Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance 418

Posted by kdawson
from the not-so-fast-there dept.
KentuckyFC writes "We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick. What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data at different times of the year?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance

Comments Filter:
  • Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot@gm a i l . c om> on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:05AM (#24793149) Homepage Journal

    Does this have any ramifications for carbon dating?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:07AM (#24793181)
      Yes, you can now only date graphite. Diamonds are no longer acceptable dating material.
    • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)

      by meringuoid (568297) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:14AM (#24793265)
      I'd expect not. The variation would be over the course of a year, and carbon dating works on a timescale of centuries to millennia; it would even out. Besides that, we have other clocks to calibrate carbon dating against; you can carbon-date a historic artefact of known age, you can count tree rings or ice layers, stuff like that.

      On a timescale of billions of years, however, the luminosity of the Sun has increased substantially, and if that accelerates radioactive decays by some neutrino interaction then the uranium-lead clock would be off and the Earth might be considerably older than we thought.

      • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nymz (905908) on Friday August 29, 2008 @10:18AM (#24794187) Journal

        The variation would be over the course of a year, and carbon dating works on a timescale of centuries to millennia; it would even out.

        Is that assuming the only measurable factor is based upon the distance from the sun? Because that would seem to be an incomplete description of radiation, especially since the article mentioned the possibility of solar flare activity causing the decay rate to change.

        The old axiom of "The more I learn, the less I know" could very well hold true for this subject matter.

        • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)

          by drew (2081) on Friday August 29, 2008 @12:10PM (#24796141) Homepage

          At least with regards to carbon dating, it has been known for some time that strict carbon dates are not accurate. These are referred to as "uncalibrated" dates. The explanation that I remember seeing is that the atmospheric ratio of C14/C12 has not been constant over the earth's history, but this may be a factor as well. At any rate, carbon dates for at least the last 15,000 years can be calibrated - that is, the concentration of C14 in the object being tested can be compared to the concentration of C14 in an object of a known age (e.g. from tree rings, ice cores, documented historical sites) to get a more accurate assessment of an objects age. In some cases this can lead to objects being considerably older than originally thought. For example, an uncalibrated carbon date of 9,000BC corresponds to a calibrated carbon date of nearly 11,000BC.

      • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kestasjk (933987) on Friday August 29, 2008 @11:12AM (#24795113) Homepage
        It's still a depressing thought though. You can just imagine the Bible literalists latching onto this as a way to dismiss evidence based on radioactive decay.
        • by steveo777 (183629)

          Hey, I'm a creationist and I think this is fascinating. For the record, I don't care how old the universe is. The older it is the more incredible I find things. Things never seem to quit getting bigger or smaller. Or older or newer. As I understand it (I am no quantum physicist) the Plank Length is pretty much the smallest thing that we can account for right now, yes?

    • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)

      by kmac06 (608921) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:15AM (#24793291)
      Probably not. The change in decay rate was on the order of .1% (see Fig. 1 of the paper), which is I believe smaller than the error in carbon (or other radioactive) dating. Also, it is only these two isotopes that are mentioned, presumably because most other isotopes tested do not have this sort of periodic effect.
      • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kmac06 (608921) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:21AM (#24793361)

        Also, it is only these two isotopes that are mentioned, presumably because most other isotopes tested do not have this sort of periodic effect.

        I stand corrected! From the paper:

        Although there are hundreds of potentially useful nuclides whose half-lives have been measured, the data from many of the experiments we examined were generally not useful, most often because data were not acquired continuously over sufficiently long time periods.

        So the possible ramifications of this increase!

      • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bob-taro (996889) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:34AM (#24793541)

        Also, it is only these two isotopes that are mentioned, presumably because most other isotopes tested do not have this sort of periodic effect.

        I wouldn't presume that. The very thing that makes this so interesting is that "the modulations are synchronised with each other and with Earth's distance from the sun." To me, that makes it likely to be a general effect on all radioactive materials. I don't know if this will lead to anything that supports a young earth theory, but it'll be interesting to see what comes from it. The article also mentions:

        It turns out, that the notion of that nuclear decay rates are constant has been under attack for some time. In 2006, Jenkins says the decay rate of manganese-54 in their lab decreased dramtically during a solar flare on 13 December.

