Talk:Isotopes of uranium

message: I do not understand what exactly are the negative Effects of U-232 in a U-233 based Fission-Bomb. U-232 has a comparable low Neutron-Background and a comparable Fission-to-Capture-Ratio on fast Neutrons and U-232 has by itself a comparable (to U-233) low critical mass. What exactly is the Problem with U-232 in a Fission-Bomb? I do not mean the Handling-Problems based on its short Half-Life and the Gamma-Radiation by Tl-208. The same Question is pending for Pu-238. Pu-238 has also a low Neutron-Background and a comparable Fission-to-Capture-Ratio on fast Neutrons and Pu-238 has by itself an even lower (compared with Pu-239) critical mass.Erik --2003:86:677F:94B7:DA3:37C7:E1DE:6DA1 (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the daughters of 232U are strong gamma emitters, and unlike for the much safer 232Th which decays to the same things, 232U has a short enough half-life that they build up dangerously quickly. This creates a severe handling problem that is simply not present for 238Pu; the latter can be worked with in glove boxes, while the former needs remote manipulation. I realise you said you didn't want the handling problems, but truly that makes up the great bulk of the reasoning. Double sharp (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Problem with U-232 in a Fission Bomb? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Isotopes of uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although I was previously unaware of the sources you added, they also give the 40-minute half-life for uranium-241 as a theoretical calculation and not an experimental value. I originally included the 4-minute value from NUBASE to keep consistency with other non-experimental data in the article, though I'm content to omit the half-life altogether until an experimental one gets published. What do you think? Complex/Rational 19:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the value in the news (it is presumably what the researchers think) is preferrable to NUBASE. I do not trust NUBASE very much for predicting half-lives. For several superheavy nuclides, NUBASE gave or gives quite large predicted half-lives where experiments and other predictions give much smaller values. Burzuchius (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and for that reason I usually prefer not to include non-experimental values (thus leaving the half-life column blank if necessary). But since the prediction is credited to the paper author, I guess we can leave it in. Thanks for pointing that out. Complex/Rational 20:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranium-241 half-life 

message: Upon reading one of the sources in Cluster decay, I discovered an account of an experiment that discovered a previously-undocumented CD mode in 230U; this is mentioned in NUBASE 2020, but was not mentioned in the article. Also missing is a CD mode for 235U and a second isomer that undergoes spontaneous fission. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing decay modes 

message: The cluster decay of 230U is the only known case where the emitted nucleus (here 22Ne) is stable. 129.104.241.214 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cluster decay of <sup>230</sup>U 

message: I edited out an astonishing amount of unnecessary verbiage from this article, particularly the section "Uranium-234". Okay? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clutter 

message: The alpha branching ratio of 240U is calculated as <10-16%, corresponding to an alpha half-life of >1.6×1015 years. 129.104.241.193 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical alpha half-life of <sup>240</sup>U