Talk:Uranium-233

Capture to fission ratio reference

What do you think of this as a reference for "The capture-to-fission ratio of uranium-233 is smaller than those of the other two major fissile fuels, uranium-235 and plutonium-239."? https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/fission/capture-to-fission-ratio/ AstroDoc (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Typing errors: "The decay chain of 232U quickly yields strong gamma radiation emitters:" but right below it are only alphas and betas. Also no gammas showing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain so perhaps an error being copied. Use HTML entity γ or Wikipedia Editor Special Characters, Greek, 8th character, for γ. George Lerner (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not an error. Alpha or beta decay usually leaves the daughter nuclide in an excited state that can emit gamma radiation, although usually only the alphas and betas are written as they change Z and N while gamma decay does not. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No nuclear explosive test

Regarding tests of possible U-233 bombs, the article asserted that "This has been done on occasion. The United States first tested a U-233 bomb core as part of Operation Teapot in 1955." As of the early 1960s, the possibility of making a U-233 bomb was still under discussion: See

• http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/10145391-I9v2wx/native/10145391.PDF

This indicates that the 1955 date is wrong, further, extensive searches find no reference to a test if a U-233 bomb outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Further, Operation Teapot did involve U-233, but in medical test. I have removed the quoted material. Harold f 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First Google hit on Operation Teapot is [1] which appear to specify a U-233/Pu bomb core in 1955. --JWB 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most likely only considered as a bomb material for very simple bombs by those who plan to use bomb immediately -- a revolutionary or poor man's bomb. An unlikely bomb material for richer cold war nations which stereotypically design bombs for a long pre-assembled "shelf-life" (stockpiling), such as missile warheads on continuous standby. As alluded to in the article, this fissile material produces much harder (more penetrating and damaging) radiation in its decay chain-life cycle. This makes bomb design a difficult problem because without very bulky shielding or expensive exotic measures, the radiation destroys electronics and "ages/fatigues" detonating explosives and other internal bomb parts over a relatively short time -- as well as becoming a hazard to maintainers and operators. So basically U-233 bombs are only economical if you either plan to use the bomb almost immediately (supposedly 3 days to 2 weeks is a practical limit for small, simple bombs without exotic materials) or if you have the luxury of "last hour" assembly of the fissile materials with the rest of the bomb. However, the above limitations pose far fewer problems for radical nations in the 2nd or 3rd world tier where bomb delivery is most likely by unannounced civilian suicide truck, ship or cargo plane to an enemy that is just across one or two borders. Such nations with volatile politics are unlikely to feel they have sufficient security to keep unused nuclear weapon around very long. Plus of course national impulse control tends to be fairly low when they think they have the upper hand -- not a lot of public influence over/interference with leaders connection to military forces. P.S. It should go without saying that any reference that confirms the above in more than general terms will be classified - which does not make it any less true. And of course as science advances and delivers more sophisticated technology the specifics might change. For instance some nanotechnology seems to promise very radiation resistant substitutes for older electronic control circuits and it vaguely possible arrays of nanotubes may even offer wavelength tuned shielding or reflectors.66.68.22.32 (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, Either this image is incorrectly attributed, or the identical image on the page for U-234 is

They are the same image. Either the disc in the image is refined U-233, or U-234. Not both. So, which is it? Methinks neither. Perhaps an amalgamation of the two, but certainly not one or the other. Radioactive decay dictates otherwise, not to mention the logical flaws inherent to considering the same identical image that of two differing isotopes.

Image description says "highly enriched uranium" so it's actually U-235! --JWB 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image. --Orlady 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes folks The IMAGE is The SAME because it is The Same Damn ELEMENT!!!! You know anything about chemistry? Isotopes smell the same, taste the same, and indeed look exactly the same. That is because they have the same damn electrons! 85.71.189.60 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the chain-reaction look like?

I see the spontaneous decay chain, but don't understand how a chain reaction would work. It wouldn't just absorb a neutron and sit there as U 234. Could someone spell out what the fission products would be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.170.96 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar to fission products of other heavy metal fissions. 85.71.189.60 (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that the fission reaction (n + U-233 → ?) should be given explicitly. Does someone know what it is? How many neutrons are released by it? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the 2nd - to - last reaction in the chain is misidentified as beta decay where it should be gamma decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.9.250 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Source on MSRE U-232 content

The given source [2] does not look very reliable. A different source (ORNL/TM-13124, page 8 [3]) on the U-232 contend gives different numbers: 75 ppm for the initial fuel, and 160 ppm at the end of the experiment. Not sure whether these data include decay until 1995, but this should not be such a large difference. Overall even these different numbers don't have a large impact on the rest of the text. --Ulrich67 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

An ORNL ref would be much better, yes! :) That doesn't seem to be the right URL though; I don't see any mention of U-232 PPM on page 8 (either printed page 8 or PDF page 8) and it seems to be about a different subject entirely ("Integrated Booking System"). I can confirm 160 (as of 1995) via [4] though. -- Limulus (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

[5] (PDF page 8; Fig. 2) from 1996 shows "current distribution" of U232 as being 160 PPM in the fuel salt and 75 PPM in the flush salt. -- Limulus (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes the first link is wrong - the document I meant was TM-13142. --Ulrich67 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Here we go: [6] via [7] -- Limulus (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For the flush salt there is a footnote saying that they assume the same U232 to U233 ratio as in the initial fuel. However we have to take into account decay of U232 and the additional other isotopes of U. So the U232 to U233 ratio is more like 250 ppm in 1968 (or 190 ppm in 1995) for both the fuel and flush salt, not so far off the 220 ppm from the other source. So the old number seems to be OK, even if the ref. is not very good.--Ulrich67 (talk) 16:59, 24 J:uly 2012 (UTC)

Curious that the flush salt is so high in U-238. But yes, applying the half life formula with initial time = 1968 and final time = 1995 (as stated in the PDF, so 27y), half-life = 68.9 years and initial amount = ~220 (as per twugbcn ref), final amount = ~167.67, which (within 5% of TM-13142) seems to me to be in pretty good agreement :) -- Limulus (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)