Talk:Uranium trioxide/Archive 2

message: ===Sublimation===
Wilson and Ackerman never state any combustion products because they have done no combustion. So citing them for combustion is not OK. The Ackerman is only researching Oxides in general and the transformation. They state that there is no UO3 vapor present due to the calculations mentioned above. Sublimation from UO3 nor from U3O8 will ever occure at temperatures below 500°C which is OK with the calculations for the partial pressur of UO3.
:What evidence is there that Wilson did no combustion?  How do you do a high-pressure, high-temperature investigation of the uranium-oxygen system yeilding emperical data without burning uranium? --James S. 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abstract--An investigation was made of the effects of combined ultrahigh pressure and high temperature on the oxides of uranium with particular emphasis on U3O8. This is the first line of the artikel so this is Uraniumoxide no Uranium article. The word combustion ore uranium is not in the text.--Stone 07:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you explain, then, the UO3 observed by Salbu et al. (2005), and the statement of Cotton (1991), that aerial oxidation of any uranium compound forms uranyl compounds? --James S. 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without resaearch papers nobody should explain Uranium combustion! Suggestions: UO3 is formed by condensation, and bevor the O2 loos apears the temperature is down to 500°C where U03 is metastable and there it is. Or Some U(VI) compound gets hydrolysed ofter the fire, or something else. This is not the point of disscussion for me I think. I always was OK with the statment that solid UO3 is found in the combustion products. Its not a major product but some saw it and this is OK, the point is the gas and this will be my point for ever!--Stone 09:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that Professor Simon Cotton, one of the foremost experts on actinide chemistry, agrees with your opinion? Can you cite a single peer-reviewed scientific or medical paper which agrees with your opinion? --James S. 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long there is no combustion experiment done with uranium its easy to state something like "Aerial oxidation of any uranium compound eventually results in the formation of a uranyl compound." Not stating which one and where they come from eventually.--Stone 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So?  As mentioned, lampblack carbon has a low vapor pressure, but carbon soot is a common combustion product. --James S. 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Its a solid formed at the border of the flame! There is no carbon soot gas flying around for weeks forming carbon soot in your lungs. The soot condenses at the boarder of the flame to particles of different siece, because the vapour pressure of carbon is low and condensation the only way to go.--Stone 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you admit that vapor pressure has nothing to do with combustion product formation, do you not? --James S. 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you admit that the folowing step of condensation has nothing to do with the combustion!--Stone 09:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  I don't know whether I can parse that sentence. --James S.
The condensation of the product is described by the gas law and the mass law. The calculationes done from me and others indicate that at standart conditions no UO3 gas is present. So why mention it at all. This is the poinz of the whole thing molecular UO3 is not woth mentioning! Because the vapour pressure of it is so close to zero that even if you assume its toxic nobody will ever take up more than a few molecules. 
So if you state that condensation is nearly 100% with only a few molecules in gasphase the whole UO3 mythe (flying around for weeks and gasous UO3 major product of combustion) can go!--Stone 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your edits show that you do not understand the proportions involved. --James S. 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Than give the proportions which are necessary to understand the thing! Is there 1g/m3 or 1kg/m3 or  like I suggest no atom/m3.--Stone 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combustion or sublimation

