Nuclear Isomer Energy Storage & Gamma Rays that are really UV
Yousuf Khan
looked into as a possible future extremely high-density energy storage
mechanism, i.e. a battery. For example, one gram of pure Hf-178-m2
contains approximately 1330 megajoules of energy, the equivalent of
exploding about 317 kilograms (700 pounds) of TNT.
Nuclear isomer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer
That was interesting enough, but then I found out that one nuclear
isomer, known as Thorium-229-m, has such a low energy differential
compared to its ground state (around 7.6 eV), that it produces a "gamma
ray" in the range of UV light. That's the first time I found out that
gamma rays and x-rays are no longer classified by their wavelengths, but
by their "source of emission": i.e. x-rays come from the electrons,
while gamma-rays from the nucleus.
X-ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The distinction between X-rays and gamma rays has changed in recent
decades. Originally, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by X-ray
tubes had a longer wavelength than the radiation emitted by radioactive
nuclei (gamma rays).[4] So older literature distinguished between X- and
gamma radiation on the basis of wavelength, with radiation shorter than
some arbitrary wavelength, such as 10−11 m, defined as gamma rays.[5]
However, as shorter wavelength continuous spectrum "X-ray" sources such
as linear accelerators and longer wavelength "gamma ray" emitters were
discovered, the wavelength bands largely overlapped. The two types of
radiation are now usually defined by their origin: X-rays are emitted by
electrons outside the nucleus, while gamma rays are emitted by the nucleus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
By this definition Thorium-229-m's UV emission is actually considered a
gamma-ray, since it comes from the nucleus. However, by this new
definition of an x-ray, wouldn't it mean that any emission from the
electrons be x-rays, including those in the visible light, infrared,
microwave and radio wavelengths?
Yousuf Khan
Eric Gisse
[...]
Triggered isomer state changes are a relatively new concept but I'm
yet to hear how people intend to _trigger_ the transition.
> By this definition Thorium-229-m's UV emission is actually considered a
> gamma-ray, since it comes from the nucleus. However, by this new
> definition of an x-ray, wouldn't it mean that any emission from the
> electrons be x-rays, including those in the visible light, infrared,
> microwave and radio wavelengths?
>
> Yousuf Khan
No, because that's silly.
Finding a nuclear state that's weak enough to have the excitation
energy in the eV range instead of the M/KeV range doesn't suddenly
make it a gamma ray.
Y.Porat
-----------
waht does a little fucker like Gisse
knows abot nuclear isometry??
according to a QM parrot
thereshould be no detecable
or explained isometry isomemtry
in the nuc why ??
'because of the HUP '
forthem the nuc is ans undefined porridge
of protons and neutrons right??
but no
my model discovered that thenuc
is an unequivical **geometric structure *!!
from Fluorine upwars the nuc is a sort of a
eectangular (or more acurate an octogonal ) pipe''
in which any proton or neotron has its exact
geometric address
(as for instance(in the absract manner-) an organic mulecule !!!
different isomers are fo rinstance
while a neutron can be at the 'poles'
of the nuc
or along his 'long 'belly'
the 'NAPAN neutrons
that you can see for example at the 3d structure of Iron
the bibding energy at the 'pole'
has a definitebond loss
while at the sides of that ;pipe another definit binding energy
and changing those locations
makes an exact difference of binding energy
which is in the range of MEVs !!
(i am not going totell you
how many Mevs (:-)...)
see
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Yousuf Khan
> On Jul 12, 5:12 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Triggered isomer state changes are a relatively new concept but I'm
> yet to hear how people intend to _trigger_ the transition.
A team back in 1999 claimed that they could trigger a Hafnium isomer
transition just by exposing them to X-rays. This would then result in a
release of Gamma rays. Assuming the traditional energy-level definitions
of X-rays and Gamma rays, rather than the "source of origin" definition,
then that would mean a smaller energy input can result in a larger
energy release.
