Mr weld 39,

just as an addendum to my post already deposited this morning where I was asking you to be so kind to reply my questions.

I think that I have found something very interesting.

It's just a detail but as I saw how accurately you've argued in terms of the correct definition of the wording you've used I knew that there must be a detail which has to be found somewhere.

You assert that Gerald CWI555 has described radionuclides may be generated in "air" as he discussed the topics with "prasad" that time. I have intensely tried to find a hint of where this statement - read "creation of radionuclides in air" - has ever been made by CWI555 within the discussions at that time.

Please correct me when I'm wrong or I have overlooked this little but crucial detail but... there is none.

Nobody but yourself has stated that radionuclides cannot be created in air by now.

Even though I am not entirely persuaded that this may happen nonetheless, e.g. "16 Oxygen" (gamma, n) "15 Oxygen", the half-life period is of course not 20 minutes but lower. This is e.g. for the nuclide created by the reaction mentioned above 122 seconds after this period it decays by emitting beta radiation into "15 nitrogen".

So finally, nobody ever said that radionuclides with a half-life period of 20 minutes can be generated in "air". This - I guess - appears to having been misunderstood by yourself.

So, where's the contradiction?

Respectfully

Weld 39

I wish to take issue with your challenge "My point is dont talk about issues you do not understand because people who have studied more than you will naturally question you. Go to a part time college . earn a diploma or degree which is recognised by the govt then you will know the difference".

I posted on this topic, but I do not have a degree.  I learned what I know from others, and do not feel the need for a degree from any government agency.

If I am wrong in what I have posted, feel free to shoot at it.  I can always go back to my associates at Brookhaven National Laboratories, who all have PHds by the way, to verify why and where I am wrong.  I will learn from it!

The same thing in welding matters.  I have seen a lot of welding heresy and metallurgical heresy on this forum.  In this string alone, I have seen major NDT male bovine excrement.  So what? 

I have heard people propose solutions in the past that I know will not work.  I have made simple mistakes in some of the things I have posted.  I have also read what I know to be the written word of "experts" and have hard evidence that the accepted "Experts" are wrong!  

This is a "forum", a form of "Chat Room".  We don't all think we are speaking as the almighty from on high.  We give each other the benefit of what we know.   If we get it wrong, you or someone like you can tell us we are wrong and then smirk about what ignoramuses we are.  We can take it or leave it.

As we get to know some of the posters, we may value their expertise more than others.  I have seen Experts in many subjects get it wrong.  If you point out the error, they might change or they might just smirk and IGNORE you.  They might be mortally offended that some lesser degreed untermench dared to disagree with them!  No big deal.

I think that I will speak to any issue that I feel that I can contribute information to.  I throw your "Feed the Formal Education Monster before you speak" back at you!

Joe Kane

Hello Stephan, yes I have been fence sitting again. Now I've decided to comment just a bit. Mr weld39 has decided that instead of considering that there are grey areas with regards to any topic, has opted to select a stance of finality on many of the items that have been discussed here. Personally, I tend to try to consider all different points of view and where they come from and the influences that prompt them. My basis for this stance goes something like this: IF, I were able to perform the "Perfect" weld, what would truly determine that this was indeed the case and why would it really matter? Many could argue that "their" welds were perfectly sufficient to achieve the needed mechanical, visual, and other requirements of these welds. So if I continued to insist that my way of welding and achieving the perfect weld was the only one that was viable would the world cease to exist, all other welding be considered sub-standard, and no other forms and methods should or could be accepted? Not by a long shot! I find it unfortunate when any individual chooses to be so inflexible or stubborn as to ignore thoughts from others or chastise them for having their own opinions. Sometimes it does pay to listen and then formulate your responses. There is an old saying with many variations that goes something like this: there will always be someone else who is SMARTER, STRONGER, BETTER than you and when you start spouting off about how GREAT you are or how INTELLIGENT you are you might just lose the respect of a lot of folks. HUMBLE and HELPFUL comes to mind here, showing a bit of both will get you a lot further in life. Mr weld39 doesn't know me or I him, yet with his decisions and actions on this forum I might just have a reluctance to come to his aid if I had anything to help him with and it is likely if he could help me with anything I would rather seek the help of many others on this forum. I probably should have directed this to him directly, yet I wanted to compliment you Stephan on your eloquent way of conveying similar thoughts and feelings. Best regards, Allan

IMHO surface crack detection using RT depends......cracks can be tight and not always detectable by rt unless their orientation is somewhat in the same plane as the direction of the radiation.
Crack orientation is a major concern when specifying RT as an inspection method.
Shallow tight cracks open to the surface may not show any discernable difference in density.
MDK

Mr weld39,

I must admit that I have considered twice if I even may come back to you with the topic of "if electron accelerators or betatrons, used for material investigations may create radio isotopes", since you have required to speak with a bachelor of science (physics). But you know what? Due to this forum has been created for the people and is luckily based upon the right of the free speech, I'll venture it and will wait if you may answer.

