RE: REALLY LATE OFF LIST REPLY Uranium Nitrate- a few comments

["Robert W. Schramm" <schrammrus@hotmail.com>]

Dear Bob,

  .... ..,

  I am K8AOM Originally Tech Class now General. Started back in the days 
when really high frequency was 6 meters ;-) Had to build everything ourself 
including antennas. Had a tower on top of a hill and worked 6, 2 and 1 1/4 
meters during contests. Have worked Cuba, Nova Scocia and
California on 50 Watts input on 50.1 MHertz when the band was open. 8 MC 
Xtal tripler, doubler and a 5881 final for 50 watts. Built a linear amp once 
to get 250 watts input but it tore up Channel
Two locally (KDKA-TV). To many people with pitchforks and torches looking 
for me so had to take it off the air. Did a little amateur TV at one point.
  I still get on 2 meters ocassionaly but ham radio not so much fun 
anymore. Nobody seems to build there own equipment. When I had a little 10 
watt home built 6 meter rig in my car it was something
unusual. Now everyone has cell phones.
  Anyway, I did have some great times with Ham radio. I'm afraid it is 
dieing out -- mores the pity.
Thanks for ur FB email QSO. 73s

Bob (Kilowatt Eight Awful Old Man)




Check out my web page at:

 http://www.SchrammStudio.com









> From: BOB KISS <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>
> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: REALLY LATE OFF LIST REPLY Uranium Nitrate- a few comments
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:20:52 -0400
>
> DEAR BOB,
> 	1963  WN2EYC
> 	1965	WB2UYM
> 	1988  AA2CV
> 	Since 1993, 8P9FF
> 	A fellow ham operator!?!?  -..  .-  --  -.   --..--
> 		73
> 		BOB KISS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert W. Schramm [mailto:schrammrus@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:48 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Uranium Nitrate- a few comments
>
>
> Bob Schramm is here "reading the mail" as we old ham radio operators used 
> to
>
> say. That means
> listening in but not talking. I was waiting to see what the direction of 
> the
>
> discussion would be.
>
> Not being a chemist, I'm not sure how uranium nitrate is made but I suspect
> one simply combines
> nitric  acid and uranium metal. Its probably an exothermic reaction and
> hydrogen is produced in the process. Anyway that is not important. Uranium
> metal is radioactive. It is, as I recall, a beta emitter.
> Beta particles, which are electrons, will readily pass through glass but 
> can
>
> be stopped by a thick hunk of metal. However, beta emitters also produce
> gamma rays which are similar to Xrays. I think Cor was thinking of alpha
> particles which are easily stopped by a few centimeters of air. Note that
> alpha emitters are also gamma emitters. Uranium metal consists of several
> isotopes of uranium such as
> U238, U235, U234. Mostly its U238. U235 is the fissionable isotope that I
> believe Richard was talking about, but it occurs in such a small amount in
> natural uranium that it contributes little to the radioactivity. If you had
> some really old uranium nitrate there might be U235 in it but modern
> uranium nitrate is most likely made with uranium that has had its U235
> removed in order to make it into fuel rods for reactors and bombs. 
> Certainly
>
> one could make a diluted solution of uranium nitrate which would be less
> radioactive in the sense that the intensity of radiation would be less 
> since
>
> there is less uranium present. However, all uranium and uranium nitrate 
> will
>
> produce essentiaslly the same amount of radiation which depends on the mass
> of the uranium present and its halflife which is fixed.
> In other words the more uranium or uranium nitrate you have, the more
> radiation will be produced.
> The good news is radiation follows the inverse square law which means as 
> you
>
> move away from the source the radiation decreases inversly as the square of
> the distance. e.g. the radiation at 10 ft from a source is 1/100 that of 
> the
>
> radiation 1 foot from the source. 100 ft. away- 1/10,000 as much etc.
> So, don't keep your jar of uranium nitrate under your pillow or on a shelf 
> 6
>
> inches from your head.
> Also uranium nitrate  should be kept in a jar or some sealed container 
> since
>
> it tends to absorb water. Not as bad as gold chloride though. Like most
> heavy metal compounds uranium nitrate is toxic. I always warn anyone who
> asks me about uranium toning or uranotypes to keep their firgers out of the
> solution and to use Nitril not latex gloves and to wear eye protection.
> Nitrates can also be made into explosive. Black powder= 1 part sulfur, 1
> part charcoal, 2 parts sodium nitrate. Mirrors used to be silvered with 
> real
>
> silver by the old Brashier Process (sp?) which involved silver and nitric
> acid and thus silver nitrate. Ever so often a mirror silvering lab would
> explode. I doubt if, but don't know for sure if nitrates will explode when
> heated. I think they might just melt. You have to get them together with