"The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered
when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas
demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the
hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist
print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much
energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could
be achieved."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4049-gammaray-weapons-could-trigger-next-arms-race.html
>> By this definition Thorium-229-m's UV emission is actually considered a
>> gamma-ray, since it comes from the nucleus. However, by this new
>> definition of an x-ray, wouldn't it mean that any emission from the
>> electrons be x-rays, including those in the visible light, infrared,
>> microwave and radio wavelengths?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> No, because that's silly.
>
> Finding a nuclear state that's weak enough to have the excitation
> energy in the eV range instead of the M/KeV range doesn't suddenly
> make it a gamma ray.
Well, as I posted, from the Wikipedia article, the current definitions
for X-rays and Gamma rays are based around their "source of origin"
rather than just their wavelengths. Except in astronomy, where they are
still based around wavelengths, since it is difficult to determine what
the source of origin is at those distances. (But of course in astronomy,
a lot of definitions are simplified, e.g. they also classify everything
heavier than helium as a metal.)
Both the Wikipedia X-ray and Gamma ray articles agree on this.
X-ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The two types of radiation are now usually defined by their origin:
X-rays are emitted by electrons outside the nucleus, while gamma rays
are emitted by the nucleus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
Gamma ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In the past, distinction between the X-rays and gamma rays was
arbitrarily based on energy (or equivalently frequency or wavelength),
but because of the wide overlap and increasing use of megavoltage X-ray
sources, now the two types of radiation are usually defined by their
origin: X-rays are emitted by electrons outside the nucleus (and when
produced by therapeutic linacs are often simply called "photons"), while
gamma rays are specifically emitted by the nucleus (that is, produced by
gamma decay). In theory, there is no lower limit to the energy of such
photons, and thus "ultraviolet gamma rays" have been postulated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
Yousuf Khan
Uncle Al
>
> So I was looking up nuclear isomers, and found out that they are being
> looked into as a possible future extremely high-density energy storage
> mechanism,
That is terrible, discredited crap.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Yousuf Khan
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> So I was looking up nuclear isomers, and found out that they are being
>> looked into as a possible future extremely high-density energy storage
>> mechanism,
> [snip]
>
> That is terrible, discredited crap.
It's controversial, but not yet discredited. There was the initial study
describing it, and one subsequent study not being able to reproduce it.
The scientist who works in this field, C.B. Collins, has made
controversial claims about isomers before, and they were confirmed years
later. He discovered Tantalum 180m's half-life in 1988, and it was
confirmed only in 1999.
Nuclear isomer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The most stable nuclear isomer occurring in nature is Ta-180m, which is
present in all tantalum samples at about 1 part in 8,300. Its half-life
is at least 10^15 years, markedly longer than the age of the universe.
This remarkable persistence results from the fact that the excitation
energy of the isomeric state is low, and gamma de-excitation to the
Ta-180 ground state (which is radioactive and has a half-life of only 8
hours), and beta decay to hafnium or tungsten are all suppressed, owing
to spin mismatches. The origin of this isomer is mysterious, though it
is believed to have been formed in supernovae (as are most other heavy
elements). When it relaxes to its ground state, it releases a photon
with an energy of 75 keV. It was first reported in 1988 by Collins[1]
that Ta-180m can be forced to release its energy by weaker x-rays. After
11 years of controversy those claims were confirmed in 1999 by Belic and
co-workers in the Stuttgart nuclear physics group."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer#Nearly-stable_isomers
Collins later studied the Hafnium 177m2 isomer in 1999, which was unable
to be experimentally confirmed by other teams in 2001. There's a
detailed description of the history upto 2003 of this experiment and its
controversy at this link.
Pentagon's New Superbomb Ignites Science Dispute
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0928-07.htm
However, in 2007, a further development happened which confirms the
original result. It also resulted in a new explanation behind its mechanism.
Researchers Move Closer To Switching Nuclear Isomer Decay On And Off
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070406140937.htm
Also it's suggested that finding different isomers might be the key to
finding the "Island of Stability" in the search for super-heavy
elements. Tantalum 180m is more stable than the ground state of Tantalum
180 (10^15 years vs. 8 hours!). So the thinking goes that perhaps some
isomers are more stable than their ground-states in the super-heavy
range too.
