[Kryptid]

All Wilson cloud chamber experiments have the isotope within the glass enclosure of the cloud chamber to the best of my knowledge.

Explain why a device designed to study weather would have anything radioactive put in it.

[Bored chemist]

All Wilson cloud chamber experiments have the isotope within the glass enclosure of the cloud chamber to the best of my knowledge.

Explain why a device designed to study weather would have anything radioactive put in it.

To be fair, that's easy.
Wilson would not have foreseen any reason to exclude, for example, radioactive potassium from the materials he used.

But the killer is that , if radiation originates from radioisotopes in the glass, why don't all the tracks originate from the walls?
Any event that starts and ends in the middle of a chamber shows that a alright 1234 is embarrassingly  incompetent.

[Bored chemist]

BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.

[Kryptid]

To be fair, that's easy.
Wilson would not have foreseen any reason to exclude, for example, radioactive potassium from the materials he used.

Yes, but the OP is talking about radioisotopes that were put inside intentionally.

[alancalverd]

Oddly, most published images of cloud chambers seem to be of school demonstrations, using a point radionuclide source  inside the chamber. Problem with cloud chambers is that they are a bit too unreliable for large scale experiments - if you've spent a day cranking up your cyclotron and remembering to switch on the computer (oh yes, it happens) you don't want the money shot to rely on a bit of dry ice that evaporated when you weren't looking, so you use a bubble chamber instead - more stable, no convection, and better resolution.

However here is a classic cloud chamber shot with several events triggered by all sorts of external sources. Either it's genuoine, or the agent of Satan has gone to great lengths to add the sort of specks and fibers that you get on old photographs. http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/cloud-chamber-lblomikron.jpg

[alright1234 (OP)]

A radioactive isotope is inserted within the glass enclosure of the cloud chamber but the decay of a radioactive isotope which results in numerous modes of decay such as gamma emission, photon emission, alpha decay, proton emission, neutron emission, and cluster decay. It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.

[Kryptid]

A radioactive isotope is inserted

Not in all of them. Have you even been reading the thread? Read this again:

The first cloud chamber was built by a scientist trying to study weather.
The trails from radiation were an unexpected complication.

He certainly would not have included any radioactive source, so the radiation must have got in from outside.

and

Explain why a device designed to study weather would have anything radioactive put in it.

[Bored chemist]

It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.

It often is.
Alpha particles generate short intense tracks, beta particles  make longer thinner ones.
(Gammas hardly reate tracks at all.
If you put the chamber in a magnetic field (and people often do) then the curvature of the tracks gives an indication of the charge, and the charge to mass ratio of the particle.

It really would be better if you tried to learn a bit about a subject before  getting all shouty about it.
Also;

BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.

[evan_au]

It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.

Some isotopes decay preferentially in one mode or another (eg alpha, beta or gamma rays). In principle you could narrow down the isotope from the type of decay.

Of course, some complex decay chains like Uranium to Lead have many steps, which decay in different ways, so it's not quite so simple.

alpha decay, proton emission, neutron emission... It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.

You can distinguish different types of decay by the length and thickness of the particle traces in the cloud chamber.
To be even more certain, you can place the cloud chamber in a uniform magnetic field, which will make charged particles curve, with a radius dependent on the charge/mass ratio. This allows discrimination between electrons & positrons and other particles.

cluster decay

This is new to me. Can you clarify what this is, please?

Oops! Crossover with BC...

[alright1234 (OP)]

It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.

It often is.
Alpha particles generate short intense tracks, beta particles  make longer thinner ones.
(Gammas hardly reate tracks at all.
If you put the chamber in a magnetic field (and people often do) then the curvature of the tracks gives an indication of the charge, and the charge to mass ratio of the particle.

It really would be better if you tried to learn a bit about a subject before  getting all shouty about it.
Also;

BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.

Your assuming all this to determine what forms what tracks requires isolation.

[Kryptid]

Your assuming all this to determine what forms what tracks requires isolation.

No it doesn't. If you compare the tracks around an alpha-decaying source with the tracks around a beta-decaying source, you can tell that they look different. You could even have both inside the same cloud chamber at the same time. It's easy enough to just look and tell the direction that the tracks are coming from.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Physicists are using the cloud chamber to justify the bubble chamber bubble tracks which is physically invalid since the radioactive isotope of the cloud chamber exist within the glass enclosure.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.

Gamma rays

[alancalverd]

It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.

Yet physicists have been doing so for years. We did it as undergraduates and some of my students went on to do it on a much bigger scale at CERN. It may well be beyond the intellectual capacity of a Harvard philosopher, but those chaps spend a lifetime proving that it is not mathematically possible to tie their own shoelaces, in order to excuse their inability to do anything at all.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.

Gamma rays

Of course he means those heavy gamma rays with a positive charge, that you get from what we ignorant medical physicists call proton sources. I think that ties it all up nicely.

[evan_au]

Cluster decay...This is new to me. Can you clarify what this is, please?

When I got back online, I found out what it is: Sort of like alpha particle emission, but emitting a consistently heavier nucleus (like Carbon 12 instead of Helium 4).
- But apparently it is fairly rare compared to alpha particle emission.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_decay

[Kryptid]

Physicists are using the cloud chamber to justify the bubble chamber bubble tracks which is physically invalid since the radioactive isotope of the cloud chamber exist within the glass enclosure.

Try again. This time, read what was actually written:

The first cloud chamber was built by a scientist trying to study weather.
The trails from radiation were an unexpected complication.

He certainly would not have included any radioactive source, so the radiation must have got in from outside.

Explain why a device designed to study weather would have anything radioactive put in it.

Gamma rays

Gamma rays cannot be steered or accelerated by magnetic fields (how many times do I have to say this?), so your explanation is not credible.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.

Gamma rays

I said a credible explanation.
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.

[Bored chemist]

Physicists are using the cloud chamber to justify the bubble chamber bubble tracks which is physically invalid since the radioactive isotope of the cloud chamber exist within the glass enclosure.

OK, lets run with this- briefly.
There will be traces of radioactive materials in the walls of cloud chambers.
In order to see what happens in the chamber you need some sort of window.
There are two practical choices- plastic or glass.
Glass almost always includes potassium and that's radioactive.
On the other hand plastics (perspex, polycarb polystyrene etc which are clear and so would make useful windows) are made from carbon, hydrogen and, in some cases, oxygen.
They hydrogen and carbon are derived from oil.
It's been sat in the ground for so long that all the radioactive isotopes  have long since decayed.
The longest lived isotope of oxygen has a half life of about 2 minutes, so any of that which was present when the chamber was made decayed before you got it delivered.

So, glass windows have a definite source of radioactivity.
Plastic ones don't.

So you should only see traces in chambers made from glass.
But, in the real world, the rates of production are pretty much the same (people would have noticed).
That's because, people did recognise the issue of potassium (and lead and a few other things) in the glass.
So they use special glass without those "problems".
That's why you can buy low potash glass vials
https://www.camlab.co.uk/scintillation-vial-low-potassium-glass-with-screw-cap-pack-of-500-pv91693.aspx

So, they use low activity glass or plastic to make cloud chambers.

And then there's the simple obvious issue which you ignored, so here it is again.

If that was relevant, all tracks would start at the wall of the container.
They don't.

So, you are still wrong.