DSK wrote:

Just my humble opinon.... I
wonder if the US has really stopped using depleted uranium, or if they've found
something almost as good?



Just about any really dense metal will do for this type of technology, I've seen rounds
made with hardened copper that work quite well. The big problem is finding something that
is really dense that has sufficient tensile strength to withstand the acceleration of being
fired from the weapon and at the same time is not expensive. DU filled these requirements
nicely, it's a waste product and thus cheap, as an added boon this was a great way of disposing
of several thousands of tons of unwanted radioactive waste. I believe I read that making
this type of kinetic round with copper is actually more expensive than DU.

Cheers
Marty

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:54:47 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote this crap:

Just about any really dense metal will do for this type of technology, I've seen rounds
made with hardened copper that work quite well. The big problem is finding something that
is really dense that has sufficient tensile strength to withstand the acceleration of being
fired from the weapon and at the same time is not expensive. DU filled these requirements
nicely, it's a waste product and thus cheap, as an added boon this was a great way of disposing
of several thousands of tons of unwanted radioactive waste.

DU is NOT radioactive waste, dumbass. DU is the byproduct of removing
the radioactive isotopes from natural uranium. It's called "depleted
uranium" because the valuable radioactive material has been removed.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

Horvath wrote:

It's called "depleted
uranium" because the valuable material has been removed.


That's why I think you have a depleted cranium.


;-P


Cheers

"MC" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Horvath wrote:
|
| It's called "depleted
| uranium" because the valuable material has been removed.
|
|
| That's why I think you have a depleted cranium.
|
|
| ;-P

That would be assuming he had a source to deplete! :-)

CM

Horvath wrote:



DU is NOT radioactive waste, dumbass. DU is the byproduct of removing
the radioactive isotopes from natural uranium. It's called "depleted
uranium" because the valuable radioactive material has been removed.


You may be the thickest individual to ever post on this news group. co some
research.

Cheers
Marty

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:55:43 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote this crap:

Horvath wrote:



DU is NOT radioactive waste, dumbass. DU is the byproduct of removing
the radioactive isotopes from natural uranium. It's called "depleted
uranium" because the valuable radioactive material has been removed.


You may be the thickest individual to ever post on this news group. co some
research.

Why would you say that?

What is "co some research"?




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

He's seen your posts...

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:55:43 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote this crap:

Horvath wrote:



DU is NOT radioactive waste, dumbass. DU is the byproduct of removing
the radioactive isotopes from natural uranium. It's called "depleted
uranium" because the valuable radioactive material has been removed.


You may be the thickest individual to ever post on this news group. co
some
research.

Why would you say that?

What is "co some research"?




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

Horvath wrote:



You may be the thickest individual to ever post on this news group. co some
research.


Why would you say that?

Because you cleary do not know the mechanism by which depleted uranium is obtained.

What is "co some research"?

So sorry, co=do, that shouldn't have been too difficult to decipher,
I'm suprised at you.

Now go see if you can find out how a US light water reactor works.

Cheers
Marty

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:08:46 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote this crap:

Horvath wrote:



You may be the thickest individual to ever post on this news group. co some
research.


Why would you say that?

Because you cleary do not know the mechanism by which depleted uranium is obtained.

Natural uranium is distilled in a centrifuge. The 235 isotope is
lighter than the 238 isotope and is skimmed off.

Did you forget that I am an engineer?

What is "co some research"?

So sorry, co=do, that shouldn't have been too difficult to decipher,
I'm suprised at you.

Now go see if you can find out how a US light water reactor works.

I know how. What's your problem?




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

Horvath wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:08:46 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote this crap:


Horvath wrote:


You may be the thickest individual to ever post on this news group. co some
research.


Why would you say that?

Because you cleary do not know the mechanism by which depleted uranium is obtained.


Natural uranium is distilled in a centrifuge. The 235 isotope is
lighter than the 238 isotope and is skimmed off.

Did you forget that I am an engineer?


Are you asserting that either U235 or U238 is not radioactive?

Don't forget diffusion as a separation method, (probably more common than
centrifuge in the US), you might want to look up "AVLIS" while your at it.

Moreover, after separation of the U235, the stuff you are left with
is a "Waste Product", just as the tippings at a coal mine are after
removal of the coal, only the waste in the former case is somewhat
more radioactive. I fully realize the the half-life of U238 is considerable,
however most people, myself included would not want their children playing
on a pile of the stuff.

Cheers
Marty