Yousuf Khan
Eric Gisse
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 5:12 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > Triggered isomer state changes are a relatively new concept but I'm
> > yet to hear how people intend to _trigger_ the transition.
>
> A team back in 1999 claimed that they could trigger a Hafnium isomer
> transition just by exposing them to X-rays.
So? I can initiate fission of an atom by hitting it with a high enough
energy photon via photodisintegreation.
The point is that the metastable state is sufficiently stable to not
produce a chain reaction when the transition occurs. No halfnium bomb,
no halfnium battery.
> This would then result in a
> release of Gamma rays. Assuming the traditional energy-level definitions
> of X-rays and Gamma rays, rather than the "source of origin" definition,
> then that would mean a smaller energy input can result in a larger
> energy release.
So? How is this different from the hundred or so isotopes beyond iron
that produce energy when they decay?
>
> "The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered
> when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas
> demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the
> hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist
> print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much
> energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could
> be achieved."http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4049-gammaray-weapons-could-tri...
How's that theory going? A friend of mine had a huge boner for this
and even he moved on.
A positive return on energy input is NOT sufficient. Necessary, but
not sufficient.
>
> >> By this definition Thorium-229-m's UV emission is actually considered a
> >> gamma-ray, since it comes from the nucleus. However, by this new
> >> definition of an x-ray, wouldn't it mean that any emission from the
> >> electrons be x-rays, including those in the visible light, infrared,
> >> microwave and radio wavelengths?
>
> >> Yousuf Khan
>
> > No, because that's silly.
>
> > Finding a nuclear state that's weak enough to have the excitation
> > energy in the eV range instead of the M/KeV range doesn't suddenly
> > make it a gamma ray.
>
> Well, as I posted, from the Wikipedia article, the current definitions
> for X-rays and Gamma rays are based around their "source of origin"
I don't care what Wikipedia says. Walk up to a physicist and make the
claim that a photon of ~10eV energy is a gamma ray and you'll be
laughed at.
Wikipedia is not authoritative. Never, ever forget that.
[...]
Y.Porat
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 5:12 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > Triggered isomer state changes are a relatively new concept but I'm
> > yet to hear how people intend to _trigger_ the transition.
>
> A team back in 1999 claimed that they could trigger a Hafnium isomer
> transition just by exposing them to X-rays. This would then result in a
> release of Gamma rays. Assuming the traditional energy-level definitions
> of X-rays and Gamma rays, rather than the "source of origin" definition,
> then that would mean a smaller energy input can result in a larger
> energy release.
>
> "The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered
> when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas
> demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the
> hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist
> print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much
> energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could
------------------------
it i snot impossible that
th e output energy of a nuclear process
will be *more * than the input
it is possible by experiments
and you cant argue experimental data
it is known of course from chemistry as well
the energy imput from lighting a match
is much less than coming out
of a liter gasoline ignited by a match
.....
now th e question about how to turn it
**into a useful source of energy**
is a question for itself
ie a technical question
of invention and technical ingenuity
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Y.Porat
>
> However, in 2007, a further development happened which confirms the
> original result. It also resulted in a new explanation behind its mechanism.
>
>
> Also it's suggested that finding different isomers might be the key to
> finding the "Island of Stability" in the search for super-heavy
> elements. Tantalum 180m is more stable than the ground state of Tantalum
> 180 (10^15 years vs. 8 hours!). So the thinking goes that perhaps some
> isomers are more stable than their ground-states in the super-heavy
> range too.
>
>
> Yousuf Khan
------------------
and i explained above
that the isomeric phenomena in nuclear
world
is associated by an exact geometric
map
if you like metaphorically
like the map associated to any organic
mulecule
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------------
YKhan
> > A team back in 1999 claimed that they could trigger a Hafnium isomer
> > transition just by exposing them to X-rays.
>
> So? I can initiate fission of an atom by hitting it with a high enough
> energy photon via photodisintegreation.
