> > On Sep 25, 2009, at 3:33 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: > >> >> Here's my best shot at the moment: >> http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/halflife_bnl+Rx.jpg >> >> I've superposed the graphs. The red line is 1/Sun-Earth >> distance^2-1 (distance is now in au, and scaled up vertically), and >> the green line is the -x component of the Sun-Earth distance. >> >> A very good match is observed, although not perfect. >> >> I'm thinking that maybe latitude of the experiments can account for >> the rest of the difference in phase, and also for the different >> experimental results accross different laboratories and >> experiments. I'll try to plot light time, ecliptic angle and other >> seasonal astronomical factors at the different latitudes. But this >> is more time consuming, and I'm short of that at the moment :-) >> >> Best regards, >> Mauro > > > > This is a really stunning result!
I agree. If this holds true (and I think it will), it's completely groundbreaking. > > What is the source for the Brookhaven data? Is there a URL? I didn't search for the bnl paper yet, but the source of that bnl graph is at http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_%28more_or_less%29 > > My first thought looking at the data is that variations in background > are affecting the apparent decay rate. In other words it is not the > 227 keV betas that are changing in decay rate, but rather the > background rate of some other particle, like cosmic ray generated > muons for example. If the counts are performed for a limited > interval at some specific hour every day then the cosmic ray > background can be expected to change because it is anisotropic. The > background variations will have an annual cycle. I would think > Brookhaven folks would check background counts as a control though. > In counting silicon 32 they probably set the beta counting window to > bracket 227 keV. Still, even with a narrow counting energy, the muon > counts will be in background and vary with the season. It's even better than that, because to try to completely avoid backgound noises or distortions, they compare the decay rates of one element with a very long half life, with the decay rate of other with a relatively short half life. So, seasonal variations are appearing between the comparisions of two decay rates. >From the article: "Between 1982 and 1986, a team led by David Alburger of Brookhaven monitored the radioactivity of silicon-32. The isotopes half-life was known to be at least 60 years, so researchers needed a long time to measure it with any precision. At the same time, the team monitored a chlorine-36 sample. Chlorine-36 has a half-life of more than 300,000 years, so a samples radioactivity stays virtually unchanged for a long time and can be used to spot any spurious fluctuations. To their surprise, the researchers found that both samples had rates of decay that varied with the seasons, by about 0.3 percent." Regards, Mauro > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > >
