Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts 187

I never said it wasn't present in nuclear fuel.

Edwin, if this phenomenon could happen spontaneously in a reactor, why doesn't the industry use something like it to create the fuel in the first place. They have to enrich the fuel from 0.7% U-235 to about 5% U-235 (weapons grade uranium is about 80% - 90% U-235). The industry has to use techniques that raise the level of U-235 by a few tenths of a percent per iteration. If they could simply vaporize uranium to get it enriched, don't you think they do it?

I *know* you don't understand the physics of this, because if you did, you wouldn't be arguing what you are arguing.

Hell, I know you have done the basic fact checking.

I've done the fact checking. Multiple sources, both inside and outside the industry agree.

Actually, unless they're densities are wildly different, they don't.

Or why doesn't oxygen settle to the bottom of a container because it's heavier than nitrogen? The difference in molecular mbutt between O2 and N2 is about about 14% (molecular oxygen is 14% mbuttier than molecular nitrogen), but they won't separate after years and years. And you think that U-235 and U-238 are going to spontaneously separate fast enough to cause a chunk of 80% - 90% U-235 large enough to go critical to spontaneously form when their difference in mbuttes is less than 2%?

I'll tell you why: because the kinetic energy inherent in the gaseous state is more than enough to keep it

Do the basic research, Edwin.

Short form: it takes *thousands* of centrifuges operating for a year to produce enough weapons grade material for *one* plant.

You've admitted as much.

And I was right. I was right because I know enough about the subject.

You still don't understand it, apparently.

Compared to you, I'm a freaking nuclear reactor designer.

That's honesty.

That's truth.

That's more truth.

LOL

Yup. Too bad you don't.