I stated in my post:

"Would be great Gerald, if you could shed a light on this to pointing me in the right direction"

So due to Gerald apparently hadn't time by now to deal with my humble inquiry.

Why don't you - as you are that intelligent and apparently know all the answers we are searching for - responding my humble questions?

As you say it is not possible, let me ask "Why?".

And if you might decide to "keep in touch" with me or us in this issue, perhaps you might explain as well what I found here:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v67/i1-2/p1_1

Thank you in advance.

Respectfully

Weld39
Why would you Recomend RT for surface cracks before MT or PT, even if the cast was of poor quality MT could be done easily. I do MT everyday and even when a cast surface has poor quality, proper evaluation of and indication could determine if it is relevant or not. I do a visulal on my inspection surfaces and have said to my self a number of times, that this is going to give me an indication but when i MT it there is nothing. For PT the proper systyem (type) should be considered for coarse surfaces . Proper dwell time and careful removal of Penetrant is key to a valid inspection. for example if a surface was retaining too must penetrant to make an inspection valid a simple look  background would let an inspector know if the inspection was no good.
If you insist that RT be done for surface cracks do you then follow up the better method regardless of what was or was not detected? When RT is used do you require them to take multiple shots to insure that a crack is detected if it could be, given the inherant problem with rt detecting surface cracks, or any cracks for that matter.
I would like to hear your justification on this.

Stephan,

A very comprehensive evaluation of the feasibility of creating isotopes from x-radiation waves.  My review was somewhat more simplistic and based on the definition of isotopes vs. x-rays.  Isotopes come from atoms and therefore have mass.  X-rays have no mass and cease to exist when electricity to the machine is turned off.

Isotopes

Definition:  Atoms with the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons. Isotopes are different forms of a single element.

Examples: Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 are both isotopes of carbon, one with 6 neutrons and one with 8 neutrons (both with 6 protons).

http://chemistry.about.com/library/glossary/bldef545.htm

X-Rays

Definition:  Light rays with a wavelength from 0.01 to 1.0 nanometers.

Also Known As: X radiation

http://chemistry.about.com/library/glossary/bldef31000.htm

I have to say this has been a very spirited and educational discussion!

Haven't had time to read your entire post, but do remember, the original post was predicated on being realitively new to the business at the time.

The original discussion dropped to can or cannot an isotope be created by means other than a reactor. For that I have clearly demonstrated that yes it can.

As far as the unit utilized a two decades ago, it was then an experimental unit. Had I known then what I know now I'd have gotten more particular information.
I spent a lot of time years after that trying to research what the unit was, and what they where thinking in using it, but unfortunetly, it had been sold off along with the building and the people transfered to varying points in the world.

If and when I find this information, I'll be sure to post it. The only thing can say for sure is, I still have my copy of the SSOP and it clearly states to hold before entering the room for the reasons listed.

Regards,
Gerald

" Presumed that the kinetic energy of a particle accelerated, depends to its mass and presumed that the energy level of an "atomic" or "sub-atomic" particle is described by using the unit "electron Volt" (eV), one may - theoretically - calculate the particle's energy been accelerated up to a particular level. Then, presuming further, we might approach if the particle energy in "eV" might suffice to "create radio isotopes", as also the binding energy within the atomic nucleus is expressed by using the unit "eV". So far I mean to have understood that, if we can reach particle energy levels - achieved by accelerating the particles - high enough to exceed the binding energy levels within the nucleus, and steering these accelerated and high kinetic energy containing particles to interact with the nuclei of a - e.g. metallic - material, we may assume that radio nuclides can be created even by the reaction between the accelerated particle and the material's atomic nuclei (either emission of neutrons - (gamma, n) - or emission protons - (gamma, p) ). "

That would be accurate information

Gerald, I hate to see you go but I do have you number if I need advice LOL. Maybe we will meet on another project some day.

Regards
Scott