Is Radiation Visible Using Thermal Binoculars from Amazon

[@JohnLobbanCreative]

The radioactive items won’t show up unless it’s radioactive enough to be creating heat. Kinda like those Russian power supplies pot out in remote places years ago.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

That’s what I thought as well. But I was seeing a slight increase in temperature from that radium post.

[@GeeBee135]

@@RadioactiveDrew You also need to consider the emissivity of the material that the post is made of compared with the contrasting mat on your desktop. You probably already discovered this, but two things at the same temperature can show up very differently in IR images based on the material that they are made from.

[@madmax2069]

​@@GeeBee135 yup, that's a whole other can of worms

[@tfrowlett8752]

Look at the Lia radiological incident in 2001, those Sr-90 RTG’s were hot enough to melt the surrounding snow

[@mysock351C]

I thought about how to take “pictures” with radiation but he problem is that you can’t focus most radiation since it goes thru the very things we normally use like lenses. Some lower energy x-rays can be focused by deflection but generally not much more is possible beyond simple position sensing. CT scanners get around this by using the big spinny thing inside and in the oilfield they use shielding behind the gamma ray detectors that provides preferential sensitivity with azimuthal position, which can then be used to image the borehole. Probably the best bet is a CCD near the source to image it.

[@MrDubje]

The fact that the source at 15:10 was more warm than its surroundings can be attributed to the fact that you handled it for a bit before. The way that not only the top, but the whole (metal?) post became warmer, gave it away. Thermal cameras are crazy sensitive with regards to visualising tiny differences between different objects or them and their background. If you have a shaved or otherwise "inflamed" or "healing wound" part on your skin somewhere, depending on the type you can see that too with a thermal camera.

[@Burbsi]

this resolution is so nice, as someone who's used to thermals that have approximately a third of the pixels available. However it's a shame those people can't get their department to implement a proper, modern recorder that provides clean footage. Thank you for going the extra mile to capture this externally!

[@mikeselectricstuff]

For a much cheaper thermal cam alternative, check out the Infiray P2 - high framerate & decent resolution for around $250

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I’ll give it a look. Thanks.

[@sneugler]

​@@RadioactiveDrew I also reccomend Infiray(now known as Xinfrared). I bought the T2S+ and it's been fantastic, you can either use it as a macro lens or longer focal distance. Great for electronics repair since it can focus down to a few mm

[@ErikMeike]

They even have a new 60 fps line with better NETD (XH15 looks very sweet, check out Clean Unbox KZbin). I have a T3S and like it except for the software can be a bit clunky.

[@GeeBee135]

Excellent video footage from the IR sensor, Drew! Love that you can see the skunk's warm (skinny) tail shining through the fluffy fur. I also like that you can see the IR shining down from the hot car engine illuminating the road beneath it.

[@LesNewell]

My takeaway from this video: If it's radioactive enough for you to see it with thermal imaging, stay well away from it.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I could see that being a good rule to follow...for the most part.

[@LoreTunderin]

Keep in mind smooth metal surfaces can act like a mirror to IR light, similar to the lenses in your glasses, which can make them appear warmer / colder depending on the temperature of what they're reflecting. Not that I think this is what's happening with the radium post, just something to keep in mind if you're looking for accuracy.

[@GeeBee135]

YES! Also, different materials have different emissivities (efficiency of radiating IR), so they show up differently in IR imaging even if they are at exactly the same temperature.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@GeeBee135 I totally forgot to mention blackbody radiation and how that dictates IR. There was so much to cover.

[@randy25rhoads]

Dude this is awesome footage! I’d love to see more videos from you about the intersection of radiation and photography.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks...I'm working on some right now. Doing some film photography again.

[@AScannerClearly]

It'd be neat to see how warm it could get if you put the radium post inside of a tiny but very well insulated container for some amount of time, and then opened it to check it in IR. After all most radioactive sources, if placed inside of an impossibly PERFECT insulating container, would eventually (even if in thousands of years time) create and hold enough heat to melt (and eventually boil) itself.

[@PlanXV]

Radioacivity for the most part is beta decay triggered by the weak interaction. Those usually fall outside the infrared spectrum as the emission is short range and very easily blocked. To get a response from radioactivity you need fast neutrons.

[@MrVolodus]

I bought myself cheap (200€) thermal camera. Do I need it? No way! But it is so amazing to just walk around and look at everything. PS: I can also see moon with it :) It was 4 degrees hotter than background.

