }                                              Nuclear energy is sometimes referred to as pollutant energy or “bad” energy. This is some what true but in the case of research  there is no “bad” waste being emitted from the reactions that undergo in theses reactors. Commercial Nuclear Reactors or CNRs do produce a lot of residue. They produce this residue by using their fuel so much to the point of radioactive waste. Small Research Reactors or SRRs do not do this, instead of using it up they produce new isotopes that can be useful instead of becoming waste.   So why don't we use SRRs? We do not use SRRs because of financial and safety. The safety concern comes in when the reactors are able to undergo Nuclear fission witch releases huge amounts of heat that no current materiel known to men kind is capable of withstanding. The other type of SRR is safe and financially friendly but does not produce electricity instead it uses approximately 1 million volts DC, but produces isotopes from elements such as Hydrogen witch is found in water.   In conclusion nuclear energy has not ended.

Topic by dcerin    |  last reply


Smoke detector and ozone generators / air purifiers

I recently made a quite disturbing discover and thought I share it here so other are aware of it. We all love to protect ourself in case of a fire and the first and most vital of the information chain is a working smoke detector. In my house I had the old type installed, based on a radioactive isotope that detect smoke through ionisation. The newer types working optical or using combined optical and isonisation detection should perform better - but does not really matter for this "warning". If you do have pets, smoke in the house or just do a lot of cooking you might also use one of these fancy air purifiers that use Ozone to clean the air in your room. I only have a tiny unit for a fish tank that I also use to remove smells from my work clothes or purify some water for the plants. My discovery started with a simple cooking exercise involving a lot of onions, garlic and a big wok. To avoid filling the house for days with the smells I had the ozone generator running as well. At some stage I noticed that the whole kitchen was covered in the fumes from the cooking, nicely visible from the hallway - like fog. To my surprise the smoke detector did not the usual alarm but performed fine with the test button. So I blew some cigarette smoke directly at it - still no reaction. Next day I started to investigate and was prepared to buy a new detector but whatever I used, smoke, steam or just killing a burning candle underneath cause the alarm to go off. Then it hit me: The ozone! A quick test with the hose of the ozone generator next to the smoke detector and no matter what I blew in it the device staed silent. Ozone is ionized oxygen, the detector uses the ionized particels from the radioactive material to detect smoke. Smoke or very fine dust / steam will bind the ionized particles forcing the electronics to sound an alarm because the sensor no longer detects the ionized particles. With enough ozone entering the detector there will be always enough ionization to prevent the alarm. Conclusion: If you do use ozone in your house upgrade your smoke detector to a model that uses optical AND ionisation detection! Otherwise there is a good chance that the device is unable to detect a fire. Of course chance are slim that you would use the ozone while sleeping and a fire starts, but if it does....

Topic by Downunder35m    |  last reply


GID Vials, Tritium, TRASERS, Powders and Chemicals GLOW IN THE DARK!

TRITIUM! So I get a lot of questions from my post and instructables. Tritium Vials are Radioactive Hydrogen H3, also known as hydrogen-3 is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. It is contained in small glass vials coated in colored phosphor then encased in glass or sealed plastics. These are commonly seen in Gun Sights, Watches (TRASERS) and some Emergency Exit Signs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination Small amounts are legal and for approved uses. Read the NRC guides Typically the Trit vials are small, expensive and dim. The latest GID (Glow in the Dark) Chemsticks, LED's and GID Powders or paints seems much more effective and usable. * Cyalume, as used in a lightsticks, emits light by chemiluminescence of a fluorescent dye (also called fluorescor) activated by cyalume reacting with hydrogen peroxide in the presence of a catalyst, such as sodium salicylate. It is the most efficient chemiluminescent reaction known. up to 15% quantum efficiency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemiluminescence New LED low power requirements and high Lumen or light output have provided many solutions that are low cost, high power and longer lasting. GID Paint or Powders are "charged" with light or daylight sources as with your traditional kids toys or stickers. New products are brighter, glow longer and are now waterproof, have many colors and applications. http://www.4physics.com/catalog/GIDinfo.php Also this is occasionally confused with the chemical illumination. However these paints powders and materials use common phosphorescent materials include zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate. Use of zinc sulfide for safety related products dates back to the 1930s. However, the development of strontium oxide aluminate, with a luminance approximately 10 times greater than zinc sulfide, has relegated most zinc sulfide based products to the novelty category. Strontium oxide aluminate based pigments are now used in exit signs, pathway marking, and other safety related signage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence Hope this helps! 01/2011 - Update Source for Materials http://www.darkniteglow.com/glow-shop/ ERCK www.Candlepowerforums.com Additional Tritium Resources * U.S. NRC: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html * U.S. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.htm * U.S. DOE (Argonne National Lab): http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/tritium.pdf * California EPA: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/allphgs.html * University of Idaho: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm

