Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

Uranium Enrichment

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Uranium Enrichment
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:59 am

TFLYTSNBN

Since so many posters on this forum are pontificating about issues that they obviously know nothing about, I thought that I would post an article that explains the basics of gas dentrifuge isotope separation and why the technology is particularly suitable for covert building nuclear weapons.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/ ... /1.2982121
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by gcomeau   » Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:30 am

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Since so many posters on this forum are pontificating about issues that they obviously know nothing about, I thought that I would post an article that explains the basics of gas dentrifuge isotope separation and why the technology is particularly suitable for covert building nuclear weapons.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/ ... /1.2982121


Congratulations, you managed to post an article that laid out some of the difficulties of enforcing restrictions on the use of centrifuges to enrich uranium, which do exist, and also *why it's still easier to enforce that than to enforce the mere development of centrifuge technology*.

Try playing attention to little details like the effluent leaks from their operation which can be detected from kilometers away. Which yes, means you need to sweep detectors within a few km of a facility, which requires some non trivial effort.

But do you know how far away you can detect someone designing and building new centrifuges when they aren't being used? You have to be looking over the development team's freaking shoulders while they're working.

So which is harder TFLY?
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:14 pm

TFLYTSNBN

gcomeau wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:Since so many posters on this forum are pontificating about issues that they obviously know nothing about, I thought that I would post an article that explains the basics of gas dentrifuge isotope separation and why the technology is particularly suitable for covert building nuclear weapons.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/ ... /1.2982121


Congratulations, you managed to post an article that laid out some of the difficulties of enforcing restrictions on the use of centrifuges to enrich uranium, which do exist, and also *why it's still easier to enforce that than to enforce the mere development of centrifuge technology*.

Try playing attention to little details like the effluent leaks from their operation which can be detected from kilometers away. Which yes, means you need to sweep detectors within a few km of a facility, which requires some non trivial effort.

But do you know how far away you can detect someone designing and building new centrifuges when they aren't being used? You have to be looking over the development team's freaking shoulders while they're working.

So which is harder TFLY?


The hardest path is allowing Iran any Uranium enrichment with the expectation that you can prevent them from building bombs. The pretext for Iran to have enrichment is to fuel nuclear reactors. An enrichment plant that can supply enough LEU to fuel a single, Giggawatt class reactor can easily produce enough HEU to build dozens of nukes.

A plausible solution is to prohibit Iran from having ANY Uranium enrichment capacity but provide Iran with fuel for nuclear reactors at a subsidized price.
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Jan 11, 2020 3:37 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

TFLYTSNBN wrote:A plausible solution is to prohibit Iran from having ANY Uranium enrichment capacity but provide Iran with fuel for nuclear reactors at a subsidized price.


A possibility, yes. But, since Russia dominated the world nuclear power market, it would basically means that USA would pay Russia for supplying Iran with reactors and fuel. :lol:
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:37 pm

TFLYTSNBN

Dilandu wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:A plausible solution is to prohibit Iran from having ANY Uranium enrichment capacity but provide Iran with fuel for nuclear reactors at a subsidized price.


A possibility, yes. But, since Russia dominated the world nuclear power market, it would basically means that USA would pay Russia for supplying Iran with reactors and fuel. :lol:



That is only because Hillary Clinton sold control of all of America's Uranium to Russia in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by Annachie   » Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:12 pm

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Except for the minor fact that that is not true, and you know it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:12 pm

TFLYTSNBN

Annachie wrote:Except for the minor fact that that is not true, and you know it.



I exaggerated somewhat for humorous effect. However; the State Department did approve the Uranium One deal while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and contemporaneously with the Clinton Foundation (slush fund) amassing hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign entities.

Meanwhile, morons become apoplexic whenever some foreigner checks into a Trump hotel.
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:05 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

TFLYTSNBN wrote:That is only because Hillary Clinton sold control of all of America's Uranium to Russia in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.


Nah, it's because we never went much into "alternate energy sources" fad, and continued to learn on past mistakes. Chernobyl was a MAJOR boost for quality control in our nuclear industry. Arguably, our current commercial reactors are the most reliable in the world of civilian nuclear energy.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by Annachie   » Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:34 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I exaggerated somewhat for humorous effect. However; the State Department did approve the Uranium One deal while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and contemporaneously with the Clinton Foundation (slush fund) amassing hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign entities.

Meanwhile, morons become apoplexic whenever some foreigner checks into a Trump hotel.


So, donations to a charity that Hillary Clinton neither ran nor profited from in any way whilst she was Sec. State is worse that staying at a Trump Hotel that Trump both owns and profits from whilst President?

Despite the fact that the charity in question has been investigated several times, by the GOP, and found to be perfectly clean, but Trump having a huge history of corruption.

Is that your claim Fly?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Uranium Enrichment
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:00 am

TFLYTSNBN

Annachie wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:I exaggerated somewhat for humorous effect. However; the State Department did approve the Uranium One deal while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and contemporaneously with the Clinton Foundation (slush fund) amassing hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign entities.

Meanwhile, morons become apoplexic whenever some foreigner checks into a Trump hotel.


So, donations to a charity that Hillary Clinton neither ran nor profited from in any way whilst she was Sec. State is worse that staying at a Trump Hotel that Trump both owns and profits from whilst President?

Despite the fact that the charity in question has been investigated several times, by the GOP, and found to be perfectly clean, but Trump having a huge history of corruption.

Is that your claim Fly?


https://www.conservapedia.com/Clinton_Foundation
Top

Return to Politics