[@Muonium1]

So the figure of merit for radioisotope thermoelectric generators, like the kind on deep space probes where there is practically no solar power to use, is the watt per gram of isotope used. The commonly used plutonium 240 is about half a watt per gram with its 88 year half life, polonium 210 is an enormous 140 watts per gram owing to its minuscule 4.5 month half life. Radium 226 as used in this smoke detector has a power density of a mere 30 milliwatts per gram (or per curie, which of course = 1 g for radium). For the Pyrotronics F3 which contains only 20 MICROgrams of material, that's a heat production power of barely half of one single microwatt. Totally invisible amount of power for an imager like this. Interesting idea though, and I bet you COULD see a sufficiently active polonium anti-static source with very careful thermal insulation from ambient convection and conduction.

[@cameronwebster6866]

I was actually just wondering this, so thank you.

[@brfisher1123]

To put the energy differences in perspective: the energy of the peak 9.35 micrometer infrared photons that are coming from this guy’s body have an energy of only around 0.13 eV whereas 137Cs (or more precisely 137mBa) emits photons with an energy of around 662,000 eV or 662 keV among others. It’s quite mind boggling how absolutely *HUGE* the entire electromagnetic spectrum actually is compared to say the narrow visible spectrum!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It is pretty amazing when you start to think about it.

[@Voting-does-nothing]

It's all on the same spectrum mate ..... Just different frequencies of vibrating energy.......

[@Voting-does-nothing]

It's all on the same spectrum....... Radio waves to visible light to gamma etc - it's all just energy vibrating at different frequencies

[@brfisher1123]

@@Voting-does-nothing I know that l, I was just pointing out how massive the entire electromagnetic spectrum truly is compared to the narrow visible light spectrum lol 😂

[@oldminer5387]

Neat video Drew. I have wondered how modern thermal image recording works.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Same here...it was a fun video to make.

[@dafterpunk6008]

This was fascinating! Felt like I was watching footage from some sort of military surveillance, and then out pops a skunk, lol. This was a great watch, would love to see if you could get one that the others are suggesting, so you can get more up close and personal with the xtra spicy items!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I hope so too. Would be fun to use a thermal camera that I can get closer to objects with.

[@Lex1uth3r]

Thermal is so cool, loved using it in the Abrams as its whats used as the primary gunsight. Way better than NVG's which can't see in full darkness since they rely on ambient light which they amplify (hence why the night sky looks so incredible through them).

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Yeah, I could only imagine using this as a weapon site. Especially when you are trying to track other vehicles. Really hard to hide from thermals out in the open.

[@skyking3525]

I know it is risky with trying new things with content and I like this stuff. We're all science nerds in here (I would imagine for the most part). Great video. Wanna see more of the UFO clips! That sounds very interesting! Keep up the great content Drew!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks. It’s always nice to try something new. Sometimes it doesn’t do as well as expected but it’s still fun to make.

[@jefftoll604]

Interesting. I've always wondered about this. Great video, thanks.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

No problem, glad you liked it.

[@dixiecup3928]

This was very interesting with the pick up of heat from the source.

[@JohnCouch-m4f]

Pretty cool test, it will be interesting the next time you go underground to see if they detect anything. Either way, thanks for sharing how they work!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I'll have to look for another thermal camera. I returned these to Amazon.

[@JohnCouch-m4f]

@@RadioactiveDrew Free test!

[@snower13]

I'm pretty sure the bats are drinking water not picking up insects. It's pretty good LWIR sensor (sensitivity) to me. MWIR would be better sure but way more expensive. We don't say "on thermals" in the industry. Radioactive elements will look as hot as they are. If they don't feel hot to the touch, they're not going to be emitting infrared radiation. If there is a material that can be in radioactive form and non-radioactive form, you could put them side by side and possibly see a temperature difference. And also, manually adjust hot/cold limits to in see smaller changes in temperature between objects -- it's more of a digital stretching not an actual sensitivity adjustment though.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I was thinking the same thing about the bats drinking the water. But they are doing it all night and there were a lot of bugs out. Bats have to eat a lot of food each night to stay alive. That "digital stretching" seemed more like gain control on the sensor. Kind of similar to the ISO being raised or lowered on a regular camera sensor.

[@snower13]

@@RadioactiveDrew Thermal sensors often only have one or two "ISOs". It's defined as the max and min temp it can sense. Typically called sensitivity. Then you have bit depth in the ADC that will define how small of a temperature difference that could be resolved for that sensitivity sensing. Finally, once the device has collected and digitize the data, usually there is digital scaling to make the user experience better. On 'proper' scientific cameras (even a FLIR one pro), the full bit depth is captured for every pixel in photographs in a raw-like format, then you can go in software and manually adjust the digital scaling. It's exactly like "curves" in photoshop if you're familiar. You capture the photo in RAW then you process with curves to bring out the detail you want. For video and live feed, typically the curve is automatically adjusted for the brightest and darkest thing in the scene but you can typically go to a manual mode to set the min and max of the "curve". It would just make it easier to see subtle differences in temperature -- by ignoring the very dark or very bright things in your scene.