Topic by erckgillis    |  last reply


Ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation, units, and safety (updated)

Note: This was originally intended as a reply in the Americium-241 Science forum topicWhen people talk about "radiation," they are referring to many different things, and are probably thinking of some things that don't even apply. "Radiation," the invisible energy given off by radioactive materials, can be either "subatomic" particles or electromagnetic. The most common particles emitted are "beta rays," high-energy electrons, and "alpha particles," helium nuclei. Some sources can emit neutrons, protons, or "positive beta rays" (anti-electrons, or positrons), but those are much less common.The units we use to measure radioactivity are becquerels (Bq, decays per second) or curies (Ci, 3.7 x 1010 decays per second). Since the effects of radiation depend on their energy, another unit of interest is absorbed dose, the energy deposited per unit mass of target, measured in grays (Gy).Safety experts classify radiation into "ionizing," meaning there is enough energy to knock electrons out of atoms or molecules, and "non-ionizing." Infrared and ultraviolet light are non-ionizing, as are neutrons. Alpha particles (helium nuclei), beta particles (electrons) and gammas (as well as lower energy X-rays) are all ionizing radiation. The three have substantially different effects on biological systems, even at the same absorbed dose. Consequently, for radiation safety purposes, scaling factors are applied to produce numerical measures (sieverts, Sv) of "effective" or "equivalent" dose, that can be compared across different kinds of sources.Here's a small table with information for some commonly encountered sources. Isotope Source Activity Dose rate Am-241 smoke detector 35 kBq (1 µCi) 11 µSv/yr @ 1m Te-99m MRI contrast 740 MBq (20 mCi) 1.6 Sv/hr @ 1cm C-14 atmosphere, body 0.23 Bq 10 µSv/yr K-40 bananas, body 4.4 kBq 200 µSv/yrWhat you should see clearly from this is that the natural radioactivity in your body is comparable or larger than that in a common smoke detector. At SLAC, the limit for exposure to sources at the lab by most staff (including me) is 20 µSv/yr (5 mrem).As I noted above, neutrons are sometimes lumped in with ionizing radiation in non-technical "radiation safety" classes (we call them "the photon is your friend" training :-). That is not really accurate -- neutrons don't interact with electrons(*), and so cannot ionize directly. They can interact with hydrogen nuclei (protons), knocking them out of complex organic molecules, and leave behind ionized fragments and free radicals. The can also be absorbed by otherwise stable nuclei, making them radioactive; those new nuclei may in turn give off ionizing radiation.Neutrons lose energy much more slowly in passing through material, and so can penetrate much farther than ionizing particles or gammas. The nuclear interaction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_section_(physics) cross-section] is much more important here than dE/dx (ionization) energy loss. Materials rich in carbon and hydrogen (for example, paraffin) are far more effective at neutron shielding than dense metals like lead.(* for the expert readers) Yes, there is n-e scattering through W and Z exchange, but the cross-section and energy scales are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Topic by kelseymh    |  last reply