Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: a new nuclear option?



Leigh is dead on re: the reason for not "just leaving the Pu-239 in with
the U-235 and continue the 'burning' process". It's been several years
(15+) since I was involved in nuclear physics, but the physics has a nice
habit of not changing! The absorption cross-section of Pu-239 is well in
excess of that of U-235. Even if it were only just the same, it would
grab a "50% market share" of the available thermal neutrons. This would
effectively raise the mass required for sustained criticality beyond that
attainable thus "poisoning" the reaction. As far as the metaphors of
"burning" and "poisoning" go, they are no more unreasonable than the
"barn" which is our standard unit of cross-section --- as in "it's as big
as a barn Dr. Fermi!"

ERTEL SENDS. _____________________
/ Prof. John P. Ertel \
/ jpe@nadn.navy.mil \
+================================================+
| Physics Department, 9C Office : 410-293-6657 |
| U. S. Naval Academy FAX : 410-293-3729 |
| Home : 410-757-6618 |
+================================================+