[@Voting-does-nothing]

​@@snower13the bats are eating big Einstein.... Not constantly drinking 😂

[@snower13]

@@Voting-does-nothing Bats can't land on the ground so they have to fly-by drink. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3mQgKeeaK6Lo5o

[@portfolio91]

When I was a kid, my dad had these custom-made goggles, red and purple. Each was made of near-visible light filters. The red one let you see near- infrared. I don't have numbers. The purple one had filters to filter out all visible light except a thin slice near ultraviolet. You had to wear them for like 10 minutes, before you see anything, because there isn't much light that gets through, your eyes have to adjust. But when you do, it's mind-blowing. Dark green pine trees are snow white. The grass, I can't remember, but it might have been white or black. And people looked really weird and icky. They were, effectively, black and white, cuz you could only see a sliver of the spectrum on each end.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

That sounds pretty cool.

[@soylentgreen7074]

It’s crazy how much the groups of people almost look like they are CGI in a video game and not real

[@aftbit]

Wow that's a cool camera. I have a ~$300 one from China, which is okay, but surely not that high resolution. I can't wait until those get cheap enough for a normal person to own.

[@Ganiscol]

If it wasnt so expensive, I would explore the possibility of removing the optics part and replace it with shorter focal length lense - the thermal imaging component seems to be really high quality compared to what most FLIR cameras produce. 🤔

[@StormsparkPegasus]

Short answer: Yes, if it's radioactive enough to create a sufficient amount of heat. Which some isotopes definitely are. Look at the RTG's used in a lot of space probes (using Pu-238). Those get hot enough to glow red. That'd definitely show up on a thermal camera. That said...RTG's are enclosed and insulated, because they are designed to capture as much of the heat as possible to turn into electricity via thermocouples. So they wouldn't show up on a thermal camera. A loose piece of Pu-238 very well might though.

[@daveandrews9634]

Radioactive decay creates heat.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It does.

[@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88]

Now you have my brain thinking in overdrive. I'm curious if there are any camera sensors that can pick up ultraviolet light as well as lower energy x-rays.

[@bragapedro]

I'm pretty sure the sensor is the easiest part. If direct detection is too hard, you could always stick a layer of phosphor in between a conventional sensor and the source. The tricky part is the optics, though. It seems to be incredibly difficult to focus x rays in any capacity. Deep uv is possible, but would probably require mirror optics. Near uv is very much workable and you can buy little "sunscreen cameras" to see it

[@AKAtheA]

@@bragapedro DUV lithography (193nm) still uses transparent optical elements (an a *lot* of them), just not glass...crystal quartz, CaF2... as for x-rays and phosphors - unless your source is beefy one, you need amplification, the conversion efficiency is really poor

[@bragapedro]

@@AKAtheA Just searched around for a bit. It seems like I mixed up Deep UV and Extreme UV(13.5 nm). Also yeah, I'm pretty sure I overestimated the detection capabilities on the X ray part. All of the times I can recall that method being used, there was a powerful source not too far from the detector, so you wouldn't see much from a random picture of the street

[@AKAtheA]

@@bragapedro working with EUV is borderline masochism, you're fighting physics tooth and nail at every step :D

[@tfrowlett8752]

I just wanted to ask how you store your hottest samples? I keep mine in lead cylinders or behind lead plates. I’ll probably invest in a lead lined cabinet or safe eventually, but my strongest sample is only about 150 microsieverts per hour, and in its current storage container it’s reduced to about 7, and it gets lower with distance.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Hottest samples get stored in a old concrete lined safe. Does an okay job at blocking radiation. Lead bricks work much better.

[@BugZap98]

Great video. Would be nice if a company sent you something useful to try out. I bought a Radicode because of you, and it's been a useful blast at work and out on the town. Keep up the good work. Any cool glowing rocks (365nm uv flashlight) in your area?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Hopefully in the future I can use an actual thermal camera with a lens that can focus closer. I want to do a video about UV. I find all kinds of cool glowing rocks when out looking for uranium. I find a lot of petrified wood, which can have a orange glow to it.

[@StaticBall.]

