WWII and Hiroshima/Nagasaki

[irosie91]

I did not think so----but I may be wrong. I thought (notice---I have not yet googled) that the issue was simply putting a whole bunch of radioactive isotopes of uranium together----to get to CRITICAL MASS <<< a term I remember from junior high school>>>>> -------maybe I should google

And if this is correct, the 'heavy water' would be the container for the radioactive isotopes? And if the radioactive isotopes are within the water, then the trigger of their combustion would be how again? Does radioactivity live on in radioactive isotopes submerged in waters?

I think that you are even more confused than am I-----the water used in the reaction as far as I recall is there to absorb
excess heat------ie the water in nuclear reactors-----to keep the
reaction under control-------or else MELTDOWN ---happens

Okay. so there is water... there are radioactive isotopes which have become so from the natural Uranium, making the uranium positive or negatively charged... and there are other things... My question is this.. in order for an isotope to become, there must first be an ionizing of the atom.. Without the ionizing of the Atom, the Atom remains a true atom in weight. There is no negative charge nor positive charge...

I don't think so----you seem to be saying that you think that a radioactive atom must be either negatively charged or positively charged. NOPE----a radioactive atom is one that
has an unstable nucleus that pops out particles and energy
(I think-----don't quote me)

And so this leads to my original question.. What is causing the instability of the atom?

hyperactivity like aspergers syndrome

 

[dpr112yme]

I did not think so----but I may be wrong. I thought (notice---I have not yet googled) that the issue was simply putting a whole bunch of radioactive isotopes of uranium together----to get to CRITICAL MASS <<< a term I remember from junior high school>>>>> -------maybe I should google

And if this is correct, the 'heavy water' would be the container for the radioactive isotopes? And if the radioactive isotopes are within the water, then the trigger of their combustion would be how again? Does radioactivity live on in radioactive isotopes submerged in waters?

I think that you are even more confused than am I-----the water used in the reaction as far as I recall is there to absorb
excess heat------ie the water in nuclear reactors-----to keep the
reaction under control-------or else MELTDOWN ---happens

Okay. so there is water... there are radioactive isotopes which have become so from the natural Uranium, making the uranium positive or negatively charged... and there are other things... My question is this.. in order for an isotope to become, there must first be an ionizing of the atom.. Without the ionizing of the Atom, the Atom remains a true atom in weight. There is no negative charge nor positive charge...

I don't think so----you seem to be saying that you think that a radioactive atom must be either negatively charged or positively charged. NOPE----a radioactive atom is one that
has an unstable nucleus that pops out particles and energy
(I think-----don't quote me)

And so this leads to my original question.. What is causing the instability of the atom?

If heat is being used, is it general heat? like the heat of a stove range? An excessive heat of over a certain degree could cause the atom to become radioactive?

 

[irosie91]

I did not think so----but I may be wrong. I thought (notice---I have not yet googled) that the issue was simply putting a whole bunch of radioactive isotopes of uranium together----to get to CRITICAL MASS <<< a term I remember from junior high school>>>>> -------maybe I should google

And if this is correct, the 'heavy water' would be the container for the radioactive isotopes? And if the radioactive isotopes are within the water, then the trigger of their combustion would be how again? Does radioactivity live on in radioactive isotopes submerged in waters?

I think that you are even more confused than am I-----the water used in the reaction as far as I recall is there to absorb
excess heat------ie the water in nuclear reactors-----to keep the
reaction under control-------or else MELTDOWN ---happens

Okay. so there is water... there are radioactive isotopes which have become so from the natural Uranium, making the uranium positive or negatively charged... and there are other things... My question is this.. in order for an isotope to become, there must first be an ionizing of the atom.. Without the ionizing of the Atom, the Atom remains a true atom in weight. There is no negative charge nor positive charge...

I don't think so----you seem to be saying that you think that a radioactive atom must be either negatively charged or positively charged. NOPE----a radioactive atom is one that
has an unstable nucleus that pops out particles and energy
(I think-----don't quote me)

Someone confused ion with isotope.

who?

 

[dpr112yme]

I learned how to type by being taught and by practice... Did you teach yourself how to type?

 

[dpr112yme]

And if this is correct, the 'heavy water' would be the container for the radioactive isotopes? And if the radioactive isotopes are within the water, then the trigger of their combustion would be how again? Does radioactivity live on in radioactive isotopes submerged in waters?

I think that you are even more confused than am I-----the water used in the reaction as far as I recall is there to absorb
excess heat------ie the water in nuclear reactors-----to keep the
reaction under control-------or else MELTDOWN ---happens

Okay. so there is water... there are radioactive isotopes which have become so from the natural Uranium, making the uranium positive or negatively charged... and there are other things... My question is this.. in order for an isotope to become, there must first be an ionizing of the atom.. Without the ionizing of the Atom, the Atom remains a true atom in weight. There is no negative charge nor positive charge...