> something else first. I have actually used a Geiger-Mueller counter to test
> a uranotye and a uranium-toned print. Result no reading above background.
> Perhaps a scintillation counter would detect something. Finally I know that
> "Keepers of Light" says uranium toning is fugitive and color changes will
> occur with time but none of my uranium toned prints and uranotypes have
> changed any. Doesn't "Keepers" make a similar statement about cyanotype?
> Doesn't "Keepers"
> also tell us to coat under a yellow "bug" light.  One more thin, uranium
> metal is very dense. I have read that the military has been using depleated
> (lacking U235) uranium to make bullets since it would have greater
> penetrating power than lead.
>
> OK, That's all folks.
> P.S. I do seem to like toxic and dangerous stuff. Maybe thats why I like
> women. ;-)
>
> Bob Schramm
>
>
>
> Check out my web page at:
>
>   http://www.SchrammStudio.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: C.Breukel@lumc.nl
> >Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> >To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> >Subject: RE: Source for Uranium Nitrate
> >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:56:01 +0100
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
> > > Cor, aren't there differences in strength?  Like between salad vinegar
> >and
> > > glacial acetic acid?  I certainly hope so.... I've had that package of
> > > uranyl nitrate in my cellar all these years, oops ! It came in a metal
> > > container packed in something like mica -- but over the years the
> >cover
> > > & most of the mica disappeared. Oops ????
> >
> >
> >..as far as I know (and I am by no means the expert) there are no
> >differences in strength. The (direct) radioactivity is of no great
> >concern as I indicated in my first respond. As Dick mentioned the high
> >radioactivity isotope ("radioactive variant") has been removed. I once
> >tried to expose a uranium toned silver gelatine to medical Xray film,
> >and obtained no image.
> >(disgress: I thought that uranylnitrate is a beta emitter, that means
> >that it's radiation "travells" only very short distances, it gets
> >absorbed by it's enviroment. That means that it's quite save to store
> >the stuff in a glass jar, even when you weight out the stuff you are not
> >exposed to radiation. But if you ingest it a beta emitter can cause
> >great damage on the cellular level: see the poisened russian in London
> >Alexander Litvinenko. Perhaps that is the basis of the great toxicity of
> >uranyl nitrate. But than again: I might be completely wrong here: Bob
> >Schramm were are you when we need you...;-).. )
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Does anyone remember--- dare I mention the name without some avenging
> > > angel sweeping out of the shadows to denounce me -- Jewellia? She did
> > > uranium printing, apparently -- and though memory weakens by the
> >minute, I
> > > think some of the prints were beautiful.
> > >
> >
> >..I have a realy nice Uranotype in my possesion , made by Bob Schramm
> >(he knows how to handle toxic stuff, probably likes it, seeing his other
> >love: mercury vapours for his daguerreotypes...;-)..
> >
> >
> > > But if you don't tell us what "I will not..oude koeien uit de
> > > > sloot halen....(dutch verb).." means, I'm going to correct you.
> > > (Like don't you mean "proverb," not "verb"?)  NOW, fella, what
> > > does it MEAN? ("Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs?"
> >Or...????) It
> > > *sounds* -- or make that *looks* -- wonderful
> > >
> >No it has another meaning: (digging with google gave a good
> >explanation):
> >
> >
> >'Laten we geen oude koeien uit de sloot halen' (literally: 'Let's not
> >remove old cows from the ditch'), is a rather odd and vivid expression,
> >which the Dutch usually use when they don't want to be reminded of
> >something . often something unpleasant - that has happened in the past.
> >This expression is typically Dutch, referencing both the ubiquitous
> >Dutch cows and the watery ditches (sloot) that border most pastures.
> >Using this expression is a way of letting people know you don't want to
> >talk about a certain incident. If, for example, you borrowed and crashed
> >your friend's car, and even though you paid for the repairs, your friend
> >keeps reminding you of the accident, you could say, 'Laten we geen oude
> >koeien uit de sloot halen'.
> >
> >I guess you'll guess that I was referring to Aqua Regia, but perhaps
> >it's best to leave it at that..
> >
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Cor
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into
> something more.
> http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtaglin
> e_gratitude&FORM=WLMTAG
_________________________________________________________________
Interest Rates Fall Again! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new 
payment 
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18679&moid=7581