What if you put the sources close enough to the thermal sensor to interact with it physically even though it won't be in focus, also you can change the focus with special lenses for these types of sensors

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It would take lenses made out of germanium to change the focus of the lens. Normal glass lenses block thermal. I did try and bring that source closer to the binoculars to see if there was an affect but I saw nothing.

[@StaticBall.]

@@RadioactiveDrew wow okay I did not expect that with such a strong source, the lenses seem to be affordable though im not an expert

[@glf001]

Interesting. Looked like it was maybe a tiny bit warmer. I wonder what one of those temperature guns (like what electricians use when checking PDU's for heat) would show?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I need to get one of those laser temp gauges.

[@cameronwebster6866]

An interesting (if somewhat irresponsible) experiment to do with that radium post would be to use a fan to cool it down, then see if and how long it takes to get back above the ambiant temperatue, and also have a piece of a similar metal, with similar geometery without the radium as a control. Edit: Spelling and grammer.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

That would be a good test and one of the only ways to know for sure if its a little hotter.

[@cameronwebster6866]

@@RadioactiveDrew if you do do this, it would probably be a good Idea to do it in a light tight box, to avoid any un-even external heating.

[@Liminaut0]

I was actually quite surprised to see that the radium post was creating a little bit of heat. That's kinda scary, and cool! :D Also I was wondering what it would look like if you brought it to an x-ray machine if it would be detectable! Also a little story here! I have a yttrium aluminum garnet scintillator crystal, (YAG Crystal) and I brought it to the dentist when I got my xrays. And when I put it near the machine, when it pulsed x-rays the crystal actually flashed for a fraction of a second! It was pretty cool to see! :D It had to be less than two feet away from the machine though! That happened on my visit this year! On my annual visit last year I brought one of those electronic dosimeter pens and fried it with xrays. So if you do anything with x-rays I would recommend being careful with any electronics, geiger counters, dosimeters, and such! :)

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I have been working on getting a X-ray tube working. But the used HV power supplies I’ve been getting off of eBay have all been junk. Might have to build my own HV power supply. I’ll keep that in mind about the detector getting fried. Do you remember who makes the detector. I know some are a bit more hardened against that type of exposure.

[@Liminaut0]

@@RadioactiveDrew That's cool! Once you get it working I would love to see a video about it! :D And the detector I was using was a cheap dosimeter off of amazon! It wasn't an amazing one, but it worked, lol! it was called the hfs-p3 I think! :) My other detectors that I've tested worked fine (mostly) but that one did not react well at all, lol! It measured it and then the screen got messed up, and then it killed the battery. I recharged it and then it constantly read it's maximum reading, (50msv/h). All my other detectors where just fine though! :D

[@Muonium1]

What type of crystal specifically, please? Green scintillating cerium yag? Did you need to have the lights turned off in the room?

[@The-One-and-Only100]

​@RadioactiveDrew you could use a whimshust machine as the power supply or even a plasma ball or tesla coil

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@The-One-and-Only100 I have a wimshurst machine and was thinking of using that for the HV supply for the tube.

[@kwilliams420]

Would it be possible to use some of the same ideas or technologies behind thermal cameras to make a radioactive camera?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Its a bit more difficult. I didn't get into the lenses used for these types of cameras. They are made out of germanium, instead of all glass. I think its one of the few elements that can have thermal radiation pass through it and control the refraction enough to focus the image down onto a sensor.

[@hamrepair3815]

Would be great if you considered investing in a cloud chamber, video and discuss different type sources and the effects of particles traveling through the chamber.

[@Elizebazz]

3:08 5:45 That shot looks like a part of the intro when doing a documentary about animals and wildlife.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks, I don't have to go far in Montana to find wildlife.

[@TokkanFX]

Did you try a standard thermal camera on the radium source?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Not yet. I would like to try some different thermal cameras in the future.

[@gafletcher1]

There are gamma cameras. I know where one is. It has a pin hole lens. The pin hole is in a very heavy hunk of lead. It has an electric cryo cooler for the detector. It must be a germanium crystal gamma spectrometer, for each pixel. Probably costs more than my house. I forget who made it. EG&G Ortec I think. I could get a picture of it for you.

[@stevengill1736]

Do they use those for looking through vehicles and shipping containers like US Customs used?

[@gafletcher1]

@@stevengill1736maybe, I wouldn't know. I think it's for looking for gamma emitting sources, so that would make sense.

[@mikezaq1]

It would be super cool if you could build a gamma camera. Essentially a lead shielded pinhole camera that you exposed the film to light for a brief period. And then have a light blocking but gamma emissive pinhole and areas of the film that are exposed to high gamma make a glowing aura around the radioactive items on the film.

