Is K41 more valuable than other isotopes of potassium?

[ProjectFringe]

Can anyone tell me what the commonly used methods of isotope separation are for Potassium 41? I know there are many different methods used for isotope separation, but I'm wondering which method is most practical (cheapest and purity) in the case of potassium, specifically K41.

Also roughly what would be the cost to purchase K41?

 

[O2PiArr]

Just buy it. There is no way you will be able to build a calutron or avlis system for less money.

https://www.buyisotope.com/k-41-isotope.php

 

[ProjectFringe]

Just buy it. There is no way you will be able to build a calutron or avlis system for less money.

https://www.buyisotope.com/k-41-isotope.php

Thanks for your reply

Companies like that typically ask for your company or institution name when requesting a quote, but I am just inquiring out of curiosity as an individual, which is why I was asking. I thought maybe someone else had purchased it in the past and could give me a little more info.

I found one guy who posted on twitter that he purchased around 350mg (in KCl) at 95% purity for 26,000USD.

And I also pound a price list for Isotopes that have been electromagnetically separated, which list K41 (in KCl) at 99.17% purity at 145.5EUR (57,637USD for the same quantity). That is significantly more expensive, but I'm guessing it has to do with the purity?

So are there methods of separation for potassium which may have a lower purity rate, but are much cheaper?

 

[Rive]

So are there methods of separation for potassium which may have a lower purity rate, but are much cheaper?

This kind of separation is usually (I don't know the exact process used for potassium) about enrichment and not exactly separation. So higher purity may require several repeats of the same process.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Based on past messages, I think it's highly unlikely that this will do what you intend. It is likely a waste of money.

Isotopically separated materials start at $3000/gram or so.

 

[Rive]

Isotopically separated materials start at $3000/gram or so.

Well nailed
$145 for a mg?

A different source (from different times) shows the thing about enrichment and price (check K40):

 

[ProjectFringe]

A different source (from different times) shows the thing about enrichment and price (check K40):
View attachment 294036

Wow! Nice find!

So what would account for the difference in price? It looks like it used to be much cheaper. I would think that as technology has become more advanced the price would decrease, not increase. My only guess is that it has to do with the level of enrichment, which is listed between 85-99.5%, whereas the more modern list I found was listed at exactly 99.17%. Perhaps then there are still places out there that can provide lower purity at a more reasonable price.

 

[Borek]

Wow, at $1 per Mg it was even cheaper than the potassium itself.

 

[ProjectFringe]

Wow, at $1 per Mg it was even cheaper than the potassium itself.

Oh, good point! I forgot about inflation!

The text was last revised in 1961 which means $1 then is $9.30 now.

So the $11.75 listed is really $97.50 per Mg now, which is much closer to the current 145.5 EUR (164 USD), but still significantly cheaper. It is however more expensive than the guy who purchased around 350mg (in KCl) at 95% purity for 26,000USD, which works out to around $74.29 per Mg.

Anyway, thanks for all your replies. I have some rough idea now

 

[Borek]

You do understand the difference between mg and Mg, do you?

 

[Rive]

You do understand the difference between mg and Mg, do you?

I'm pleading guilty about that, but ... well, with a real 'M' instead of 'm' all those prices are just absurd

 

[ProjectFringe]

...something is strange. If you check page 1 of the book it says prices are per milligram. Maybe the abbreviation has changed since 1961?

 

[Borek]

...something is strange. If you check page 1 of the book it says prices are per milligram. Maybe the abbreviation has changed since 1961?

As far as I am aware - no, nothing has changed (m and M prefixes are old as dirt - according to wiki m was introduced in 1795, M in 1873). Most likely it is some strange convention that for some reason doesn't follow SI system, or just a typo.

 

[mesa]

You had asked if there is a method of separation to produce K41, but there other techniques. One option is to use you friendly neighborhood nuclear reactor to make your desired isotope.

For example, if you put argon into a nuclear reactor it has a decent reactivity in the neutron rich environment and will likely soak one up when there is an interaction. As argon is mostly Ar40 it will produce Ar41. This is handy because the Ar41 isotope is radioactive and likes to decay within a couple hours to your K41.

There are a number of ways to produce this isotope through nuclear transmutation, and it could even be purified by just irradadiating plain jane potassium (although not ideal).

The advantage to this and similar processes is very high purity (in some cases), with no isotopic separation (which can be a pain), but volume can be low.

 

[ProjectFringe]

Sorry, but I have one more question related to this topic. Can anyone tell me why potassium 41 seems to be much more expensive than isotopes of other elements of comparable purity and percentage of occurrence.