message: Wilson and Ackerman never state any combustion products because they have done no combustion. So citing them for combustion is not OK. The Ackerman is only researching Oxides in general and the transformation. They state that there is no UO3 vapor present due to the calculations mentioned above. Sublimation from UO3 nor from U3O8 will ever occure at temperatures below 500°C which is OK with the calculations for the partial pressur of UO3.
:What evidence is there that Wilson did no combustion?  How do you do a high-pressure, high-temperature investigation of the uranium-oxygen system yeilding emperical data without burning uranium? --James S. 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abstract--An investigation was made of the effects of combined ultrahigh pressure and high temperature on the oxides of uranium with particular emphasis on U3O8. This is the first line of the artikel so this is Uraniumoxide no Uranium article. The word combustion ore uranium is not in the text.--Stone 07:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you explain, then, the UO3 observed by Salbu et al. (2005), and the statement of Cotton (1991), that aerial oxidation of any uranium compound forms uranyl compounds? --James S. 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without resaearch papers nobody should explain Uranium combustion! Suggestions: UO3 is formed by condensation, and bevor the O2 loos apears the temperature is down to 500°C where U03 is metastable and there it is. Or Some U(VI) compound gets hydrolysed ofter the fire, or something else. This is not the point of disscussion for me I think. I always was OK with the statment that solid UO3 is found in the combustion products. Its not a major product but some saw it and this is OK, the point is the gas and this will be my point for ever!--Stone 09:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that Professor Simon Cotton, one of the foremost experts on actinide chemistry, agrees with your opinion? Can you cite a single peer-reviewed scientific or medical paper which agrees with your opinion? --James S. 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long there is no combustion experiment done with uranium its easy to state something like "Aerial oxidation of any uranium compound eventually results in the formation of a uranyl compound." Not stating which one and where they come from eventually.--Stone 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So?  As mentioned, lampblack carbon has a low vapor pressure, but carbon soot is a common combustion product. --James S. 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Its a solid formed at the border of the flame! There is no carbon soot gas flying around for weeks forming carbon soot in your lungs. The soot condenses at the boarder of the flame to particles of different siece, because the vapour pressure of carbon is low and condensation the only way to go.--Stone 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you admit that vapor pressure has nothing to do with combustion product formation, do you not? --James S. 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you admit that the folowing step of condensation has nothing to do with the combustion!--Stone 09:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  I don't know whether I can parse that sentence. --James S.
The condensation of the product is described by the gas law and the mass law. The calculationes done from me and others indicate that at standart conditions no UO3 gas is present. So why mention it at all. This is the poinz of the whole thing molecular UO3 is not woth mentioning! Because the vapour pressure of it is so close to zero that even if you assume its toxic nobody will ever take up more than a few molecules. 
So if you state that condensation is nearly 100% with only a few molecules in gasphase the whole UO3 mythe (flying around for weeks and gasous UO3 major product of combustion) can go!--Stone 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your edits show that you do not understand the proportions involved. --James S. 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Than give the proportions which are necessary to understand the thing! Is there 1g/m3 or 1kg/m3 or  like I suggest no atom/m3.--Stone 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sublimation

message: The condensation from gas phase follows the rules of mass law. The air is oversaturated with uranium trioxide and the molecules have to follow the law and condense.  This condensation is absolutely independent from which source the uranium trioxide molecules come from. How should the information stick to each molecule when to condense? --Stone 09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please rephrase this question?  What are you trying to get at? --James S. 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should condensation from plasma have different mas law than that of sublimation?--Stone 06:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ions don't condense from plasma, they recombine. --James S. 06:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the exact difference of molecules coming from 4000°C Flame tan that of 1000°C sublimation?--Stone 06:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand this question. --James S. 06:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You state the gas doesn't follow the laws of gas and will not condense! Why?--Stone 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I state no such thing; I have repeatedly stated that UO3(g) condenses.  You are simply arguing for the sake of argument.  Do you think that I will grow tired of such empty rhetoric and give up if you just keep typing in false, unsupported edits? --James S. 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So everything condenses and nearly no molecule is in the gas phase anymore. Lets write exactly this in the article.--Stone 10:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already says the gas condenses, in the first paragraph. What is your grade level in English? --James S. 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your grade level in chemistry, mate? The paragraph as is stands is misleading, patently false even.  At 2500 K UO3 will be in equilibrium with a host of other uranium oxides. Stating that UO3 will "eventually" condense insinuates that the vapor will hang around for an extended period of time, which it clearly won't. Ackermann's vapor pressure experiments show that. 129.215.37.163 12:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It should also be noted that, above 800 K, UO3 (g) will condense to U3O8 (s), not UO3 (s), neatly in agreement with the described products of uranium combustion in the presence of sufficient oxygen and with the results of Salbu et al. Physchim62 (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensation

message: Note:  Please sign your comments with --~~~~ or at least four tildes. --James S. 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please remember to sign comments