[@MeThorvald]

Imho thermal vision should be mandatory on new cars. After driving one with it during night through the city center (Lund in Sweden), I would miss this feature very much if it would stop working. It's way better pedestrian safety feature than automatic braking that barely works xD Even though the car is from 2011 and the resolution is poor, I can spot "threats" (to my wallet) at much longer distance.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thermals for cars would be amazing...especially driving up here in Montana.

[@elvinhaak]

Nice. But yeah, better if it would really show 'the other radiation' more. It could be nice if you would be able to walk through a mine and just see the more radioactive regions or just through a landscape with it.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I agree. I’ve heard of a camera that can see ionizing radiation. I’ve been told the sensor is kind of like a mini cloud chamber. I haven’t messed with one yet, but I want to.

[@bragapedro]

@@RadioactiveDrew Ooh, that seems neat. I've never seen this before, do you know of a name/brand for that?

[@elvinhaak]

@@RadioactiveDrew Hope the factory sees this video and will send you one for review...

[@Harekiet]

Wonder if you could just create some sort of servo controller pivoting rig with a lead pinhole geiger counter that would scan a field of view over a long time and generate an image from that.

[@dalejr183]

Imagine how much radium we being hit with as kids 1980 and back. We all had those radium clocks by our bed. Especially the travel pocket ones. Radium far more dangerous then uranium glass or AM 241 in modern home detectors.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Radium can be much more dangerous...usually if its in a form where it can easily get into the body. The radiation from those watches, clocks or smoke detectors isn't that bad...depending on the source and how much radium the item has in it.

[@brfisher1123]

Thermal cameras are cool to have, I love basically being able to see “light” that our unaided eyes can’t see!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It’s more like being able to see heat, which is crazy on its own. Being able to see the different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum is pretty amazing.

[@brfisher1123]

@@RadioactiveDrew If only if there were small affordable gamma cameras that would register radioactive gamma emitting objects as glowing then that would be cool to have. I think hospitals use something similar to that.

[@LordFalconsword]

As a child of the atom, growing up in the 60s and 70s, the counts on that radium source made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Its a spicy source for sure. But its not that bad when you handle it for short periods of time.

[@WR3ND]

Yes, but it would have to be extremely active, industrial grade spice, or an extremely rare source and natural concentration, like the natural uranium reactors that were found in Africa.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Now that would be a good test…maybe inside of a uranium mine.

[@michaellee9781]

I thought was fairly cool looking given sounds it even better first hand. I do wonder if something like that but that could used at much closer range would show more it sure did look that one post was showing something.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Hopefully in the future I can use a thermal camera with better close focusing.

[@isiso.speenie5994]

More like 180by 120 pixels!! 😊

[@RideFaster]

these will be great to spot the terminators...

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Maybe...

[@dmoskva]

It does appear that there is enough interaction with the air particles to cause a bit of IR photons to be emitted, the imaging almost looks like a fuzzy cloud around the post.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Would have been so much more helpful if the binoculars could have focused closer...but then again, they were binoculars.

[@brax33]

I would be curious to see how well the latest generation of the FLIR One works against this. I think your cobalt test source would likely have the best chance of showing any sort of heat as it may be among your hottest 'point' sources.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I would be curious to see how FLIRs latest and greatest works as well.

[@davidtotten3042]

I tried to do the same thing. Different equipment, same results. I have a mono device, same resolution, but could focus to four feet. My most radioactive source isn’t even half of yours, but a strong beta source, and my alpha source didn’t do anything either. Now I know it wasn’t just me or my equipment.

[@PBeringer]

Was hoping you might've turned the IR binculars to the sky and stars, etc. Did you try any "ground-based IR astronomy" - that is, look at the sky through binoculars? Is the zoom only digital, or is there optical zoom with digital to extend it (as was usual with older compact digital cameras)?

[@ThePeterDislikeShow]

Drew question for you. I recently was reading about low-background radiation lead. It needs to have less than 20 Bq/kg. It occurred to me, why can't you use bismuth? Bismuth-209, if pure, has less than that, and the decay half-lives of the radioactive isotopes of bismuth are considerably shorter, bismuth-210, in particular, has a half-life of 5 days, and then you might want to refine it again to remove polonium-210 or you could just wait that out too. It seems a lot cheaper than low-background lead.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

They both sound like a pain to remove most of the radioactivity from. Would be easier to line a lead castle for gamma spec activities by adding layers of copper and tin.

[@ThePeterDislikeShow]

@@RadioactiveDrew even bismuth? Bismuth-210 has a half-life of 5 days. Find some 1+ year old bismuth and then do some process that separates bismuth from polonium in some way. I'd imagine any polonium impurities in bismuth probably exists as Bi2Po3 which floats as part of the slag.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@ThePeterDislikeShow I’m sure it’s possible and for very particular uses it might be worth it.

