At 09:28 PM 12/9/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Well, think about it, Axil. The button is a
circular piece of metal, probably steel. It has
a well in it, shallow, as I described. At the
At 06:17 PM 12/8/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
The problem is that I have an Am-241 source which is a sheet of
metal (steel?) with a circular ridge welded onto it. The Am-241 is
in the well formed by the ridge. So if I place the beryllium on top
of the ridge, it will be elevated from the source by
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Well, think about it, Axil. The button is a circular piece of metal,
probably steel. It has a well in it, shallow, as I described. At the bottom
of the well, there is what looks like, under magnification, some kind
Actually I heard that in Savona (Italy) University they found a rare
isotope of Beryllium. They named it Belynium an there are strong suspects
that (along Unobtainium) is part of Rossi's and Defkalion catalyzer secret
mixture.
As soon I found it I'll post the related paper.
2012/12/7 Abd
At 01:51 AM 12/8/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Would it cut cleanly, if thin enough, or would
it crush? There could be a way to pull this off
safely, with capture and proper disposal of any
At 01:56 AM 12/8/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
IMHO, Beryllium does not need to be reformed in
any way no matter what its original shape. It is
a neutron moderator; most neutrons will pass
right through it. But some will be slowed if the beryllium is very thick.
The problem is that I have an
*If I want a small piece of beryllium that will fit in the well of an
Am-241 source, to get maximum neutron flux, I might arrange to buy some
pieces like that.*
This is wrong thinking. To get the most neutron intensity, a very thick
piece of beryllium (Be) is required to increase the probability
*The problem is that I have an Am-241 source which is a sheet of metal
(steel?) with a circular ridge welded onto it. The Am-241 is in the well
formed by the ridge. So if I place the beryllium on top of the ridge, it
will be elevated from the source by ... okay, damn it! I'll go find the
durn
How about using gadolinium:
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=product_infocPath=16_17_69products_id=141
I bought a beryllium marble from them a few years ago for a coupe of bucks,
but they aren't listing it anymore.
Hoyt Stearns
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Axil Axil
At 02:29 AM 12/8/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Eric Walker
mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.comeric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that you don't find out if it
what you did was safe for five years, and then
you have a 1/3 chance of dying or being disabled.
At 05:02 PM 12/6/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Yes, a more powerful reaction would be nice, but we must work with
what we have, as Abd stresses. We will die of old age if we sit
around waiting UPS to deliver a $1.5 million package of unobtainium.
It's coming? And the reward of patience is ...
Abd, I assume you're aware of the hazards of working with this stuff?
That being said, its melting point is not absurdly high - under 2400F.
Could you melt some under, say, an N2 or argon atmosphere, on perhaps a
ceramic surface, so that it spread out into a thin layer, and then cool it?
Jeff
A friend (not on this list) commented to me on the side: Molten metals
have a wicked high surface tension. Would never flow, always ball-up. He
says the only choice is hot forging/hot rolling. Comments: You can turn
glass on an ordinary lathe if it's red hot.
Jeff
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:57
At 10:57 PM 12/7/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
Abd, I assume you're aware of the hazards of working with this stuff?
Very. That, indeed, is the problem. If I were blissfully unaware of
the dangers, I'd cheerfully start sawing it hammering it or filing it
down, eh? Of course, it's pretty hard.
At 11:27 PM 12/7/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
A friend (not on this list) commented to me on the side: Molten
metals have a wicked high surface tension. Would never flow, always
ball-up. He says the only choice is hot forging/hot rolling.
Comments: You can turn glass on an ordinary lathe if
I would not mess with that in any manner Abd. Take care my friend.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 12:31 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Unobtainium and Beryllium
At 11
manner Abd. Take care my friend.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 12:31 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Unobtainium and Beryllium
At 11:27 PM 12/7/2012, Jeff Berkowitz
At 12:45 AM 12/8/2012, David Roberson wrote:
I would not mess with that in any manner Abd. Take care my friend.
Thanks for your concern. Don't worry.
The danger of the piece of Beryllium I've purchased is quite small.
This is it: if it's got a white powder on it watch out!
If it got
, 2012 12:31 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Unobtainium and Beryllium
At 11:27 PM 12/7/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
A friend (not on this list) commented to me on the side: Molten
metals have a wicked high surface tension. Would never flow, always
ball-up. He says the only choice is hot forging/hot
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Would it cut cleanly, if thin enough, or would it crush? There could be a
way to pull this off safely, with capture and proper disposal of any dust.
Do it under water? Waste disposal? So ... maybe. But that's not
Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 12:31 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Unobtainium and Beryllium
At 11:27 PM 12/7/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
A friend (not on this list) commented to me on the side: Molten
metals have a wicked high surface tension. Would never flow, always
ball-up. He says the only choice is hot
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that you don't find out if it what you did was safe for five
years, and then you have a 1/3 chance of dying or being disabled.
More accurately, I think it would be something like this -- for each
22 matches
Mail list logo
