Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_android_vs_ios_winners.thumb.jpg.803608cf7eedd5cfb31eedc3e3f357e9.jpg

George 47

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About George 47

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Berkshire
  1. Both images are superb and very evocative. I really like RGB image but the narrow band ain't too shabby either
  2. Superb looking image of a faint object. And really well processed. I have not managed 20 odd hours imaging and have a 10 Micron and also live in Berkshire. Great result.
  3. Sharpcap has an automatic routine to do a lot of this for you.
  4. Nuclear Reactor: 'an apparatus or structure in which fissile material can be made to undergo a controlled, self-sustaining nuclear reaction with the consequent release of energy. ' A standard definition. Also, the IAEA definition 'produce energy by initiating and controlling a sustained nuclear chain reaction'.
  5. Great image with a good scope.
  6. Hmmm. A fission reactor is one that maintains a self-sustaining criticality. A fusion reactor is one that has a self-sustained fusion reaction. By his definition, a D-T tube would be called a fusion reactor, which it clearly isn't. And if I get a lump of granite with uranium in it and I put it next to a neutron source then they could cause a few atoms of uranium to fission. A fission reactor? Those voltages in his 'reactor' and the generation of X-rays is highly dangerous. There are some strange people around. Anyway back to astronomy.
  7. Now you have intrigued me. He got no fission reactions at all as far as I can see. He did contaminate his shed but then that has happened with radium in the UK as well. How fusion can be done...???? I am not sure I accept that, where???
  8. There is an extremely low chance that anyone can make an operational nuclear reactor or an experiment that is critical, it is incredibly difficult for major engineering companies to make a reactor. Getting hold of the nuclear material is not easy either. A fast breeder reactor is even more difficult. A fusion reactor has not been built anywhere despite billions being spent by major nuclear operators. This rather sad young guy ended up with radium and thorium and ground them up or smashed the sources with a hammer. That was what the EPA had to spend US taxpayers' money to clean up. He did not make anything resembling a reactor. The article in Harpers started to build him up as a bit of a hero which in reality was not the case. Sad really as he was clearly enthusiastic. On removing the foils from fire detectors, fire detectors have safety advice on them not to dismantle them. The USNRC advises not to remove the sources as does the UK Health Protection Agency. In my view removing these sources is not sensible and should not be done or encouraged.
  9. I was referring to the people on You Tube, not anyone here. Louise has been cautious and careful. If my response implied otherwise then I apologise that was not my intent, it was the people on You Tube. The Wiki article is not in my view balanced. I am well aware of the risks (minimal) from these detectors as it was part of my job to enforce the regulations. And I was also involved with discussions with our EU colleagues on the safety of detectors (France and Germany do not allow Am241 detectors with a preference for optical detectors). My main aim was to reassure that there was no fallout from Chernobyl or Fukushima that would cause tracks in a CCD camera and a very low chance that a fire detector would do so if the fire detector is intact. Despite allowing fire detectors to be disposed of to landfill there has been no evidence found of any significant Am 241 getting into the environment.
  10. Fairytales and fables.....breeder reactor....really.....He disassembled some fire detectors plus some low-level radioactive materials. Next, it will be red mercury....
  11. Old watches had radium 226 in them which was luminous due to the radioactivity interacting with a luminising agent (ZnS). New watches use tritium or Pm147 where the beta radiation can't penetrate the glass of the watch. Cobalt exists in nature as a stable isotope. Co 60 is radioactive but I would doubt it is in drill bits unless a Co60 source had been inadvertently melted.
  12. Wow, there are some fruit-cakes around. Taking the Am 241 source out of a smoke detector is not a great thing to do. If you want an alpha source try a granitic rock from Cornwall or Scotland. If you want to get paranoid then Brazil nuts and coffee have higher than average levels of alpha in them and guess what, they still taste nice and do no harm although the chocolate Brazil nuts are ideal.
  13. Guys, I am afraid the answer to your question is no you will not be detecting the deposition from Chernobyl or Fukushima. But as you seem to be enjoying and learning from this carry-on. Alpha particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper so you can rule that out. Any incineration process will 'concentrate' any radioactivity present as the volume of the wood material is reduced and any activity per unit mass increases. Remember your ASI1600 will have a piece of glass protecting the chip so any radiation has to get through that.
  14. Hey, why not an alternative?? Have a lovely weeks holiday in the South of France and get to use some neat scopes. I went to Olly's place and the images I got were the best I have ever done. I put them on Astrobin and one of them got Image of the Day. And no problems with the equipment or imaging as Olly is there. Great imaging, great food and yes we managed to do the tourist as well. Sorry if I infringed any rules but it was fun....
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.