message: The point is and will always be why should a molecule with a low vapour pressure be a gas at normal conditions? A source for a example of this kind of behaviour would be good--Stone
:Do you drink coffee, or tea?  Have you noticed that steam stays in the air as a vapor before it condenses?  Why should it?!? --James S. 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with uranyl oxide. --James S. 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is. --James S. 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it! The oxigen uptake of U3O8 is infrequently ignored. Have you read the rest of the stuff. The non stoechometrical compounds are everywhere and this statment does not say quantitivly! The Oxygen uptake is mentioned because: Of the statment in the midle of the section, that the statment that exact U3O8 is the substance formed by the reactions is never sure, because the U3O8 looses oxigen and takes up oxygen to form non stoechiometrical combounds. Do you really think this reearch should go into the article?--Stone 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole page does not state any gasous UO3 like you put it in the article. Gmelin sas the uptake of ogygen of the U3O8 is infrequently ignored, this is a statment for the solid and not the gas phase. Remove the gasous from article!--Stone 09:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you ask Professor Cotton his opinion? --James S. 10:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask him! But no page in Gmelin states that UO3 is gasous combustion product of burning uranium. It has a long part about all aspects of UO3 but does not mention the UO3 molecules other than the ackerman paper (high temperature) argon matrix (deep temperature) or MS (low pressure). As fact some chemists state that the U3O8 is a mixed oxide UO2 2UO3 which makes it also a uranyl compound.--Stone 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. --James S. 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Lets start wit the equation it self: can be found in   
log p= (((1.821 ± 0.075)· 104)/T) + 6.84 ± 0.58
log p= (((1.856 ± 0.016)· 104)/T) + 6.928 ± 0.103
I choose the first equation because it gives the higher pressure for UO3 gas.
log p= (((1.821 ± 0.075)· 104)/T) + 6.84 ± 0.58 
Lets state 300K as the temperature (26°C or so)
putting in the numbers gives:
log p = -53.86 
put both sides in the power over ten (native speaker needed)
p =  10-53.86 atm
p = 1.38 · 10-54 atm
convert from atm to Pa (1 atm = 101325 Pa)
p = 1.3985 · 10-49 Pa (N/m2)
Assuming that the laws of ideal gas are good for this problem 
(which they are not, because the the condensation and the interaction between the molecules give even lower pressure for real gas at lower temperature than expected by the ideal gas euqaution)
p V= n R T
n = (p · V) / (R · T)
:* P is the pressure (pascal)
:* V is the volume (cubic meter) lets assume we look at one cubic meter m3
:* n is the amount of gas (mole)
:* R is the ideal gas constant (joule per kelvin per mole) 8.314472 J · K-1 · mol-1
:* T is the absolute temperature  (kelvin)
n =(1.3985 · 10-49 N/m2 · 1 m3)/ (8.314472 J · K-1 · mol-1  · 300 K)
n = 5.57 · 10-53 mol
so this is the number of mol per cubic meter of uranium trioxide.
1 mol = 6.023 · 1023 particles
So to get the number of particles in one cubic meter simpl multipie the numbers.
6.023 · 1023 5.57 · 10-53  = 3.35 · 10-29 particle per m3
Other way to point this numer is you need 2.98 · 1028 m3 to find on single atom of UO3.
Volume of earth 1.0832×1012 km3 = 1.0832×1021 m3
so even if the whole earth would be atmosphere there would be no molecule founnd in it. 600 times earth volume and you find your UO3. 
The equations are right and the condensation follows this patter. Where am I wrong? This leads to no molecules in the gas phase after cooling at all.--Stone 10:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long does it take, in mean and median, for the average monomeric UO3 molecule to condense? How long does it take all of the molecules from 4,000 tons of burned uranium to condense? --James S. 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! Give me the numbers and everything is OK! If not this calculations show that condensation takesplace untill nothing is there anymore!--Stone 10:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, the amount of dust in the air makes a big difference, bifurcating the distribution substantially. Good luck on getting the numbers from anyone but an empericist. --James S. 11:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the point nobody does this kind of research and for that reason it should stay out of an enzyclopedia!--Stone 11:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  back to the equation 

