Talk:Nuclear transmutation

Distinction between alchemy and nuclear reaction

I suspect this article would be clearer with an explicit distinction between alchemy and nuclear reaction. Indeed the second could be there rather than here. --Henrygb 15:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) Disagree. ~~

Long-lived fission products

Medium-lived FPs per 10⁶ thermal ²³⁵U

Nuclide	Halflife	Yield
Eu-155	4.76	<330
Kr-85	10.76	2717
Cd-113m	14.1	<3
Sr-90	28.9	57518
Cs-137	30.23	60899
Sn-121m	43.9	0.3
Sm-151	90	<4203

Long-lived FPs per 10⁶ thermal ²³⁵U

Nuclide	Halflife	Yield
Tc-99	211,000	60507
Sn-126	230,000	236
Se-79	295,000	508
Zr-93	1.53 my	62956
Cs-135	2.3 my	63333
Pd-107	6.5 my	1629
I-129	15.7 my	6576

This text needs checking.. "Isotopes of plutonium and other actinides tend to be long-lived with half-lifes of many thousands of years, whereas radioactive fission products tend to be shorter-lived (most with half-lifes of 30 years or less)." I thought that isotopes with short long half-lives could occur just about anywhere on the periodic table. -- 70.29.131.204 14:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

in fact most radioactive isotopes (actinides or otherwise) have short half-lives ( < 1 day) and there are plenty of long-life isotopes among non-actinides. source: [1] partial list of isotopes with long half life (> 1 year)

¹⁰Be 1.5 e+6 y ²²Na 2.6019 y ²⁶Al 7.17e+5 y ³²Si 150 y ³⁶Cl 3.01e+5 y ³⁹Ar 269 yhfhfhuyfhi ⁴²Ar 32.9 y ⁴⁰ K 1.277e+9 y ⁴¹Ca 1.03e+5 y ⁴⁸Ca 6e+18 y Not a single one of them is formed in nuclear fission.

The point is in the "tend to". It is true that both minor actinides and fission products contain both long- and short-lived nuclides, but in spent nuclear fuel, the proportion of long-lived isotopes in the fission products is negligible, while minor actinides consist mostly of long-lived isotopes. --Philipum 08:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added a table of the seven long-lived fission products at right, and medium-lived FP at left. The isotopes cited by the poster above are all below the mass range for fission products.--JWB 22:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse atomic physics with alchemy

I added a bit about gold and lead, since the matter is open to misunderstanding.

I don't think alchemists even recognised gold as an element - they mostly subscribed to the Greek theory of the Four Elements, Earth, Fire, Air and Water. On that basis you could get gold just by changing the mix, but this was wrong.

--GwydionM 17:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm not exactly, Alchemists rely on duality more than on the four elements. In some sense they are near of modern chemistry (Acid/base, Reduction/Oxidation, etc)

Note that the chain from gold to lead in the main section induces to error, because while the whole balance is exotermic, some of the intermediate products are not. Particularly compare 201 Hg with 197 Au. In fact, it is energetically better to transmute Hg to a mix of Au and Pt, see http://conjeturas.blogia.com/2006/061601-mercurio.php for the detailed balance. Arivero 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Accelerated radioactive decay

Googling this with "magnetic field" brings up only creationists who use it as an excuse for why radioactive decay rates seem to suggest an Earth too old for creationism. Is there any genuine scientific reference to this? Ken Arromdee 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This article cites the Spallation Neutron Source as a Photoneutron example. It does not use photons, but rather PROTONS which are accelerated and used to bombard the samples to induce the nuclear reaction generating the neutrons. This needs to be changed. It is not a good example of the use of photon energy or gamma rays for the purpose of inducing transmutation

Transmutation with Brown's gas

What do you think of this paper? Completely bogus? They speak about Kervran as if he was onto something... — Omegatron 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That part about lead turning into gold

looks ugly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.107.126 (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)