Re: Geiger, not binomial ?

["Bernard G. Cleyet & Nancy Ann Seese" <georgeann@REDSHIFT.COM>]

Re 4 Pi counting:


Not so fast.  Well actually, yes, as this was determined long ago for
Alpha decay (I haven't read about other decays.).  Constable and Pollard,
and Feather using 4 Pi and 2 Pi detection determined a random interval
distribution.  However, in the most extensive study this did not occur
until all the easily detached aggregates had separated by recoil from the
polonium source.  The data consisted of eighteen runs of six to seven
hours each.  "After all easily detached aggregates had been torn off, the
source more exactly approximated one of constant strength, and the
observed emission of the rays approached randomicity." Note a Geiger point
counter was used (1930)

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Hi Sam:
> I do not remember many things either. John D. was probably thinking
> in terms of 100% efficient 4*Pi detector. But the efficiency is only a
> constant multiplication factor, such as 0.01 (depends on what is being
> counted, etc.). I would not agree, for example, that the probability of
> a single Ra atom (T=1600 years) to decay at any given hour (or second)
> is 1/2. It is much much smaller. The probability is 1/2 for decaying or
> not during a much much longer time interval.
> Regards, Ludwik