What's the purpose of the experiment? For example, are you trying to disprove tritium decay rates as published by previous sources? Or are you trying to prove a solar cycle connection to the decay rates? Etc.
Yo, Pante. Long time no hear. Listen, are you posting that so that you have a record of your work, should AGW and CC flood your basement.... ahahaha...
Seriously, what initial doubt was it that made you re-examine the Tritium decay?
After all, the trigger items of nukes do contain compounds like LiT, LiDT, LiAlT4 or LiBD2T2 etc, which are routinely replaced in the Bombs, else they would not detonate. Literally $Billions went into that R&D.
Good talking to you, Pante,. Take are. -- hanson
"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message news:mj7cre$e3b$ firstname.lastname@example.org...
Decay rates of some stuff have been shown to vary.
There are many systematic errors possible measuring decay rates, especially with photo multipliers.
Read the paper:
I merely do an other test by measuring indirectly the light output from a tritium filled tube over time. That should decay one way, and not show seasonal variations. Temperature is kept constant to a fraction of a degree C.
Theory goes that sun-earth distance has some effect on decay rates via neutrino flux changes,
I find it interesting if this really is the case. the experiment is simple to do this way (well at least for me), and so far seems to confirm seasonal changes,
If this really is the case then it has huge implications for calibration of all sorts of stuff.
It is nice the equipment works so well even after 3 years 24/7 and several mains outages.
"The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos."
"Here too, even sophisticated analyzing methods give no indication of seasonal variations. It can thus be assumed that an influence of solar neutrinos on the radioactive decay does not exist ? at least not in the order of magnitude postulated."
hanson wrote: Pante, your choice of T3 is interesting in that it shows that the effect spans over the entire mass spectrum of the Periodic System.
There was also a flurry over this arxiv tripe when experiments were carried out that showed the same variation on Newton's "G". This latter case, for "G", was even belabored in the News and at length in a segment of an hour long 2014 TV edu series of "Space-Odyssey" with Neil deGrasse Tyson and/or in the "Wormhole" series narrated by actor Morgan Freeman.
The issue seems to have been quietly shelved, perhaps cuz it became obvious that the wide variety of the affected Fundamental Physical Constants have ALL a common, direct or indirect dependency on the fixed value of "c", the speed of light.
That fixed "c" value, which is so crucial to the fetish and obsession for Einstein Dingleberries, has long been doubted and attacked as "c" not being a constant, but rather having observer dependant numerical values.. And so..
.. if it now turns out that "c" is even seasonably variable. then adios, first of all with SR and GR, and more importantly, Physics can no longer be conducted and palavered about the way we are used of doing it now.
So, Pante, perhaps you have inadvertently furnished yet another nail for the coffin of SR & GR. which will cause "Michael Moroney" the Swine, to scream again: "That's Anti-Semitism!". LOL. > Good tripe, yours, Pante. Thanks again. -- hanson
Yikes! what a mess! A little explanation would go along way!
I presume this is a radioactive decay experiment where (eventually) some attempt will be made to influence radioactive decay rates. I'd suggest solar rays that have passed through aluminum. (not thermal)
Finding a diurnal rate change would be interesting.
Oh, the army surplus shop had a lot of old unused US nukes ;-)
But if you want one, these tubes are sold as 'fishing lights' in the UK for example. They are also sold heavily encapsulated in plastic as marker to find your stuff in the wild. For those into theories: Seems Fish are attracted to Tritium ;-)
On a sunny day (Sat, 16 May 2015 18:52:02 -0400 (EDT)) it happened Jack Ryan wrote in :
Interesting. So they and me had the same idea, measure in a different way, to avoid systematic errors.
One problem with physics is that what is 'proven' today is refuted tomorrow, and vice versa. So, as I just restarted the experiment it will keep running, no harm in an extra year of data. You guys and them too can process the data any way you want, it is on the website.
The more is tested the better our knowledge of the universe. I find it fascinating they now refute their OWN old data :-) I want to point out I have no specific opinion as to 'it is' or 'it is not', just curiosity.