message: Does Cotton give UO3 or simnply uranyl than it has to go!--Stone 11:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the ecosystem burned uranium goes from uranyl oxide gas to uranyl carbonate complexes to protein ligands.  In other words, it ends up in the food chain. --James S. 11:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you fight the wrong person at all! 
Lets sat it the way it is:
Burning DU gives U3O8 UO3 UO2 in changing quantities. (Acording to differt literature) The condensed particle from this are small and do not settle qickly. The elevated radiation from UK during GW2 shows this clearly. Small particles get into the lung and due tue the fact that Uranyl compunds like UO3 dissolve quicker than U3O8 the toxicity of them is severe. This is absolutly OK. 
My oppinion is, that DU is chemical warfare and only because its cheper than tungsten to poisen Irak and Yugoslavia with it is crimainal. The other nations use tungsten for ammunition and they know why! Is DU ammunition used in traing grounds in the US? I think they would not dare to do so, because theay get lawyers crawling around everywhere. --Stone 11:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. There are all sorts of oxides formed during combustion of uranium metal. Remember that the temperature reaches 2500 K, where UO3 and U3O8 are likely unstable towards oxygen loss. We can't really state that "monomeric UO3 is produced by combustion of uranium metal in air from 2200-2800 Kelvin" when the gas will quickly condense out and one is left with various uranium oxides as a fine dust. 129.215.37.163 12:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cotton

message: The only thing to do is to get the first sentence to a state which makes clear that both cited references do not do the research indicated in the sentence bevor. 
:Ackermann no combustion
:and the other no examination of the products
:combustion product as main point in the sentence
Which is critical in my point of few.--Stone 11:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slowly but

message: The transport reaction was OK I think. This is a example for UO3 molecules and could stay. The matrix experiments with single UO3 molecules where also resonable. --Stone 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But all that material on the transport reaction is still there -- section "In the gas phase". So is the paragraph on the matrix experiment. 129.215.194.206 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport reaction 

message: The references section is almost as long as the article itself, and a fair number of the articles cited there seem not to be used. 129.215.195.81 14:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: Given the recent phenomina of fresh anons reverting away source-supported statements, and apparently planning to delete sources, above, as their only edits here, I propose partial protection of the recent dispute-tagged version for a short while.  Are there any objections? --James S. 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon editing on Wikipedia is permitted per Jimbo's wishes. Also, unlike yours, the anons' edits make sense. Your request for semi-protection is a misuse of Wikipedia policy, it's outright trollery, in fact. Now go away. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. 82.41.26.244 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No protection. James, if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. You have no right to demand protection just because other editors do not agree with you. --DV8 2XL 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that you no longer agree with the fact that UO3 is a combustion product of uranium? Then where does the 75% U3O8 particulate come from?  look at the edits: reversion of lung fluid solubility half-time to "elimination" (which means excretion in urine or feces), reversion of the entire combustion product section which you copied to Uranium and other articles, reversion of the bond length discussion copied from Simon Cotton's book, and deletion of the entire See also section.  And this from brand new anonymous editors who haven't edited anything else.  Completly unsupported deletions of whole source-supported passages.  Clearly this page should have partial protection. --James S. 05:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you start justifying your  edits the conflict might even go away. Just give the reasoning why the combustion products should be discussed here instead of at uranium. 82.41.26.244 08:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other combustion products are relatively harmless compared to UO3 and the U3O8 which it condenses into, forming 75% of the combustion product.  Since nobody has proposed an alternatve formation path for the U3O8 from the plasma combustion state, then the intermediate UO3 is the proper place to discuss the toxicology of all the uranyl-rich combustion products.  There is simply no other source for any of the others, and UO2 isn't anywhere near as much of a problem. --James S. 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The health impact of DU ammunition has its natural home in Depleted uranium. As others have said, the combustion products are likely U3O8, UO2 and other, lower oxides of uranium, and they aren't a gas, they are very fine dust. Why this insistence that UO3 is a gas formed during combustion of uranium? Why not say that various oxides, are formed and put that into the article on DU? Everyone here agrees that uranium oxides (whatever form they come in) aren't conducive to good health. 82.41.26.244 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I told you a month ago if you dragged this issue into the chemistry topics you were going to draw a lot more heat than leaving it in DU. Don't be surprised that critics are crawling out of the woodwork now. --DV8 2XL 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, you did. There's still a solid case for partial protection of up to one week. --James S. 23:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bollocks. Look, mate, let's make this experiment - it's chemistry, and chemistry is an experimental science: You STEP BACK for a day, let the version minus dispute tag, combustion products and all the other rubbish stand and WAIT if anyone, any single person reverts to the version that you so eagerly push.  82.41.26.244 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial protection?

