December 16, 2019, 05:59:09 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Carbon 14 is a beta emitter and occurs naturally  (Read 4663 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

March 09, 2019, 06:07:13 AM
Reply #90
Online

Nigel Evans


LEV IVANOV. Competent or incompetent. Genuine or false. Cover up or no cover up. And this is just Lev Ivanov's part in this MYSTERY. Like I have said, he needs his own section in this Forum.
Quite agree, we need less of "Gravity fluctuation / Teleportation - it's highly technical but possible" (rolls eyes) and more on Lev Ivanov's interview which imo is the key event to be considered.

March 14, 2019, 05:15:59 AM
Reply #91
Online

Nigel Evans


Aha!

The story so far...
Carbon 14 would be a good explanation for the detected radiation except for (as pointed out by Ryan), it is a weak emitter of beta below the threshold of the detectors.
But according to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 it can be detected if volumes are high enough. The G-M detectors probably operating at 3% efficiency.
If there was a lot of C14 there it could be an explanation for the tests.
So i hear you thinking, how does a peak in the Urals get much higher than normal levels of C14?
Because if a proportion of atmospheric C14 is ionised (somehow) and the peak has the reverse charge then it will collect.
Back to electro magnetism?


March 14, 2019, 05:27:09 AM
Reply #92
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Aha!

The story so far...
Carbon 14 would be a good explanation for the detected radiation except for (as pointed out by Ryan), it is a weak emitter of beta below the threshold of the detectors.
But according to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 it can be detected if volumes are high enough. The G-M detectors probably operating at 3% efficiency.
If there was a lot of C14 there it could be an explanation for the tests.
So i hear you thinking, how does a peak in the Urals get much higher than normal levels of C14?
Because if a proportion of atmospheric C14 is ionised (somehow) and the peak has the reverse charge then it will collect.
Back to electro magnetism?

If it was carbon 14 then it may be higher there because there is more cosmic radiation being closer to the pole and cosmic rays convert nitrogen into carbon 14.

Still doesn’t sound like a likely contaminant though.

March 14, 2019, 06:05:17 AM
Reply #93
Online

Nigel Evans


Aha!

The story so far...
Carbon 14 would be a good explanation for the detected radiation except for (as pointed out by Ryan), it is a weak emitter of beta below the threshold of the detectors.
But according to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 it can be detected if volumes are high enough. The G-M detectors probably operating at 3% efficiency.
If there was a lot of C14 there it could be an explanation for the tests.
So i hear you thinking, how does a peak in the Urals get much higher than normal levels of C14?
Because if a proportion of atmospheric C14 is ionised (somehow) and the peak has the reverse charge then it will collect.
Back to electro magnetism?

If it was carbon 14 then it may be higher there because there is more cosmic radiation being closer to the pole and cosmic rays convert nitrogen into carbon 14.

Still doesn’t sound like a likely contaminant though.
Well using the 3% efficiency figure you would need 30 times the number of decays of C14 compared to say strontium?

So some possible sources :-During the 50s and 60s the concentration of C14 doubled due to atomic tests most of them atmospheric. 1958 being the second biggest ever  - https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally
Lightning produces gamma rays that could possibly imitate cosmic rays? One of the sources for the no2/nitric acid could have been electrical discharge. Semyon's photos are (asserted by me) to be of strong electro magnetic energy.
Snow storms create ionisation via mechanical collision. Some of this could be C14.



March 14, 2019, 09:45:20 AM
Reply #94
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Carbon 14 could be derived from Historical tests yes, but not from lightning.  You need neutrons rather than gamma rays.

Lightning could generate some NO2.

Regards
Star man

March 14, 2019, 12:16:41 PM
Reply #95
Online

Nigel Evans


Carbon 14 could be derived from Historical tests yes, but not from lightning.  You need neutrons rather than gamma rays.

Lightning could generate some NO2.

Regards
Star man
But where do the neutrons come from?  kewl1 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/lightning-can-trigger-nuclear-reactions-creating-rare-atomic-isotopes

March 14, 2019, 01:18:55 PM
Reply #96
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Carbon 14 could be derived from Historical tests yes, but not from lightning.  You need neutrons rather than gamma rays.

Lightning could generate some NO2.

Regards
Star man
But where do the neutrons come from?  kewl1 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/lightning-can-trigger-nuclear-reactions-creating-rare-atomic-isotopes

Never heard of that before.  Interesting.  Still it's unlikely candidate for Dpi contamination, given what Ryan has said.

March 14, 2019, 02:03:07 PM
Reply #97
Online

Nigel Evans


Carbon 14 could be derived from Historical tests yes, but not from lightning.  You need neutrons rather than gamma rays.

Lightning could generate some NO2.

Regards
Star man
But where do the neutrons come from?  kewl1 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/lightning-can-trigger-nuclear-reactions-creating-rare-atomic-isotopes

Never heard of that before.  Interesting.  Still it's unlikely candidate for Dpi contamination, given what Ryan has said.


Yes but I'm challenging this in post #92? Particularly wrt ionised isotopes.

March 14, 2019, 02:18:38 PM
Reply #98
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Aha!

The story so far...
Carbon 14 would be a good explanation for the detected radiation except for (as pointed out by Ryan), it is a weak emitter of beta below the threshold of the detectors.
But according to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 it can be detected if volumes are high enough. The G-M detectors probably operating at 3% efficiency.
If there was a lot of C14 there it could be an explanation for the tests.
So i hear you thinking, how does a peak in the Urals get much higher than normal levels of C14?
Because if a proportion of atmospheric C14 is ionised (somehow) and the peak has the reverse charge then it will collect.
Back to electro magnetism?

Yes back to Electro Magnetism and therefore maybe an Electrical phenomenon for the reason that the Geiger Counters went crazy. 
DB

March 14, 2019, 02:32:23 PM
Reply #99
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Carbon 14 could be derived from Historical tests yes, but not from lightning.  You need neutrons rather than gamma rays.

Lightning could generate some NO2.

Regards
Star man
But where do the neutrons come from?  kewl1 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/lightning-can-trigger-nuclear-reactions-creating-rare-atomic-isotopes

Never heard of that before.  Interesting.  Still it's unlikely candidate for Dpi contamination, given what Ryan has said.

Because its only scientists carrying out observations. And apparently the results of said observations didnt exactly set the scientific World alight so to speak, or even cause small ripples in the scientific community. Why ? Werent the observations finding that the Particles didnt exist for long ? And therefore how can that be of use to any investigation that we are concerned with !
DB

March 14, 2019, 03:58:08 PM
Reply #100
Online

Nigel Evans




Because its only scientists carrying out observations. And apparently the results of said observations didnt exactly set the scientific World alight so to speak, or even cause small ripples in the scientific community. Why ? Werent the observations finding that the Particles didnt exist for long ? And therefore how can that be of use to any investigation that we are concerned with !
C14 has a half life of several thousand years?

March 14, 2019, 04:16:53 PM
Reply #101
Offline

Star man

Case-Files Achievement Recipient


Because its only scientists carrying out observations. And apparently the results of said observations didnt exactly set the scientific World alight so to speak, or even cause small ripples in the scientific community. Why ? Werent the observations finding that the Particles didnt exist for long ? And therefore how can that be of use to any investigation that we are concerned with !
C14 has a half life of several thousand years?

Yes.  It's about 5700 years.

March 15, 2019, 01:00:27 PM
Reply #102
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient


Because its only scientists carrying out observations. And apparently the results of said observations didnt exactly set the scientific World alight so to speak, or even cause small ripples in the scientific community. Why ? Werent the observations finding that the Particles didnt exist for long ? And therefore how can that be of use to any investigation that we are concerned with !
C14 has a half life of several thousand years?

Well the Particles I have seen mentioned were not around for more than a few seconds at most  !  ?  Some just Milliseconds.
DB