*http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/strange-solar-particles-might-be-affecting-earths-radioactive-materials-scientists-say?src=related&con=outbrain&obref=obinsite <http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/strange-solar-particles-might-be-affecting-earths-radioactive-materials-scientists-say?src=related&con=outbrain&obref=obinsite>*
*While examining data on radioactive isotopes, Purdue researchers found disagreement in measured decay rates, which goes against the long-accepted belief that these rates are constant. While searching for an explanation, the scientists came across other research that noted seasonal variation in these decay rates. Apparently radioactivity is stronger in winter than in summer* There is another correlation that might be magnetic in nature. This relationship involves seanoal variation based on hemisphere of the earth. However, As EMF radiation, I would expect magnetic power to be absorbed just as light and heat would with more power absorbed in summer than in winter. However, it is not clear what the detailed seasonal relationship is from the article. On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:41 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I was expecting for you to suggest that particles were being formed on or > very near the sun by the intense magnetic field. These undefined particles > would then propagate to the earth and wreak havoc on radioactive > materials. But instead you seem to imply that the extremely weak field due > to solar winds is the culprit. > > The relatively weak local field changes do not pass the smell test to me > because it would be quite easy for a scientist to simulate that environment > in his laboratory and I would be surprised to find that this has not been > attempted. The variation in radioactive decay associated with magnetic > fields must be documented although I am not aware of any papers about that > subject. > > Another explanation for the possible modification in radioactivity is the > neutrino flux variations arising from within the sun. As we know, these > little fellows are generated in enormous numbers due to fusion reactions > within the sun and can penetrate great expanses of matter before causing > interactions that we know how to measure. Since they originate within a > nucleus it does not take too much imagination to suspect that they might > effect other nuclei during their travel. Perhaps they impart a nudge upon > a nucleus that is holding energy in such a manner as to increase the > probability that it might emit the radioactive particle of choice. This > type of effect would show up much as you have described and would otherwise > be extremely difficult to measure. > > The question that immediately comes to mind is why would the magnetic > structures seen on and within the sun cause a change to the flux of > neutrinos? We know for sure that the magnetic tubes associated with sun > spots are relatively tiny when compared to the sun's surface and that they > penetrate deeply into the star. Just how deep into the sun they reach is > debatable but where ever they reach must be affected by their intense > nature. Could it be that the local fusion reaction is enhanced by the > extra energy imparted to small volumes of the sun by these magnetic > tubes? The increased reactions would then lead to a larger number of > neutrinos being emitted which leads to the radioactive variation. > > A scenario such as this would suggest that the neutrino emission rate of > the sun might have a high frequency component that is immersed within the > relatively larger low frequency rate that we normally measure. It could be > hidden to us due to the rare occurrence of detected neutrinos under normal > conditions. I suspect that our best techniques can only determine the > average neutrino flux due to the infrequent interaction of these elusive > particles. The average rate of production of these neutrinos would define > the average rate of energy production from solar fusion and everything > would seem to be in order according to our present understanding of how > energy is released within the sun. But, in actuality it might be found > that the energy is generated in a more complex burst type nature. This is > not unlike what some of us observe when we measure LENR systems. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Aug 23, 2014 2:17 am > Subject: [Vo]:It must be magnetism > > On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar > flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear > engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a > short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate > dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and > a half before the flare. > > Read more at: http://phys.org/news201795438.html#jCp > The unknown force from the sun must not only increase nuclear decay rates > but reduce them. This is an important clue to the nature of this unknown > factor. Radioactive decay rates must be embedded in an environment that > defines its nature. That environment can be increased or decreased based on > solar activity and in fact is defined by solar activity. > The sun must provide an average background flux that directly affects the > rates of decay. Various parts of the sun contribute to this background. > This background comes from the core of the sun, but it can also be effected > by localized regions on the sun’s surface. > > It must be magnetism. Here is why… > > The high magnetic fields in the sunspot-producing active regions also give > rise to explosions known as solar flares. When the twisted field lines > cross and reconnect, energy explodes outward with a force exceeding that of > millions of hydrogen bombs. > Temperatures in the outer layer of the sun, known as the corona, typically > fall around a few million kelvins. As solar flares push through the corona, > they heat its gas to anywhere from 10 to 20 million K, occasionally > reaching as high as a hundred million. > Because solar flares form in the same active regions as sunspots, they are > connected to these smaller, less violent events. Flares tend to follow the > same 11-year cycle. At the peak of the cycle, several flares may occur each > day, with an average lifetime of only 10 minutes. > Solar flares vary in size and power. The largest, X-class flares have the > most significant effect on Earth. They can cause long-lasting radiation > storms in the upper atmosphere, and trigger radio blackouts. Medium-size > M-class flares can cause brief radio blackouts in the Polar Regions and the > occasional minor radiation storms. C-class flares have few noticeable > consequences. > Absorbing X-rays affects the atmosphere. The increase in heat and energy > result in an expansion of the Earth's ionosphere. Man-made radio waves > travel through this portion of the upper atmosphere, so radio > communications can be disturbed by its sudden unpredictable growth. > Similarly, satellites previously circling through vacuum-free space can > find themselves caught in the expanded sphere. The resulting friction slows > down their orbit, and can bring them back to Earth sooner than intended. > Despite their size and high energy, solar flares are almost never visible > optically. The bright emission of the surrounding photosphere, where the > sun's light originates, tends to overshadow even these explosive phenomena. > Radio and optical emissions can be observed on Earth. > What I am saying in so many words is that solar flares are very powerful. > Clearly, a tremendous amount of magnetic energy is converted in an instant > to all the aforementioned energetic phenomena at the expense of the > magnetic output of the sun. The sun stores vast amounts of energy in its > magnetic fields. A sudden release and conversion of that energy will reduce > that magnetic energy storehouse and consequentially reduce the magnetic > background around earth that defines the rate of radioactive decay. >
