Talk:Isotopes of uranium

What is the Problem with U-232 in a Fission Bomb?

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Uranium-241 half-life

@Burzuchius: 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)

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)

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)

Missing decay modes

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)

Cluster decay of ²³⁰U

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)

Clutter

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)

Theoretical alpha half-life of ²⁴⁰U

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)