Determining Natural U in equilibrium, Natural U *NOT* in
equilibrium, DU, Using the Ratios
Method of Gamma Spectroscopy. Natural U = has all
natural isotopes, U-234, U-235, U-238, same ratios as in
nature DU = U-235 reduced by
separation, leaving only U-238 Equilibrium = has
lower daughters NOT in Equilibrium =
Lower daughters NOT present
First let's review the term
"equilibrium". Uranium 238 and 235 are both naturally occurring and are
both
the head of a decay chain (note 1). In U ore, the natural state of
Uranium there is a mixture of U-238 (99.3%) and
billions of years. This equalized
state is called "equilibrium". In nature, there are many things that can disturb
some circumstances be removed from the
parent material by normal means. Not all escapes of course, but there is
close to normal. Uranium element can
be found in chemical combination with other elements, giving rise to all kinds
chemistry that all isotopes of a given
element are chemically the same, that is they combine with other chemicals
The main reason to mine Uranium is the ultimate recovery of
the U-235 which is the isotope needed for power plants and weapons.

Once the desirable U-235 is mostly removed, leaving
predominately chemically pure U-238 and a little U-234.
U-238 =
99.28%
U-235 = 0.72%
U-234 = 0.0057%
U-238 =
99.8%
U-235 = 0.2%
U-234 = 0.001%
DU is the material of most interest
to us in the home lab along with natural U ore and the various natural U
chemical materials.
Since there are huge amounts of the "waste" product ( presently
estimated at 500,000 tons in the US), it is literally
some of those uses. Since DU is
weighty or dense ( 1.7 times heavy as lead), it also finds use as ballast weight
in
being the most well known
brand. This practice has been abandoned in recent years but much of the material
is still collected and traded.

In the days
before WW2, Fiesta Ware was made with natural U. After the war, it was made with
DU.
It has been said ( note 2) that DU is 40% less radioactive than
natural U.
There are two reasons for this. The first is that the U-235, even
though only less than 1% of the natural mix, is
Secondly, we must consider the equilibrium status of chemically
purified U-238, which is the majority isotope in
longer represented. Now with a
half life of 4.5 billion years, you might think that it stays as only pure U-238
for a
starting to grow in. Within a
few months, the mix is now U-238 + Th-234 +Pa-234M +U-234. The last isotope
mentioned ,
None
of these first four isotopes are known for their high probability of
energetic Gamma emissions, but have
In the home lab we have easy
access to both natural U and DU. The many U ores abound, and any one would have
For DU, we select a late version of
Fiesta Ware, fuel pellets, U-3O8 chemicals or DU metal..
Performing Gamma
spectrum analysis on each would show the different spectrum
signatures due to the lack of lower progeny in DU.
Bi-214 Gammas corresponds to the U channel on geological
Gamma Ray Spectrometers, as it is a unique signature, and
can be detected at
We know from historical documentation that Fiesta Ware was once
made from both purified natural and DU. It may be
developed to measure the ratio of 100 keV X-Rays from U-238 and
185 keV
Gamma rays from U-235, thereby determining the absence of U-235,
an
indication of DU.
Depleted Uranium is that material left over when
U-235 has been chemically
( or mechanically) separated so that the U-235 can
be isolated for
scientific uses.
Natural U contains .72 % of U-235,
most of the remainder being U-238.
Technically speaking, any U that has less
than .72% of U-235 is called DU,
but in practical terms the materials that we
see that has been passed down
to commercial uses contains .2%. U-235. A
slightly less depleted material,.
with .3% is retained in stockpiles for
future refining.
U-235 is more radioactive than the U-238 counterpart, and
contributes
probably 50% of the radiation in natural samples.
Being a
chemical process, the lower daughter is U are removed from DU, and
must grow
back in from the moment of separation. Problem being that the 3rd
daughter,
U-234 has a half life of 22,000 years, so for practical purposes,
real DU
only consists of the Parent U 238, Thorium 234, Protactinium 234M
and U 234,
and a tiny bit of the remaining U-235 left from the
imperfect
separation.
U-238 has a nice X-Ray at 100 keV as well as
some other peaks in that
general area. The U-235 main peak is at 185
keV.
With a suitable probe, these two peaks can be measured
independently. There
is a little interference in the 185 keV channel from
artifacts of U-238
also, but these are of low occurrence and can either be
deleted
electronically, or in this case ignored.
A 2 inch by 1/2 inch
NaI scintillator was chosen as having the proper
characteristics fro this
test, namely a good response to low and medium
energies, and a rejection of
high energies ( for a good signal-to-noise
ratio).
Charting the 100
keV =/- 10 keV channel, then the 185 keV channel, then
subtracting the
background from each, then determine the 100/185 ratio
by
mathematics.
Some Fiesta Ware is Nat U ( before 1943), some ( after
1959 ) is DU.
Torbernite = 2:1
Atunite = 2.4:1
.5% U ore =
1.6:1
2% U ore = 1.8:1
Fiesta Plate = 2.13:1
Fiesta Platter
= 2.4:1
Fiesta Bowl = 2.3:1
Uranium Glass ( modern) =
9.4:1
It is obvious that of all the items tested so far, only the U glass
bead
from BlackcatSystems is DU.
in the previous post, I took things a bit farther and looked
at the lower U
daughters. Detecting the 351 keV Gamma from the Radium B or
Lead-214 gives an
instant insight into the equilibrium status of the Uranium.
It was found
that my Fiesta Ware samples were of normal U238/235 ratio, as in
natural U,
but there is an absence of lower daughters. This leads me to
believe that
the Uranium glaze was made from a purified form of U, not just
ground-up U
ore. The modern Uranium Glass bead also showed missing Pb-214,
but the ore
samples show a full load of it, with about 1/3 as many counts at
351 as from
the 100 keV channel. All the ore and other mineral samples showed
a large
351 contribution as expected, indicating some level equilibrium.
Atunite
and U ore showed a 1:5 ratio but Torbernite was more like 1:3, my
guess is
that this is due to natural chemical purification at some time in
the
distant geological past, where the U was brought into compound by
natural
forces, but the polonium's, bismuths,leads etc. were
not.
Uranium that has been chemically separated from the ore by man can
still be
natural U, but is purified, that is, removed from the other
chemicals (
polonium, bismuth, lead) that would exist along with the U if
left
undisturbed for thousands of years. This purified U would be just
Uranium,
with the ratio of U-238 and U-235 intact.