So that means that there is a trigger mechanism available to get it to
change its isomeric state, as you asked. What's fission got to do with
it?
> The point is that the metastable state is sufficiently stable to not
> produce a chain reaction when the transition occurs. No halfnium bomb,
> no halfnium battery.
Uh, no ... no need for chain reactions, you got instead ... gamma
rays. You just keep irradiating it with X-rays, and you get gamma rays
out -- good trade-off. Better than a bomb, you can get a gamma ray
laser, a graser.
> > This would then result in a
> > release of Gamma rays. Assuming the traditional energy-level definitions
> > of X-rays and Gamma rays, rather than the "source of origin" definition,
> > then that would mean a smaller energy input can result in a larger
> > energy release.
>
> So? How is this different from the hundred or so isotopes beyond iron
> that produce energy when they decay?
Can you reuse those isotopes after they decay? After your Uranium-235
decays, can you return it to U-235 again, and have another go at
getting power out of it? Hafnium-177m2 simply decays to Hafnium-177,
so you can recharge it back upto Hf-177m2 again.
> > "The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered
> > when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas
> > demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the
> > hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist
> > print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much
> > energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could
> > be achieved."http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4049-gammaray-weapons-could-tri...
>
> How's that theory going? A friend of mine had a huge boner for this
> and even he moved on.
There's been some recent developments as of 2007, and it seems they
have a better theoretical understanding of the process now. At least
according to this article.
Researchers Move Closer To Switching Nuclear Isomer Decay On And Off
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070406140937.htm
> A positive return on energy input is NOT sufficient. Necessary, but
> not sufficient.
A 60x positive return on energy should to be sufficient, no?
> > Well, as I posted, from the Wikipedia article, the current definitions
> > for X-rays and Gamma rays are based around their "source of origin"
>
> I don't care what Wikipedia says. Walk up to a physicist and make the
> claim that a photon of ~10eV energy is a gamma ray and you'll be
> laughed at.
Until you explain that it comes from the nucleus of an isomer of
Tantalum-180. And remind him about the "source of origin" definition:
gamma rays come from the nucleus, x-rays come from the electron
shells.
> Wikipedia is not authoritative. Never, ever forget that.
No, but it wasn't the first or only place I heard about that
definition. I first saw it in this article, I believe:
"During the last couple of years, the race has been on to detect the
ultraviolet photons, termed "gamma-rays" on account of their nuclear
origin, that would signal the de-excitation of the 3.5 eV isomer."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1169
Yousuf Khan
YKhan
> now th e question about how to turn it
> **into a useful source of energy**
> is a question for itself
> ie a technical question
> of invention and technical ingenuity
Well, sure that's always the trick to technological development.
Probably right from the time we harnessed fire, "so how do we use this
wood to get fire, /without/ burning the entire forest down that we
live in?"
Yousuf Khan
Y.Porat
-------------------
dont worry
the process you describe
can hardly keep itself alive .........
and of cpourse
it depends on a constant suply
of a very specific 'fuel ' !!!
metaphorically taking your example
if the 'wood' around it is consumed
the process stops
(it cannot ignite (metaphorically)
the 'sand' around it !!!!)
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
Y.Porat
unknown information about hafnium
for some people.......
abut
Hf 178 and alike
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------
Eric Gisse
Why not do something useful like calculate the spectrum of the
hydrogen atom? Or if you feel dealing with electrons is too hard,
calculate the nuclear energy levels of something folks use for
Mossbauer - Iron and Cobalt.
Y.Porat
------------------
what i did is good enough as a lifetime
of a human being work
the rest will be advanced by others
if someone showes interest in and prove himself as capable
of understanding my start
i have no objection to cooperate
with him
any way
it seems to me extremely diiffivly or even imposible
to 'cover all of it just in a mathematical formulation
imho
my luck was that i ddint went into it
through the 'modern' infinitesimal formulations
that does not meand that i did there
an above human ability and persistent
simple trial simle basic calculations
of trial and error huge work
including adjustments to known physical data
like
chemistry Atomic wights nuclear weights
known geometry of molecules
and others
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
with someone