        This is a good example of how many holes there might be in our theories about the universe. We have been making measurements for a few 1000 years in one solar system (mostly just on one planet) and things that we don't see changing, like radioactive decay rates, we consider constant. It's exciting to think how much more there may still be to discover.

        • by Zenaku (821866) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:58AM (#24793887)

          This is a good example of how many holes there might be in our theories about the universe. We have been making measurements for a few 1000 years in one solar system (mostly just on one planet) and things that we don't see changing, like radioactive decay rates, we consider constant. It's exciting to think how much more there may still be to discover.

          This makes me wonder about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator [wikipedia.org]power sources on board the Voyager spacecraft, as they are based on the decay of radioactive material. Has our earth-centric understanding of the universe led us to build probes designed to push the boundaries of the solar system and continue into interstellar space, that will gradually lose power the further they get from the sun?

          Whoops.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Gerzel (240421)

            Eh if so, then we'll just have to fix that with the next generation of probes. That's science for you.

            Learning comes more often from misses than hits as misses are far more common.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by LWATCDR (28044)

            Note really because it is on the order of .1%
            So if the power supply was going to last say 1000 years it would now only last 999. Most engineers would use a safety factor as small as .1%.
            Those that do will soon find themselves unemployed.

            • by Zenaku (821866) on Friday August 29, 2008 @10:31AM (#24794381)

              If I understood correctly, the variance in decay rate between Earth's aphelion and perihelion is .1%. Earth's distance from the sun doesn't change by that much in astronomical terms. If we see a .1% variation over that relatively small distance, how different would the rate be at 100AU, or half-way to the nearest star? How do we know that radioactive isotopes decay at all if you get them far enough away from a star?

              It's also not simply a matter of how long the power supply will last. Those generators work by converting the heat from each decay event into electricity, and if the rate of decay is less than it should be, then it will not produce continuous power.

              I'm not saying that it's definitely a problem, I just think this raises interesting questions.

              • by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Friday August 29, 2008 @11:54AM (#24795861) Journal

                If I understood correctly, the variance in decay rate between Earth's aphelion and perihelion is .1%. Earth's distance from the sun doesn't change by that much in astronomical terms...

                But Earth's distance from the sun does change by more than 0.1% during its orbit:
                Aphelion distance = 152.1 million km
                Perihelion distance = 147.3 million km
                So aphelion distance from the center of the sun is 3.2% greater than perihelion distance. Alternatively, both aphelion and perihelion differ from their mean by 1.6%.

                • by Zenaku (821866) on Friday August 29, 2008 @12:06PM (#24796083)

                  What gives you the idea that the percentage change in distance has to equal the percentage change in decay rate? I would expect them to be related in an exponential or logarythmic way, but even if they were related linearly, that wouldn't mean that a 3.2 change in distance should mean a 3.2 change in decay rate.

                  What if the decay rate increases by .1 percent for every 4.8 million km? What if it increases by the square of the distance times some constant?

                  What you've pointed out here is kind of meaningless.

          • by jschen (1249578) on Friday August 29, 2008 @10:34AM (#24794433)
            The Voyagers was the first thing that came to my mind, too. If the rate of radioactive decay is dependent on neutrino flux from the sun, then shouldn't their RTGs have long since gone dead as the rate of decay slowed (due to increasing distance), rather than maintaining better performance than originally anticipated (due to better performance of the thermocouple than anticipated)? (NASA link [nasa.gov]) Given that both spacecraft are alive and well out past the heliosphere, I think we can safely conclude that the rate of decay of the plutonium onboard is not meaningfully influenced by solar neutrino flux.
            • by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Friday August 29, 2008 @11:34AM (#24795519) Journal

              I think you got it backwards. They think that neutrino flux slows down radioactive decay. As probe gets farther away from the sun, then it will decay faster.

              • by Zenaku (821866) on Friday August 29, 2008 @11:58AM (#24795927)

                If the rate of decay increases with distance from the sun, that would explain the accelleration -- faster decay means more heat being turned into power. The probes could be accelleration because they are overpowered.

                It would also explain the better than expected performance of the thermocouple -- it only looks more efficient than it should be because we are starting off with more input heat than we think we are.

                All of this is speculation, of course. I'm no physicist, and it's way to early to know what this discovery means.

          • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Friday August 29, 2008 @11:20AM (#24795243) Journal
            Could this explain Pioneer acceleration anomaly [wikipedia.org] ?
    • by clickety6 (141178) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:18AM (#24793343)

      Yes - but not enough to account for the difference between Joan Rivers' apparent and actual age.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I am more concerned about the other end of that - time-keeping --- the communications networks get their time hacks from clocks based upon the decay rate of isotopes (e.g. a cesium clock).

      The cool thing is, if this periodical effect is a constant function, then we can adjust our clocks based upon this new knowledge -- making them more accurate over the long haul.

      As for carbon dating, assuming what I said was true, I don't see why you could not apply the function to get a more accurate reading - not that car

    • Seriously : No (Score:5, Informative)

      by DrYak (748999) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:29AM (#24793461) Homepage

      Does this have any ramifications for carbon dating?

      Seriously : No.
      For 2 reasons.

      I. - Effect on carbon
      For now carbon isn't on the list of the elements that seem affected by the distance to the sun.

      II. - Not a significant variation.
      in TFA, variation seem to be very well correlated with the distance *BUT* these variations are really small : only a small fraction of percent (~0.15%). To cite one of the commenters on TFA's blog thread :

      That said, itâ(TM)s not *terribly* unsettling to me; the variations are small (measurable,but small) and to me itâ(TM)s all part of the Wonderful World of the Weird that is QM.

      If we discover that carbon is among the elements influenced by the sun too, those mere ~0.15% of variation will be insignificant compared to the skew that happens with varying concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere [wikipedia.org] (see wikipedia's graph of variation) - which already requires that we do calibrations anyway.
      (Current carbon dating doesn't extrapolate the age purely by deducing the levels from the decay rate, but instead uses tables where corrections have been inserted based on the carbon dating of thing with known age)

      So in short : for now it doesn't have any ramification and anyway it couldn't have any more than we already compensate for.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Rich0 (548339)

        Still, it makes you wonder whether other astronomical events could have had an impact. Suppose some supernova nearby blasted the earth with neutrinos and caused 10% of a sample of isotope to decay in seconds - then return to normal rates of decay? Suppose the sun drifted into some cloud of dark matter a billion years ago and that messed things up?

        We always assume the laws of physics are the same everywhere. This is probably true at a fundamental level, but it doesn't mean we understand all the laws of ph

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by avandesande (143899)

        You are assuming that the neutrino flux from the sun is constant. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that this may have some effect on carbon 14 dating.

    • Cesium decay (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mcvos (645701) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:38AM (#24793595)

      I'm more worried about the effect on Cesium decay. Did we accidentally base our definition of time on a variable rather than a constant?

    • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)

      by es330td (964170) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:48AM (#24793729)
      I'm more interested to know if this has any impact on nuclear waste. If decay can be sped up artificially one of the biggest objection points against widescale adoption of nuclear power in the US goes away.
    • Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fatphil (181876) on Friday August 29, 2008 @10:35AM (#24794451) Homepage
      Take an old vinyl record. Punch a new hole just off-centre. Play the record. Sometimes it's too high pitched (fast) and sometimes it's too low pitched (slow). Yet the song still takes the same length of time to play.

      I.e. no.
  • How To Test It (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nhojovadle]> on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:06AM (#24793155) Journal

    First, some theorists think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.

    You left out the best part of the paper, where they propose how to test these theories:

    These conclusions can be tested in a number of ways. In addition to repeating long-term decay measurements on Earth, measurements on radioactive samples carried aboard spacecraft to other planets would be very useful since the sample-Sun distance would then vary over a much wider range. The neutrino flux hypothesis might also be tested using samples placed in the neutrino flux produced by nuclear reactors.

    Sounds like we could test the latter relatively easily.

    Also, Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere H. Jenkins!!!

    • Re:How To Test It (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:14AM (#24793269) Homepage

      My question would be, once they discover the cause, can we use that information? First application that comes to mind that I'd love to see is, if we can shorten something's half-life, can that be used to help dispose of radioactive nuclear waste, thereby removing the main objection to nuclear power?

  • by imstanny (722685) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:07AM (#24793183)
    ...has Pamela Anderson been given the news?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sdpuppy (898535)
      Wait they gave her radioactive Silicon-32 instead of Si-29?

      No wonder why those things glow...

