My cloud chamber didn't make any tracks....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around troubleshooting issues with a homemade cloud chamber that is not producing visible particle tracks. Participants explore potential causes and solutions, sharing their experiences and suggestions related to the construction and operation of cloud chambers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Jamie speculates that the chamber's volume may be too large for the amount of dry ice used, potentially affecting the temperature.
  • Jamie also considers that air entering the chamber could disrupt the conditions needed for particle tracks to form.
  • Another participant suggests that cosmic ray particles may be scarce, referencing a past project that required specific conditions to observe tracks.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of the light source, with one participant mentioning the need for very bright lighting to see tracks.
  • Discussion includes the use of Americium as a radiation source, with clarification that alpha particles emitted would need to be inside the chamber to be detected.
  • One participant shares that their experience with a school cloud chamber indicated that it sometimes produced fog without tracks, suggesting variability in performance.
  • Another participant notes that the ethanol used in the chamber can absorb moisture, which may hinder performance if the water content is too high.
  • Concerns are raised about the type of radiation detected by Geiger counters, with some suggesting that they primarily respond to gamma radiation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the causes of the lack of particle tracks, with no consensus reached on the most likely explanation or solution. Various hypotheses are presented, but uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of different setups and materials.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention limitations related to the setup, including the need for specific light conditions, the importance of maintaining the chamber, and the potential impact of moisture on the ethanol used.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in building or troubleshooting cloud chambers, as well as those exploring particle detection and radiation sources in experimental physics.

doggonemess
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Greetings all,

I finally made a cloud chamber using an old aquarium and dry ice. Now, I got the expected result to happen, with a fine mist falling from the top like snow, but didn't see a single particle track. Any ideas why this might be? I have some guesses, but wanted someone with experience to help me troubleshoot.

My guess would be that the volume of the chamber was too large compared to the amount of dry ice used, making the chamber cold, but not cold enough. It could also be that air was entering the chamber, as I could definitely see convection in the mist.

I have a few videos, which I'll try to upload just for fun.

Thanks!
Jamie
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I uploaded a low-res copy of the video here:



The plate at the bottom of the tank is Fiestaware. I figured I'd give myself the best shot I could at 'seeding' the chamber with radiation. It is absolutely the most energetic beta source I have - it makes my Geiger counter go nuts. Still nothing.

Oh, and that's my son singing in the background. At first I thought he was singing "Ode to Joy", but then I think after it might be Star Wars...
 
Hi!
Have you any luck with your cloud chamber?
 
Maybe there aren't very many cosmic ray particles.
I used a project from Scientific American about 56 years ago. Aluminum sheet and epoxy glue. Coolant was dry ice in methanol, about -40 degrees. You need a very, very bright light.

A speck of Americium from an old smoke detector should provide good alpha tracks.
 
It's funny that you mention Americium, as I do have a sample of that. But I have a better sample - Fiestaware. Judging by my Civil Defense radmeter, it should be spitting out beta particles like crazy. I think the problem was my setup. I plan to do much better next time.
 
IIRC, the 'Nuffield' cloud-chamber in our school's physics lab had 'bad hair days' when it would fog okay but not track. We never did figure why...
 
MRBlizzard said:
A speck of Americium from an old smoke detector should provide good alpha tracks.

doggonemess said:
It's funny that you mention Americium, as I do have a sample of that.
but remember that the Americium will have to be inside the chamber
as the alpha particles won't penetrate the glass case and any paths seen
will be very short.

doggonemess said:
But I have a better sample - Fiestaware

what is that ? never heard of it

doggonemess said:
Judging by my Civil Defense radmeter, it should be spitting out beta particles like crazy

most radiation detectors respond primarily to gamma particles (rays) tho some will respond to
them, maybe your unit is of that type
 
Geiger counters around Fiestaware (about 14% by weight uranium in the glaze of the depression era orange-red version) catch mostly beta radiation, according to the literature I've seen. I worked in a museum for 3 years with a cloud chamber. It typically took about an hour after startup to start getting good tracks. Chamber also needed periodic maintenance for best results. I think the ethanol (recycled in a museum-class cloud chamber) was picking up moisture from the air, and became ineffective when the water content got excessively high. Lab-grade high-purity ethanol is recommended. Good lighting is also a big issue.
 
  • #10
The light source I used was my father's slide projector. The light shines in from the side. Another problem was getting the right amount of water onto the black felt on the bottom of the cloud chamber. (I'm amazed I remember these problems.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
28K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K