message: From a realy good article about: Volatilization of urania under strongly oxidizing conditions
Journal of Nuclear Materials 346 (2005) 312–318 C.A. Alexander
If the oxygen partial
pressure is held constant and the temperature raised,
then the composition will shift to a lower value of the
O/U ratio. Since the higher oxidation state at a specific
temperature will have a more negative free energy,''
This states higher temperature makes substances with more free energy unstable! --Stone 08:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the greater number of nuclei for those substances, the probability of an additional mechanical ionization increases substantially with the number of (heavier than hydrogen) atoms in the molecule.  However, the cooling proportions remain the same, and the U3O8, which is 75% of the solid product, condenses from UO3(g), which dominates in plasma cooling, no matter what the peak temperature was. --James S. 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That article also indicates, in its abstract, that uranyl hydroxide gas also exists in aerial equilibria.  I bet its a high-humidity combustion product, too. --James S. 22:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combustion products 

message: ===Article===
Ther should be headlines for 
:Chemistry
::Synthesis
::Structure
::Chemistry
:Use
:Production
:Health and savety
like in most other articles. This article is and will be a mess!
I will try to build up a new one User:Stone/Uraniumtrioxide leaving out 
:Combustion of Uranium
:Uranium oxide gas
Which can be but in from somebody else!--Stone 08:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you intend to include toxicology? --James S. 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Toxic is part of Health and savety but we can renam it with toxicity or what ever!--Stone 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Ther should be headlines for 
:Chemistry
::Synthesis
::Structure
::Chemistry
:Use
:Production
:Health and savety
like in most other articles. This article is and will be a mess!
I will try to build up a new one User:Stone/Uraniumtrioxide leaving out 
:Combustion of Uranium
:Uranium oxide gas
Which can be but in from somebody else!--Stone 08:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you intend to include toxicology? --James S. 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Toxic is part of Health and savety but we can renam it with toxicity or what ever!--Stone 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: O||O = U = O
is more accurate, taller, has many fewer characters than the graphic, and so it takes less time to load. --James S. 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compound

message: Urine tests for isotope ratios are worthless, because the isotopes translocate at different rates.  Anything less than chromosome analysis after one year is worthless. --James S. 19:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gmelin Handbook (1982) U-A7, pp. 300-320; cellular (biological) nuclear transport.  Mass differences have acoustic phononic signatures yeilding different behavior with enzymatic and large-scale structural effects, e.g., chromosomes. Please check the recently-added references. --James S. 20:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? The reduced masses of the systems will hardly be different, U-235 and U-238 are so much heavier than their bonding partners that they for all practical purposes behave like a brick wall. Vibration frequencies will for all practical purposes be identical. In all these papers on IR spectroscopy on uranium oxoanions one often sees O-16 and O-18 isotopomers, never U-235 and U-238-labeled compounds. 82.41.26.244 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are marked translocation differences in the isotopes of uranium at the citation given, but more importantly, uranyl ions are collected in the cellular nucleus, where they are unlikly to return to plasma (or any part of blood serum other than white blood cells) or urine. Uranium is often used to stain DNA. --James S. 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To hear that the frequency difference is greater than the linewidth in condensed phase would be a surprise. Can you maybe point me to an abstract or something?! 82.41.26.244 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you are asking. Some biochemical processes are very sensitive to small variations in isotope mass. Please see the Gmelin charts cited. --James S. 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The different reaction rate of isotopomers (keyword isotopic effect) is due to a difference in zero-point energy. That difference can be measured in the vibrational spectrum. That in turn is dependent on the reduced mass, which is strongly dependent on the lighter partner and almost not at all in the     heavier. Hence one would predict no change in reaction rate between U-235 and U-238. Can you point me to some original sources that Gmelin lists. I don't have Gmelin at hand online but can still get online journals on the weekend. 82.41.26.244 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I would be glad to go to the library again, and especially for you, since you've reported me for 3RR after repeatedly inserting "elimination" where it didn't belong. However, please give me a few days, it's maybe still intersession. --James S. 02:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been reported for 3RR violation for repeatedly inserting stuff that several people asked you to kindly put elsewhere. You are aware that you pissed off several people so much that they won't edit here any more, aren't you? Do continue, and you will be put on 1RR parole for your pet peeve (or hopefully ban you from it altogether). 82.41.26.244 17:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosis of exposure 