[@ThePeterDislikeShow]

@@RadioactiveDrew How about thallium then? None of the isotopes of thallium have a very long half life.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@ThePeterDislikeShow the real question is what does thallium decay into.

[@bkindler]

Just an idea: With you walking out of the shot wouldn't the binoculars auto adjust to show the source a little clearer?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I tried but the dishwasher had just finished and was putting out a lot of heat in the background. I tried to go someplace else in the house but the table looked much better.

[@TomKappeln]

They alive ! 😂 I also have one 😊

[@Nuts-Bolts]

Just found this on the Physics Forum for working out how much heat radium gives off. 1 mole (0.226 kg) of radium has 6.0 * 10^23 atoms (Avogrado's number N) 𝑁 ln ⁡ 2 𝑇 of those will be decaying each second. where T is the half life of radium in seconds, and ln(2) the natural logarithm of 2 (about 0.693) The half life of radium is about 1600 years. This is 8.2*10^12 decays/second. The decay energy is 4.9 MeV, producing radon, which is a gas, which might escape. If you contain the radon and all other short-lived reaction products, about 28 MeV/decay is produced. 1eV is 1.6 * 10^-19 J. Energy production is 8.2*10^12 * 4.9 *10^6 * 1.6 * 10^-19 = 6.4 W/mole or 28W/kg from just the radium decay, or 160 W/kg including the reaction products. Therefore, even 1 gram would only generate 0.160 watts!!! Thinks… Could the brassy (good heat conductor) smoke detector source be conducting heat from the gloved finger tips?

[@RickyisHere]

Drew, would you post the UAP/UFO video somewhere in your social media, how many of those did you see?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I'll try and post it on my Instagram. That was the best recording of one but I saw a couple others while I wasn't recording. The one I posted was taken from Idaho on the way to Twin Falls.

[@RickyisHere]

@@RadioactiveDrewThank you for your response, by the way have you thought about visiting Rumit Dome ? Thats a place with high significance for our nuclear history

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@RickyisHere I really want to head out there and explore some of the old test areas if I can.

[@InspectorGadget2014]

Just for funsies, I removed the IR filter for some of my older CCD camera's, making it a cheapo IR camera. Or at least quite a bit more sensitive to IR, with some mixed results. My goal was instead near infrared and UV and that did work out quite well enough for me. Your experiment is quite nice, did not think off it before. Something to endeavour myself with my sources but I expect the outcome to be even more bleak. As your source is pretty much "the bomb" (pun intended) when it comes to radiation emissions. My sources are way, way more weak. I do wonder when using an light amplification (e.g. night vision) such a source would show-up something. (more). As I believe such devices are more sensitive to IR differences and amplifying such (small) differences. Maybe an idea for a similar experiment?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I would love to mess with some NVGs. PVS-14s are so expensive.

[@InspectorGadget2014]

@@RadioactiveDrew I fully understand! Too bad we are oceans away, otherwise I would lend you my kits of course! (I even have one from the soviet era that uses a high-voltage tube. Next to some solid-state type NVG's) But maybe you have acquaintances in the hunting-world that perhaps be able to help you? (lending) Or perhaps an old camera with CCD which you can tinker with (read: remove the IR filter). But then the results may vary.

[@DirtyPlumbus]

You'd probably enjoy the Infiray P2 Pro. It's much less expensive, but I can tell you from experience that nothing I have is active enough to show up on it.

[@definedrebel2451]

Absolutely brilliant, I have theorized about ways to "see" radiation since its on the spectrum of light. It only seems theoretical. Like how dogs see different wavelengths than us. And I am not sure how much testing has been done on the subject. Do you know of any other tests people have done besides yours?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

No, I don't know of any other tests. But I know there is a gamma camera out there. Pretty sure I could rent it...would be fun to take it out for a spin.

[@definedrebel2451]

@@RadioactiveDrew cloud chambers are so popular because of its beauty and the fascinating idea of seeing radiation. Both things I hope are true with this gamma camera.

[@RideFaster]

Aren't they already bouncing lasers off the moon?

[@CC58]

You should be able to see galaxies and nebula too.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I didn't see any stars...maybe if it had higher magnification. The moon was the only celestial object I could see in the sky.

[@isiso.speenie5994]

The fact that super high frequency doesn't show on super low frequency detectors is elementary Mt Watson !!!! 😅😊😊

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It is…but still I had to check. The radium source did show an increase in temperature, which I wasn’t expecting.