For example, according to this chart (Price list of electromagnetically separated isotopes), K41 (which accounts for 6.7% of potassium) in KCl at 99.17% purity is 145.50 Euros per mg. However, Fe54 (which accounts for 5.85% of iron) in Fe203 at 98.37% purity is 18.20 Euros per mg. And Ca44 (which accounts for 2.086% of calcium) in CaCO3 at 98.89% purity is 24.75 Euros per mg.

Therefore, I was wondering what factor or factors are contributing to the high price of potassium 41 in comparison with other isotopes of other elements?

I contacted the company who posted this price list and asked, but they didn't reply. Does it have to do with a higher demand of other isotopes reducing the cost, or is there a completely different reason? With my limited knowledge I would think Ca44 and K41 would be similarly priced due to many similarities such as weight, purity, availability of the element, and percentages of occurrence.

Any thoughts?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes. You are on a fool's errand. A difference of 8 in price is essentially nothing, and there are dozens of factors that influence price. It could be anything - byproducts, frequency of cleaning, cost of chemistry...

 

[ProjectFringe]

Yes. You are on a fool's errand. A difference of 8 in price is essentially nothing, and there are dozens of factors that influence price. It could be anything - byproducts, frequency of cleaning, cost of chemistry...

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a difference of 8.

K41 is 145.5 Euros per mg and Ca44 is 24.75 Euros per mg. That's 120.75 Euros (roughly $140) per mg difference in price, with K41 being 6 times more expensive than Ca44.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Great ghu.

Why does gold cost what it does while silver cost what it does and rhenium cost what it does? Or broccoli? Or kumquats? Or houses?

Isostopically enriched materials are thousands of times more expensive than their natural counterparts. Trying to determine if they "should" be 10,000x as expensive or only 2000x is, as I said, a fool's errand.

Why does X cost $Y? Because someone is willing to pay it.

 

[ProjectFringe]

Why does X cost $Y? Because someone is willing to pay it.

That's fine, if that is indeed the case, but there still must be a rational reason. So why are people willing to pay six times more for K41 in comparison with Ca44 or other similar isotopes?

If K41 is not particularly more difficult or time consuming to separate, and I'm not sure that it's not, then it must be being used in some specific situation which can demand a higher price. This is true even for gold, silver and other elements. So what situation is driving up the price of K41?

I would think that the reason why something costs what it does would be important to scientists and researchers because finding cheaper ways to produce or procure necessary materials can help extend the life of their funds or research time.

Sometimes you might just have to pay what you have to pay, but other times there might be a simpler and cheaper solution. But you never know unless you understand why you are paying what you're paying for.

 

[Rive]

So why are people willing to pay six times more for K41 in comparison with Ca44 or other similar isotopes?

I can see ~ the same price difference between Ca and K without any isotope-separation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but there still must be a rational reason

Like with tulip bulbs?

 

[ProjectFringe]

I can see ~ the same price difference between Ca and K without any isotope-separation.

Good call!

Are you referring to K39 vs Ca40? If so, they are still separated to reach higher purity levels I guess, so it is not like comparing the raw elements, but it may be a step in the right direction.

However, the cost of K39 @ 7.90 Euros is still twice the cost of silver, Ag107 @ 3.62 and Ag109 @ 3.85. I'm not sure what the cost of raw potassium is, but is it that much more expensive than calcium? I'm sure it can't be more expensive than silver.

Maybe in the case of silver it can be easier to separate because it is heavier? I'm not sure, but I still feel like there is a reasonable reason why separating potassium is so expensive...

 

[ProjectFringe]

Like with tulip bulbs?

Tulip mania was an economic bubble which occurred due to an sudden increase in demand and willingness to pay large sums of money for tulips. In these types of cases, the price of something may temporarily increase, but the bubble eventually pops, as it did with tulips, and the price returns to normal.

Is this the case with potassium or K41? If it is, then that's great, I would love to know what is causing the temporary increase in the price of potassium. Then I could decide to maybe buy my potassium at a later date, when the price returns to normal.

That is just another example of why it is important to understand why you are paying what you're paying for.

Furthermore, even in extreme situations, such as economic bubbles, people are still acting rational because they are paying for something which has greater value, even if it is temporary. So as I mentioned before, if potassium or K41 has some greater value to scientists for some reason, then I would like to know the reason.

Could it be possible that the high price of potassium isotopes is due to a high demand for K40, which maybe has more scientific value, and that K41 is just a byproduct of the potassium separation process, therefore, driving up its price as well?

If this is the case, then it is important to know, because it means that K41 can be produced at similar costs to other isotopes. Therefore, you can calculate at what required quantities it might be cheaper to produce it yourself.