message: There is an currently edit war going on if the gas phase structure should be placed above or below the solid-state structure. We also now have a pretty graphic of the molecule in the gas phase.
My take on the matter:
* The solid is the most frequently encountered form of the compound and as such it should take precedence
* The graphic really shouldn't be here. 3D images are great for the finer geometric points of a structure, and 2D structural formulae are good for displaying connectivity and bond order. Problem is, there isn't really much data on the gas phase structure. That paper where the authors do IR spectroscopy in an argon matrix merely states that the molecule is distorted away from trigonal planar to space group C2v and do not give bond lengths or angles, just force constants. There is also a theoretical paper by Pykkö, according to which the molecule is trigonal planar. (Sadly, I haven't read the paper.) I would predict that Pykkö puts down the distortion to interaction of the molecule with the "inert" matrix. Someone who did read the paper, please confirm!
* What would be great is a structure of the coordination polyhedra in the solid. Is someone at an institution where they subscribe to the ICSD and can contribute one?! 82.41.26.244 16:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the PNGs.  I'm really not fussed on where the images are used, if at all.  I just think colour improves the article for casual readers!  But the points you make are fair ones.  If someone can find out the structure of the coordination polyhedra, I'll make a 3D image of them.  And as for putting the gas phase structure above the solid state one, I really have no preference!  Common sense would dictate the solid is more important because it is far more commonly encountered.  Leave me a message on my talk page if you would like any more 3D images -  I can tailor make them to your needs!  :)  --Ben 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought you study at Cambridge! The chemistry department doesn't subscribe to the ICSD at Cambridge? That is weak! 82.41.26.244 17:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they do, but I'm on long term leave from uni due to illness - that's why I have time to faff around on Wikipedia! --Ben 17:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural formulae 

message: Why would the molecule be T shaped ? I know that a matrix isolation study has been cited, but in a condensed phase packing effects could distort the molecule from the shape found in the gas phase. Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion theory (VSEPR) which is one of the best predictive tools for simple molecules would predict a C3 trigonal shape like that of BF3.Cadmium 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a trigonal planar UO3 2D structure a while ago, but James told me it was wrong, citing Lanthanide and Actinide Chemistry by Simon Cotton (1991 Edition apparently!).  James has scanned the relevant page and uploaded it here.  I don't know what the gas phase structure is, but if someone knows, I'll draw it from their description.  I'm just the artist!  --Ben 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Pyykkö argues on one of his papers that there is a low-frequence mode in this compound. In other words its geometry is easily distorted. Dr Zak 19:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is actually why I'm not particularly partial to that "T-shaped" structure now. It isn't the "real" minimum, just a structure that the molecule takes under those conditions in the argon matrix. Dr Zak 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The low frequency is from electron redistribution between levels 5f7/2 and 5f5/2 for the distant third middle oxygen, isn't it? --James S. 21:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranium trioxide in the gas phase 