  • Pioneer Anomaly (Score:4, Interesting)

    by andyh3930 (605873) * on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:08AM (#24793193)
    Could this be the cause of the Pioneer Anomaly [planetary.org] ?
  • Cool! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kmac06 (608921) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:08AM (#24793197)
    If this turns out to be true, and not a product of some experimental error, it sounds like it could lead to some very interesting new theories. If it's due to neutrino flux, that indicates neutrinos interact much more strongly than previously thought.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gewalt (1200451)
      It also means the next generation neutrino detectors are going to be nuclear decay based. That should prove interesting indeed.
  • Uhhh... (Score:3, Funny)

    by oodaloop (1229816) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:10AM (#24793217)
    So the earth may really be 5,000 years old? Shit. I have some apologizing to do on the Creationism vs Evolution yahoo message boards.
  • by apodyopsis (1048476) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:14AM (#24793277)
    See! I told you that dendrochronology was more accurate!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology [wikipedia.org]

    I pity the man who has to interrupt two scientists arguing about decay rates and tell them they were both right.
  • by arkham6 (24514) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:17AM (#24793327)
    Could perhaps the distance between the earth and the sun and the relationship for nuclear decay be in some way effected by the gravitational field fluctuations that occur as well? Time is dilated by gravity, so perhaps are we seeing a further proof of Special relativity?

    Or are they simply looking for casual relationships where none actually exist. Perhaps the decay rate relates to the amount of pastafarians on earth.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Colonel Korn (1258968)

      Could perhaps the distance between the earth and the sun and the relationship for nuclear decay be in some way effected by the gravitational field fluctuations that occur as well? Time is dilated by gravity, so perhaps are we seeing a further proof of Special relativity?

      Or are they simply looking for casual relationships where none actually exist. Perhaps the decay rate relates to the amount of pastafarians on earth.

      Since the measurement and the material are both in the same location, time dilation would affect them both to the same extent, meaning that the detector would not be able to measure a difference in the half life.

    • by sjwaste (780063) on Friday August 29, 2008 @10:09AM (#24794061)
      Could perhaps the distance between the earth and the sun and the relationship for nuclear decay be in some way effected by the gravitational field fluctuations that occur as well? Time is dilated by gravity, so perhaps are we seeing a further proof of Special relativity?

      Or are they simply looking for casual relationships where none actually exist. Perhaps the decay rate relates to the amount of pastafarians on earth.


      This isn't Craigslist, chief.
  • by Wills (242929) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:21AM (#24793365)

    We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields).

    If you count the presence or absence of observation as part of "ambient conditions", there are two cases where nuclear decay rates are affected by ambient conditions: The quantum Zeno effect [wikipedia.org] and the quantum anti-Zeno effect. [wikipedia.org]

  • by NuclearError (1256172) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:24AM (#24793383)
    They are just trying to force me to buy new updated nuclear engineering text books. I won't fall for it!
  • Phlogiston (Score:5, Funny)

    by Migraineman (632203) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:25AM (#24793413)
    It's the Phlogiston, [wikipedia.org] released by the central furnace of the sun. Doesn't seem quite so funny now, does it Pinkerton?

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with my Phrenologist.
  • by kmac06 (608921) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:28AM (#24793453)
    One possible explanation proposed in this paper is:

    In their theory, the Sun produces a scalar field which would modulate the terrestrial value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant EM.

    The fine structure constant [wikipedia.org] (about 1/137) has been measured to a whopping 10 significant digits, one of the most precisely measure physical constants. If there is a seasonal variation enough to influence decay rates by .1%, wouldn't this show up in different experiments measuring the fine structure constant?

  • ...stored on the interstellar star voyager I'm building, then.

    Should be able to pack a few more women on-board that way.

  • by culu (975903) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:33AM (#24793525)

    First, some theorists think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies.

    If this is true, we get some fundamental variables besides $_, @_, etc.

  • my pick (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mapkinase (958129) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:39AM (#24793615) Homepage Journal

    I use my own Occam's blade to cut off the first one and pick the second one.

  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:45AM (#24793691) Homepage
    But... look at the data [arxivblog.com]. That correlation is *terrible*. The phase is off.

    Also, note that since the perihelion is right around Jan 1, only about eleven days after solstace-- this data equally well correlates with season.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by avandesande (143899)

      We don't know that the neutrino flux is constant. Neutrinos are notoriously hard to detect and measure.

