But Horace - you do not need to be concerned with weight loss at all, nor with what happens after the experiment. I think you are basing your assumptions on the common argon dating method for minerals (the 40K -> 40Ar dating method). That is not needed here. We do not care about change in mass. This is a different approach than the argon dating method and it is similar to what the Barkers did.
The only concern is the actual ongoing counts: IOW the actual ongoing decay rate, IF that rate can be altered by Casimir cavities - that is all that matters in the simplest experiment. Here is a quick and dirty way to describe it. If this is successful, then you would definitely want to improve on it, but this can offer a prima facie case for alteration in the decay rate by Casimir cavities, and can be done cheaply. 1)Obtain two identical flat samples of potassium metal (exposure to moisture must be avoided). Preferably they will be enriched in 40K but that is not required 2)For simplicity obtain two identical GM meters with datalogging and USB connectors, like the GM-10 http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/geiger_counter.html 3) Confirm in side-by-side testing that the decay rate of both samples is nearly identical from a set distance - lets say it is 1000 counts per minute at 5 cm head-on with the meter aimed down from above. 4) Obtain a gram of Raney nickel powder and loosely cover one of the samples with it, and remeasure the decay rate. It should not change much but could be lowered to say 950 due to partial shielding from Raney. The GM-10 will pick up secondaries from moderately shielded beta decay, and my experience has been that the loose powder would not change the rate much. 4) Place that sample in a vacuum chamber in a shallow mold, covered with the Ni powder, evacuate for an extended period, and then heat above 146 F, and give the much denser Ni time to be impregnated with K in the pores, which extend into that size range 5) Now measure again the two samples, for a side-by-side decay rate, as before - and continue for the next week and datalog. Is there a significant difference in the average over time between the Casimir impregnated sample? i.e. if the bulk sample continues at roughly the same average of 1k counts/hr and the Ni impregnated sample has increased to 1.5 k counts/hr (when it should be slightly less) then you may have enough of a prima facie case for real time dilation to really think out a much more elaborate and controlled experiment. The problem - which is seen in the Barker experiments is that the decay rate is not always increased - with some samples, the rate decreases, depending on the mineral. The Barker experiment works best (only) with minerals like pitchblende. There is no or little effect with pure metals. Thinking back on it now, this is actually consistent with the Casimir/time-distortion modality - since the mineral, as opposed to a bulk metal, could be effectively creating a grid of interlocking ceramic Casimir cavities, especially when high electrostatic voltage is applied. From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace > The half-life of potassium 40 is 1.3 billion years... It is not logical to expect a cavity effect to cause any detectable change in the amount of 40K. Yes, we would be looking for a dramatic change in the decay rate as measured in the average microrem per hour, or whatever, but "dramatic" or logical is not the problem - it is even less logical to expect the drastic changes which have been claimed in such things as thorium remediation. In either case, if there was pronounced time dilation at the Casimir geomtery - it could be extreme - not gradual. Admittedly, the operative word there for thorium is "claimed". But speaking of the Barker patents, which is a situation of high electrostatic voltage containment = a few of those claims were for changes on the order of 10^6 in decay rates ... and I am convinced they are accurate, from personal work I have done. I have not made the point clear. Suppose your sample of 40 K actually does change on the order of 10^6 in decay rate while in the cavity, and resumes its old decay rate when outside the cavity. It's new half life is then 1.3 million years. In one year you consume about (1/2)(1/(1.3x10^6) = ..000000386 of your 40K. If you run the experiment for 36 days, or about 1/10 a year. You consume about (1/10)(. 000000386) = 0.000000386 of the sample. Now, after the experiment, if you digest the material and extract your 40K, and count it, you will have to distinguish a loss of 0.000000386 of the sample, far less than the accuracy of any kind of extraction that can be performed. Unless you use a short half life isotope, you need to measure cavity count rates in-situ, or determine them from calorimetry. If you use an isotope with a short half life, you only have to run the experiment for about the length of the half life to see major results. Technetium has a half life of 6 hours (not 66 hours as I mistakenly typed earlier, it is 99Mo that has the 66 hour half life, and 99mTe is produced from 99Mo in hospitals), so if you run the experiment 6 hours and measure the count, it should be about 1/2 the original. If the half life is reduced to 1/1000 of 6 hours, or 21.6 seconds, then a 6 hour run will leave only (1/2)^1000 of the original material, a robust result! I would not hesitate to give 40K a shot, if I were in Fran's shoes and thought it would help to validate the theory - but sure, if other isotopes with shorter half-lives are available, and can be placed in cavities as easily as by vacuum melting - then go for it ... why not. Then there is always the tactic of cannibalizing your smoke detector ;-) Jones Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