message: Filling the article up with solid polymorph forms, while removing the source-supported statements about gas production is such obvious bias.  This bias is made all the more obvious with the lung solubility reference to "elimination" -- a pharmokinetic term meaning excretion, urination, or perspiration, from the Morrow (1972) reference to lung fluid solubility -- certainly a much larger, plainly factual error than removing the reference to the controversial Busby article.  It is so sad that so many people want to participate in supressing information about the gas phase.  Why not just remove all references to water vapor  from articles involving boiling water?  --James S. 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding pictures and details of the crystal forms of UO3 is not a form or expression of bias, the pictures are easy to read. They have been generated using POV ray which is driven by free software which is the de facto standard for many chemists. If you feel strongly that the drawings are not clear then I can provide you with my POV ray source code, you can then edit it to make a new POV file to draw pictures. The vast majority of UO3 is in the form of the solid, so why do you feel compelled to show pictures of the molecule. I suspect that when compaired with neutron/X-ray diffraction that the evidence for the molecule which you so wish to show is not good evidence. What you need is diffraction data to get the bond lengths and angles.Cadmium 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you think that the diagram in Cotton's book isn't based on just such studies?  Do you have access to the Science Citation Index?  Those are easy to find.  --James S. 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why include all of the rare solid polymorphs while removing gas information? 

message: The Uranium trioxid GAS also found its way into the uranium page! As combustion product!--Stone 09:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put it there, DV8 2XL did, seriously. --James S. 12:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranium

message: I found no indication that there is no source for Uranium trioxide as primary combustion product.  So I will delet the unsourced citations.--Stone 13:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether to simply agree with your double negative, or ask you how you read the thermodynamic data without concluding that the 75% U3O8 solid product is the result of UO3(g) condensation and decomposition. In any case, you really shouldn't be claiming English proficiency at the level you do on your user page. Thank you for citing Alexander (2005) -- that table of partial pressures is most illustrative. --James S. 14:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After reading the all the sources 

message: I think that each polymorph does need its own subsection, I intend to add more on each one. For some forms more than one diagram is needed. James has compressed the solid state chemistry into too small a space for it to be clear. I agree that under some comditions that UO3 gas can exist, but the solid state is more important as the vast majoirty of the chemistry of UO3 is of the solid.Cadmium
: Couldn't agree more. Dr Zak 18:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it would be appropriate when there is more than just an image and a few sentences for each. --James S. 20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polymorphs 

message: To mention pot in a long section is a little bit more than necesarry. The whole article will benedit from som tidy up.--Stone 08:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  "pot"?  --James S. 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equilibrium and transport reaction are the same

message: After redoing all the literature and adding use and Production I think the structures of the delta and the beta form could have their place on the supplementary page? These pictures are good, but they take a lot of space and load.--Stone 10:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. --James S. 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As part of petitioning activities, I've got U.S. fair use rights to keep them up; what is your source for suggesting a link to proprietary data is a potential copyright violation?  If the www.cheetos.com site is copyrighted, you can still link to it from the Cheetos article. --James S. 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would you want to do that?  The use of educational material as part of petitioning activities is one of the widest fair use rights in the U.S., with settled precident allowing electronic redistribution of entire articles such as those on www.bovik.org.  Simply linking to those fair use articles on my site doesn't consitute a copyright violation anywhere. --James S. 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MOVE of some structures? and copyvio?

message: Still have the feeling that the structures take mor place than necesarry--Stone 07:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  structures 

