Comments on: Nuclear Science and Technology http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/03/nuclear-science-and-technology/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nuclear-science-and-technology clean—safe—reliable Thu, 17 May 2012 20:05:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: Brian http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/03/nuclear-science-and-technology/#comment-35 Brian Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:43:21 +0000 http://nuclearfissionary.com/?p=9#comment-35 The georeactor is an interesting hypothesis. While I don't think anyone can outright dismiss the idea based on physical grounds, more likely explanations for various observed phenomena exist. Therefore, Dr. Herndon faces a burden of proof to demonstrate that his hypothesis is most likely, which, last I heard, he has not successfully done. What we would really need to do is measure the antineutrino flux. That would provide a definitive answer. Unfortunately, such measurements are very difficult to make. The georeactor is an interesting hypothesis. While I don’t think anyone can outright dismiss the idea based on physical grounds, more likely explanations for various observed phenomena exist. Therefore, Dr. Herndon faces a burden of proof to demonstrate that his hypothesis is most likely, which, last I heard, he has not successfully done.

What we would really need to do is measure the antineutrino flux. That would provide a definitive answer. Unfortunately, such measurements are very difficult to make.

]]> By: Roger Maddrell http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/03/nuclear-science-and-technology/#comment-22 Roger Maddrell Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:11:38 +0000 http://nuclearfissionary.com/?p=9#comment-22 If natural nuclear fission is the focus, I'm interested in what you think about Marvin Herndon's belief that the earth's magnetic field is powered by nuclear fission in what he calls a georeactor at the earth's core. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-V3yR2RZUE If natural nuclear fission is the focus, I’m interested in what you think about Marvin Herndon’s belief that the earth’s magnetic field is powered by nuclear fission in what he calls a georeactor at the earth’s core. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-V3yR2RZUE

]]> By: Brian http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/03/nuclear-science-and-technology/#comment-13 Brian Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:46:02 +0000 http://nuclearfissionary.com/?p=9#comment-13 While it's certainly possible, it's highly unlikely. Much of the base material for our solar system came from the same supernova explosion. It was in this event that the heavy elements we find here on Earth were formed. The original isotopic ratio (the initial condition on "enrichment") depended upon the conditions in the supernova at the time. For us to have a sample with a higher uranium-235 concentration, it would have had to been in a meteorite from a different supernova. The isotopic ratios here on Earth are remarkably consistent suggesting that only one supernova was responsible for the formation of all the heavy elements here on Earth. Given the vast expanses of space, it is not likely at all that "rogue ejecta" from a more recent supernova (with a higher U-235 concentration) would have been able to reach us. While it’s certainly possible, it’s highly unlikely. Much of the base material for our solar system came from the same supernova explosion. It was in this event that the heavy elements we find here on Earth were formed. The original isotopic ratio (the initial condition on “enrichment”) depended upon the conditions in the supernova at the time.

For us to have a sample with a higher uranium-235 concentration, it would have had to been in a meteorite from a different supernova. The isotopic ratios here on Earth are remarkably consistent suggesting that only one supernova was responsible for the formation of all the heavy elements here on Earth. Given the vast expanses of space, it is not likely at all that “rogue ejecta” from a more recent supernova (with a higher U-235 concentration) would have been able to reach us.

]]> By: Jack Gamble http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/03/nuclear-science-and-technology/#comment-10 Jack Gamble Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:18:24 +0000 http://nuclearfissionary.com/?p=9#comment-10 Any and all nitpicking is welcome and encouraged. Do you think there is a chance that any natural ore deposits still have a high enough U-235 component to go critical. that we haven't discovered yet? Any and all nitpicking is welcome and encouraged.

Do you think there is a chance that any natural ore deposits still have a high enough U-235 component to go critical. that we haven’t discovered yet?

]]> By: Brian http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/03/nuclear-science-and-technology/#comment-3 Brian Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:46:49 +0000 http://nuclearfissionary.com/?p=9#comment-3 Slight nitpick. It is not really possible today for a natural nuclear chain reaction to start. Back when the natural reactor at Oklo was active, the fraction of uranium-235 was higher than it is today. Today, uranium in a natural form immersed in light water cannot achieve criticality. While it is indeed possible to have fission chain reactions in natural uranium (see CANDUs or MAGNOX designs), those conditions would not occur naturally. Slight nitpick. It is not really possible today for a natural nuclear chain reaction to start. Back when the natural reactor at Oklo was active, the fraction of uranium-235 was higher than it is today. Today, uranium in a natural form immersed in light water cannot achieve criticality. While it is indeed possible to have fission chain reactions in natural uranium (see CANDUs or MAGNOX designs), those conditions would not occur naturally.

]]>