[@PBeringer]

Where is Mount Watson? Is there a ULF installation there? 🤔

[@isiso.speenie5994]

@@RadioactiveDrew The gamma/beta bouncing off the surrounding structure could cause some heat but nothing like " the Demon Core " LoL 🤣😔😔

[@RadioactiveDrew]

@isiso.speenie5994 criticality accidents are some of the scariest things.

[@brfisher1123]

@@RadioactiveDrew True, look at what happened to Hisashi Ouchi in 1999 for example for those who are unaware. I know there were many more criticality incidents besides the 1999 Tokaimura one but that one is one the most infamous. Such a horrible experience Hisashi and his two other coworkers had to endure for months following that horrible accident.

[@adcaptandumvulgus4252]

Try one of those cheap cell phone Fleer attachments that go on the bottom of your phone where the power source USBC goes and mostly people that do like HVAC work or electrical work or plumbing or stuff in the walls exterminators things that want to see the heat source but not too far away that would probably be better for you and cheaper it's only a few hundred dollars

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I’ve looked at those before. I wish they were higher resolution. That’s why those binoculars were so expensive.

[@NellyCharlotte-n8j]

If one does not know to which port is sailing, no wind is favorable.

[@adcaptandumvulgus4252]

I bought a cheap spotting scope that sees about a football fields worth of thermal which is plenty distance for all the information you need normally as far as I can think of and it was only about twice as much as what the cell phone one is well under a grand still affordable so if anyone has some extra scratch kicking around and they don't have anything like that maybe if they see it on sale they might jump on it before inflation makes it harder to obtain if not impossible but that's just my not so humble opinion

[@Slimpawws]

So I imagine if you took this expensive equipment to Chernobyl, it should look "foggy", or maybe just slightly lighter image compared to someplace that isn't contaminated. Interesting idea, I didn't think to use thermal imaging to try and detect radiation, but sorta makes sense.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It wouldn't look foggy. There might some spots that have a higher temp than other due to decay heat from radioactive sources. But those would need to be extremely active.

[@EricBrokeIt]

NGL, Watching this video made me sweat. But I am also just a noob who finds the content fascinating.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Well I’m glad you found it interesting.

[@honkadonk9484]

I would love to see that source in a cloud chamber

[@wirelessdj]

There is a camera that can see radiation, but I’m sure you can’t afford it. It’s very specialized.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Yeah, that's not a camera you buy. But they do rent it.

[@Subsonik762]

So radiation, no... decay heat, yes... makes sense.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It does...especially with that source.

[@krz8888888]

How many millisieverts is that at 1 ft ?

[@b4d0n10n]

So, technically you should be able to see someone fart 😅too bad it doesn't work for radioactive things, unless they're hot hot

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I'm sure you could see someone fart. Pretty sure there are thermal videos of that.

[@b4d0n10n]

@@RadioactiveDrew haha yeah, "whoever smelled it, dealt it", can be put to a test.

[@mybackhurts7020]

Looks like a cult meeting😂

[@JohnLobbanCreative]

About twice the resolution of my FLIR I’m thinking. It connects to my iPhone.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

The binoculars are some of the highest resolution thermals you can buy at the moment.

[@JohnLobbanCreative]

@@RadioactiveDrew watching now. Yeah that resolution is impressive! Bet you wish you could have kept it!

[@JohnLobbanCreative]

@@RadioactiveDrew whoa, that’s a huge jump in resolution. I checked and my FLIR is only 160x120 thermal resolution.

[@TsunauticusIV]

You bought $8k binoculars to shoot a video and then return them? Nice. 😂

[@RadioactiveDrew]

The Amazon rental program.

[@alanmcnew5376]

I hate Amazon so thjs pleases me. 😂

[@EnergyTRE]

Definitely a different color than the larger one in that frame.

[@EnergyTRE]

10:40

[@EnergyTRE]

14:33 definitely a different color.

[@EnergyTRE]

Nice work btw 🤌

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Thanks.

[@proteusaugustus]

I have FLIR. The outline lets me put in mass.

[@MichaelSellery-k6o]

Drew, you have a VERY small nuclear reactor, albeit thermally useless.

[@nosleep7026]

Thermonuclear reactors exist, implying that radiation does emit heat at some point. I think youre 'lucky' none showed up on camera because if the source was emitting enough radiation to show up i suspect you mightve had a bit of a problem :D

[@BrokenCircuitRanch]

suddenly gets urge to own an F3.

[@promisel1964]

its all about wavelength

[@RadioactiveDrew]

It really is. Every camera…or device, needs to be tuned to capture a specific wavelength. It’s amazing this technology works in the first place.