The
daughter ingrowths would of course start right away after purification,
but
U-238's 3rd daughter, U-234 has a very long half life, @ 240K years so
could
be considered a "stopper". The "stopper" in the naturally occurring
U-235
portion would be the 2nd daughter, Protactinium-231 @ 33K years.
Chemically
purified natural Uranium would never reach equilibrium again in
human
terms.
Perhaps we can look at Uranium as at least 3 different products
from here
on out:
A) Natural U in equilibrium
B)Natural U *NOT* in
equilibrium ( purified U)
C) Depleted U
If you have a Depleted
Uranium fuel pellet
When assaying Uranium Ore, it is important to check for
In order
to check for concentration, kits were made available from large labs, to compare
a sample you have weighed
the lowest grade the Government will
purchase ( at least back in the U-rush days). Some meters made in the 1950's
were
idea. In all cases a calibrated sample
is needed to set up the instrument initially.
for a commercial
endeavor.
See:
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/canmet-mtb/mmsl-lmsm/ccrmp/pricesccrmp-e.htm
The
meter used in an assay is usually called a Stabilized Assay Meter, and the
"stabilized" part refers to a
factors, to keep the output
very accurate.
Ludlum makes such an instrument ( It's the one I have) called
a 2218 Assay Meter, and the probe in that
Eberline has the
SAM-2 and uses a built in radioactive source inside the probe ( Am-241) in which
the
is set up as a dual
channel analyzer.
What you look for is the 185 keV signal given off by the
U-235, and compare that to the total counts received
standard probe. In such a case,
the system is used as a standard meter but is no longer
stabilizer.
receive the 185 and reject
higher energies by design, and a shape of 2" diameter by 1/2 in
thickness*.
*High energy gammas penetrate further into a scintillation
crystal, and indeed will pass right on through if the
probes is a result of optimizing this
effect to the best use. One wants to maximize the desired signal and minimize
distance into the crystal, so having any
extra thickness just raises the perceived background without raising the desired
Probes made for Plutonium detection ( main Gamma
a very low @ 13.6 keV) have a 5 inch diameter but are only
1/10th inch thick.
Similar smaller diameter probes are made by Ludlum and TA (PGS-22)

The above
furthers our basic concept that only a minimum variety of electronics** is needed in the home lab,
samples and a few Beta samples*** make setting up equipment and experiments a lot more
enjoyable. Lastly a
their monies on samples
and probes than a "collection" of electronics. Keep it
simple.
NOTES>
** Variable HV is a
must, and a digital scaler ( counter ) comes next.
Variable LLD ( also called
Gain, Lower Level Discriminator, and Threshold)
is good to have, but a fixed
gain system is fine of the lower level is
around 30 mV.
*** Minimum: Cs-137 @ 1 or 5 uCi, Co-60 @ 1 uCi, Sr-90 @ .1
uCi in that
order.
REFERENCES:
Note
1:
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/natural-decay-series.pdf
Note
2:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_tabkb.htm
Note
3:
http://www.idust.net/Tutorial/DBish002.htm
Note
4:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GeigerCounterEnthusiasts/
George Dowell
New London Nucleonics Laboratory
Copyright © Viscom Inc.
2007
The treatise may under no circumstances be resold or
redistributed in either printed, electronic,
or any other forms, without prior written permission from
the author.
Comments, criticism and questions will be appreciated and
may be directed to
the author by email to GEOelectronics@Netscape.com