  • Radioactive waste (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IceCreamGuy (904648) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:45AM (#24793697) Homepage
    So could this possibly lead to a way to "drain" radioactive waste by exposing it to a high neutrino flux? Or is it the other way around... does a higher flux slow it down and we're already near the limit of the highest speed of decay?
  • by Muad'Dave (255648) on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:53AM (#24793823) Homepage

    This graph [arxivblog.com] seems to indicate that the correlation is between the decay rate and the radius of Earth's orbit squared, not just r.

    Could it be that the correlation between decay rates is with Earth's orbital velocity [wikipedia.org], acceleration, or dTheta/dT (rate of change of the Earth/Sun vector due to Earth's elliptical orbit)?

    Additionally, there seems to be a phase shift between peak r^2 and peak decay rates with the decay rate peak seemingly correlated with our peak acceleration toward the sun.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blueg3 (192743)

      It seems more likely that an r^2 variation indicates that it's a field-like effect, which drops off as 1/r^2 (e.g., neutrino flux).

    • The authors just chose to plot vs r^2, rather than r. Since the data is noisy and Earth's orbit is only slightly elliptical, the data would correlate just as well to r.

  • by xonar (1069832) <xonar AT smagno DOT com> on Friday August 29, 2008 @09:55AM (#24793843) Homepage
    This reminds me of Asimov's book "The Gods Themselves" [wikipedia.org] where the exchange of electrons between parallel universes, creating limitless and wasteless energy, increases the strength of the nuclear force [wikipedia.org] in our universe. Thus making our huge sun (by parallel universe standards) likely to explode/implode.
  • by elrond2003 (675701) on Friday August 29, 2008 @11:18AM (#24795205)
    As someone who made the equipment that the scientist probably used to do the counting, I have one possible explanation. Most Multichannel Analyzers (MCAs) of the time used a line clock to determine the time. They assume that the power company delivered 60Hz power (or 50 Hz in Europe), This frequency was almost never precise but varied by .1 to .2% (one plant where I measured the frequency put out 58.8Hz for example, a real mess for us) from time to time. A systemic variation due to power loads (heating in winter/ AC in summer) could easily bias the power frequency by about the right amount with the right periodicity. The universe might well be safe.
    • This could be one of those "oh shit" moments. Nowadays, when the slightest observational anomaly gets string theorists salivating, perhaps we need to lay in a stock of Bill Ockham's finest razor blades.
  • by mysticgoat (582871) on Friday August 29, 2008 @12:55PM (#24796997) Homepage Journal

    TFA's frame of reference is the Earth's orbit about the Sun, and reports a small but significant correlation between aphelion - perihelion and decay rates of some radioactive nuclides. TFA suggests that the 4% change between Earth's closest approach to the Sun and its most distant point is a possible cause for the change in decay rates.

    When the frame of reference is expanded to galactic distances, we find that Earth's aphelion point is coincidentally very close to a line drawn from the Sun to the center of the galactic core. So it could also be that some shielding or suppressive effect of the Sun's local environment is reducing decay rates when the Earth is behind the Sun relative to the galactic core.

    Proposed hypothesis: the changes in radioactive decay rates are related in an unknown fashion to the annual changes in the geometry of the Earth - Sun - galactic core.

    This could probably be ruled out with a couple of tests of the existing data:

    Aphelion occurs on Jan 4, while Earth's fullest exposure to any presumed galactic core influence occurs on Dec 17. Does the data suggest that increased activity centers around aphelion, or 18 days earlier?

    If TFA's heliocentric model is correct, the change in rates of decay from month to month will be a smooth sinusoidal curve over the course of the year. But if the galactic core is involved, the changes in rates of decay will depart from this since the ecliptic does not parallel the galactic plane, and the degree of the Earth's "exposure" to galactic core will vary in a more complex way. Does the data support either of these conjectures?

    I'm not going to cite my references here: they would be a distraction. Key words for google: aphelion, perihelion, solstice, galactic core, "plane of the ecliptic", "galactic plane". Um, a quick review of high school trigonometry might be useful, too.

    Kudos to all the researchers and lab assistants who contributed to this work. It sounds like years of seemingly mindless drudge data collection went into this database. Yet the results are stunning: something Out There is affecting "constants" that we thought were intrinsic and immutable. That changes things. That changes everything.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...