I don't think so----you seem to be saying that you think that a radioactive atom must be either negatively charged or positively charged. NOPE----a radioactive atom is one that
has an unstable nucleus that pops out particles and energy
(I think-----don't quote me)

Someone confused ion with isotope.

who?

is an ion a negatively charged?

 

[dpr112yme]

Well regardless.. It was a good thing that Germany had not fully developed the atomic bombs before they decided to go to war. Otherwise, no one may be here right now...

 

[irosie91]

I think that you are even more confused than am I-----the water used in the reaction as far as I recall is there to absorb
excess heat------ie the water in nuclear reactors-----to keep the
reaction under control-------or else MELTDOWN ---happens

Okay. so there is water... there are radioactive isotopes which have become so from the natural Uranium, making the uranium positive or negatively charged... and there are other things... My question is this.. in order for an isotope to become, there must first be an ionizing of the atom.. Without the ionizing of the Atom, the Atom remains a true atom in weight. There is no negative charge nor positive charge...

I don't think so----you seem to be saying that you think that a radioactive atom must be either negatively charged or positively charged. NOPE----a radioactive atom is one that
has an unstable nucleus that pops out particles and energy
(I think-----don't quote me)

Someone confused ion with isotope.

who?

is an ion a negatively charged?

an ion can be either negatively or positively charged.

 

[dpr112yme]

thank you for your discussion.. bye..

 

[xband]

I thought that unless there was an empty space with no mass or matter, a vacuum, there could not be an implosion but only and explosion.

I don't think so-------don't quote me

There is no pure vacuum anywhere in our Universe due to the virtual quantum effect particles that pop into existence and annihilate in one femtosecond and could be the reason for dark energy.

 

[irosie91]

I thought that unless there was an empty space with no mass or matter, a vacuum, there could not be an implosion but only and explosion.

I don't think so-------don't quote me

There is no pure vacuum anywhere in our Universe due to the virtual quantum effect particles that pop into existence and annihilate in one femtosecond and could be the reason for dark energy.

SHEEEESH-----things were bad enough and YOU have to throw "DARK ENERGY" into the pot

 

[xband]

I thought that unless there was an empty space with no mass or matter, a vacuum, there could not be an implosion but only and explosion.

I don't think so-------don't quote me

There is no pure vacuum anywhere in our Universe due to the virtual quantum effect particles that pop into existence and annihilate in one femtosecond and could be the reason for dark energy.

SHEEEESH-----things were bad enough and YOU have to throw "DARK ENERGY" into the pot

Let me toss dark matter into the pot which is stranger than dark energy.

 

[irosie91]

I thought that unless there was an empty space with no mass or matter, a vacuum, there could not be an implosion but only and explosion.

I don't think so-------don't quote me

There is no pure vacuum anywhere in our Universe due to the virtual quantum effect particles that pop into existence and annihilate in one femtosecond and could be the reason for dark energy.

SHEEEESH-----things were bad enough and YOU have to throw "DARK ENERGY" into the pot

Let me toss dark matter into the pot which is stranger than dark energy.

NO NO NO NO------not dark matter--------it is far TOOO MUCH FOR ME

 

[xband]

I thought that unless there was an empty space with no mass or matter, a vacuum, there could not be an implosion but only and explosion.

I don't think so-------don't quote me

There is no pure vacuum anywhere in our Universe due to the virtual quantum effect particles that pop into existence and annihilate in one femtosecond and could be the reason for dark energy.

SHEEEESH-----things were bad enough and YOU have to throw "DARK ENERGY" into the pot

Let me toss dark matter into the pot which is stranger than dark energy.

NO NO NO NO------not dark matter--------it is far TOOO MUCH FOR ME

You can take dark matter mixed with dark energy as complex those concepts are to understand. Dark Energy and Dark Matter may come from a parallel Universe.

 

[irosie91]

I don't think so-------don't quote me

There is no pure vacuum anywhere in our Universe due to the virtual quantum effect particles that pop into existence and annihilate in one femtosecond and could be the reason for dark energy.

SHEEEESH-----things were bad enough and YOU have to throw "DARK ENERGY" into the pot

Let me toss dark matter into the pot which is stranger than dark energy.

NO NO NO NO------not dark matter--------it is far TOOO MUCH FOR ME

You can take dark matter mixed with dark energy as complex those concepts are to understand. Dark Energy and Dark Matter may come from a parallel Universe.

I have been there----get off at Union square and take the
L train to the parallel Universe