message: I realize this is a big edit war (in which I have no desire to get involved), but I condensed the production section and removed the other two times it is brought up.
Here are my suggestions for the article.  It would be preferable for this to follow the WikiChemicals template, but if I were to ignore that for a second:
* I would change the Chemistry section into 'Structure and Reactivity.'  I would put the solid phase stuctures first, and organize the darn pictures.  The gas phase section (the dispute in question), needs to be cleaned up.  As far as I can tell, there is no "true" gas phase structural data here--matrix data may be monomeric, but is not truly gas phase, and is not entirely convincing.  The vapor pressure data and equilibria are not well presented; while they make the point that UO3 may be volatile (barely, at really high temperatures) at some conditions, they stylistically stick out, and are confusing to the unknowing reader.  That is, there is no context for understanding why that data is presented.  The calculation is nice, but does not flow well in the text and could be labelled as "Calculated Structure"; perhaps some of the detail could be omitted and cited instead.
* It would be nice to have the reactivity data offset from the structural data--right now it's in the structure section which is confusion.
* The ceramics section is a use (sorta) and in reality should be in Production and Use.  (It would be nice if a separate Use section could be developed that restated, perhaps in more detail, the nuclear entrichment/recovery and the ceramics).
* I would then put the the Health Risks, after the properties and uses have all been discussed.  
Right now this article is a big mess.   Olin
:Thank you for all your hard work with the footnote-style references.  I don't have the hang of those yet, and it's nice to see someone adding work instead of taking facts away from this article for a change. Thanks to Cadmium, too, for adding all the solid state structure diagrams. 
However, having said that, I don't understand Cadmium's latest structure calculations, so I'm going to move them here to the talk page. --James S. 07:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel I need to comment 

message: *Citation in the introduction is a don't. 
:Fine. --James S. 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion, and the thousands of soldiers and civilians who suffer increased birth defects in their children and other symptoms of Gulf War syndrome would disagree, as would I. --James S. 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, some of the vapor will dissolve into humidity, even below freezing. --James S. 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go 2000° below the boilingpoint and you get nothing.--Stone 20:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just not true -- the gas diffuses, and it won't condense unless it gloms on to other particles.  Some proportion will always escape as a monomeric gas, and condense as such without other UO3 molecules, and some will be inhaled as such if there are people breathing in the area. --James S. 21:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they will inhale the solid. If they inhale isolated gas molecules they will be to diluted to me measurable. Dr Zak 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on what you can measure. Gonocyte and lynphocyte chromosomes can evidently be used to measure no more than what pilots who never came any closer than a few hundred feet to their 30 mm ammo fires, and if that included solid particulates then they would still have traces of the insoluble UO2 in their urine, which they don't. --James S. 01:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drinking water contains "large" amounts of uranium compared wat you can meassure. So if they can not meassure the increase in the pilots, the effect of the uranium from drinking water is bigger than that of inhalation!--Stone 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since about 2001, all of the urine studies have involved isotope ratios, which can tell the difference between natural and depleted UO2 particulate exposure, but can not detect soluble uranyl exposure such as UO3(g) or U3O8(s) particle inhalation. --James S. 07:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some points

message: Volatile is defined as "Evaporating readily at normal temperatures and pressures." or "That can be readily vaporized."    A few mbar of pressure high temperatures does not qualify as volatile, in my book, so I'd like to see if others agree thw word volatile should be stricken from the page.  (Also, volatility is an innate property of a substance.  "Volatile by oxidation" seems incorrect to me.)  Olin 15:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. If something is volatile it evaporates noticeably at normal temperature. Some people might call mercury volatile because the effects of its vapor are noticeable at room temperature and one must take precautions. But calling a thing volatile that is a gas only at incandescant heat? No way! Dr Zak 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  consensus on the word 'volatile' 

message: The lithium salts sold have the same problem (most of it ends up in hydrogenbombs). Also the carbon from organic sources differ from that of inorganic sources. Is the effect big enough to mention in the table?--Stone 06:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "government health warning" is taken from the IUPAC table of atomic weights. They do distinguish between natural variation (footnote 2) and man-made isotopic enrichment (footnote 3). Lithium is mentioned as an extra-pathologic case (footnote 4). There is a couple of other elements (hydrogen, boron, a few more). I guess we should leave the warning in - IUPAC points out that the isotopic ratio of commercial samples may not be the same as the one found in geologic specimens, and UO3 that ends up on the market may well have passed through an enrichment plant, after all uranium is mined mostly for use in nuclear reactors. Dr Zak 14:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isotope fractionation 

message: (Gabelnick, Reedy, Chasanov, 1970) they published a lot 1970-1973 I think its from 1972 or 1973.--Stone 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: source