[@tehmtbz]

You have a misunderstanding of how thermal radiation works. Any matter which has a temperature above absolute zero emits thermal as electromagnetic waves. At temperatures typical on earth, emission spectrum is primarily in the infrared range. (It's helpful to remember that all electromagnetic energy is composed of massless particles called photons. At the lower energy levels, these are radio waves, and microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet, x-ray, the highest energy state, gamma rays.) As temperature increases, the wavelength of the emitted photons becomes shorter, until they enter the visible spectrum. Heated metal is an example of this. The radiation is first visible as a dull red, but becomes bright red, orange, yellow, white, and then blue-white, as it passes into the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. Radioactive decay is an unrelated process that involves unstable nuclei emitting a particle to achieve a more stable state.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Guess what gamma radiation is…part of radioactive decay, depending on the isotope. So it’s very much apart of the whole electromagnetic spectrum.

[@tehmtbz]

@@RadioactiveDrew you can't detect gamma rays with an infrared sensor. There's a reason for this, as they occupy different ends of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared wavelengths are 700 nm to 1 mm, and have an energy of 0.001 eV to around 1.7 eV. Gamma rays have a wavelength typically shorter than 0.01 nm, and an energy ranging from 100 keV to several MeV. That's hundreds of thousands to billions of times more energetic. I was just trying to help man. I spent half an hour writing that first message to you in a little window on my phone in an effort to help clarify the difference. Some of these principles are not easily understood because it simply cannot be seen, which makes having intuition for it much more difficult. I understand you're trying to observe the unobservable effects using instrumentation, and I'm just trying to explain why it's not there to be seen. Wasn't looking to make anyone defensive.

[@Gggggh580]

Ual!! Great

[@simonreily7143]

I wish you wouldn't play with that radioactive source

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I'm not playing with them. They are being handled in a very controlled environment for the videos.

[@davidjernigan8161]

Maybe something like a FLIR that's designed to measure temperature would show a temperature difference as long as the radiation doesn't mess with the circuitry

[@thesalamnder]

I'd start with something that can see UV

[@garethjohnstone8662]

Drew, have you heard about the new radiation detecting chip that can fit inside a cellphone and detect ranges from 50KeV to 2MeV? Made by China National Nuclear Corporation.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

No...but it would work with the same limitations as all the other detectors out there.

[@garethjohnstone8662]

@RadioactiveDrew I just thought it was kinda cool.

[@ulfpe]

I want one of those..but the price is a killer

[@pnkflyd66]

Pink Floyd!

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Pinky and the Floyd. One of the best local bands from Bozeman Montana. Tragically the keyboardist was killed in a motorcycle accident recently.

[@pnkflyd66]

@@RadioactiveDrew I checked them out on the tube. Not bad at all. RIP to the keyboard player 😢

[@DownEastSaw]

Thermal(infrared) radiation and Nuclear (alpha, beta, and gamma)radiation are just different wavelengths of the same energy spectrum. However if you use different/confusing language to speak about them, like referring to infrared radiation as merely “thermal” and referring to alpha,beta, and gamma radiation as only “radiation”, you’re being semantically misleading.

[@RadioactiveDrew]

Alpha and beta radiation aren’t apart of the electromagnetic spectrum like X-rays and gamma rays.

[@Nuts-Bolts]

So uniquely, a radioactive isotope can be both a hot source and a cold one at the same time. Yeah. In the modern woke world that make complete sense to me.

[@MiddlePath007]

Your name is my reputation with a few moms around the country. To be fair, I don't seek out moms, I only like single ladies.

[@nopenope5812]

want this for airsoft

[@RadioactiveDrew]

They would certainly be helpful.

[@confuseatronica]

lol skunk

[@RadioactiveDrew]

I was way more concerned about one of those skunks walking right up to me than a deer, elk of coyote. Skunks have no fear.

[@toolbaggers]

So you returned an item to Amazon turning a new product into used for this one video? Because you tried to use it for something that it's not supposed to do?

[@RadioactiveDrew]

There were specs missing from every description of the thermals. So the only way to check the minimum focus distance or what the video compression looked like was to try them out.

[@scottessery100]

10:17 your idea of little isnt the same as the general population :)

[@JAPANattacks]

hello

[@MiamiMillionaire]

These are definitely some “cool“ shots, and I don't think I'm the only viewer who has wondert if you can see trugh a woman's t-shirt with this... But it would also be interesting to see what the picture looks like if you film underneath the Chernobil reactor whear the most radioactive matterial is 😁👍