[ RadSafe ] AW: U3O8 + O2 --> UO3, auf Deutsch

[Franz Schönhofer]

See comments below.

Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org]
> Gesendet: Montag, 18. April 2005 07:33
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl; franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
> Cc: du-list at yahoogroups.com; maryann.parkhurst at pnl.gov;
jofu at icehouse.net;
> idias at interchange.ubc.ca
> Betreff: U3O8 + O2 --> UO3, auf Deutsch
> 
> Franz, or anyone else sufficiently literate in German:
> 
> Would you please help me translate this sentence?
> 
> "Bei 1200 bis 1800 K verdampft festes U3O8 in Gegenwart von
> [molekularen] Sauerstoff zu gasfoermigem, vermutlich monomerem UO3."
> (_Gmelin Handbuch der anorganischen Chemiek_, 8th ed., volume U-C2
> (1978), page 118.)
> 
> So far I have this:
> 
> << At 1200 to 1800 degrees Kelvin, solid U3O8, in the presence of
> [molecular] oxygen, evaporates into a gaseous, probably monomer(?)
> form of UO3. >>
> 
----------------------
This is a rather old citation and of course I do not know, when it had
been updated. I am not a specialist in uranium chemistry. 

Whether U3O8 evaporates to UO3 is of no importance to your claims,
because the DU monition does not contain U3O8, but metallic uranium.
Furthermore I do not understand what UO3 would change in any dosimetric
model. 

The only explanation for "monomer" in this case I can think of is that
it would not form crystal structures like for instance SiO2 in the solid
state, but single molecules of it would be present, which makes sense. 

-------------------------------

> What could "monomerem" mean in the context of inorganic chemistry?
> I can't believe that UO3 can form polymers.  If it means individual
> molecules, that would explain that it stays aerosol for a long time,

-----------------------------------

Any molecules would attach extremely fast to aerosol particles and they
would not escape any aerosol collecting device. Single molecules are not
"aerosols". 

-------------------------------


> in turn explaining how the U.S. Army has failed to detect it with
> collectors at the base of their ordnance fires.
> 
> I was raised on a U.S. Army base just outside Nuremberg, but my
> German is really poor these days.  Thanks in advance for your help.
> 
---------------------------------------
Nuremberg is my favourite town because of personal reasons in Germany
and whenever I travel close by I spend at least a day there. 
-----------------------------------------




> Here are some other passages from the English translation of the
> Gmelin Handbook:
> 
> "The taking up of oxygen [by U3O8] is not infrequently ignored."
> (volume U-C1 (1977), page 98)
> 
> "The appearance potential [of UO2+ from UO2 is 5 electron-Volts.]"
> (volume U-C5 (1986), pp. 276-8.)
> 
> Five electron volts seems like a very little amount inside a hot fire.

----------------------------------------------

I do not know, what you want to show with your translation - it has
nothing to do with your claims. What an "appearance potential" is I do
not know, do you?

---------------------------------------------------

Your hair-splitting attitude is only to distract RADSAFErs from the fact
that your original postings do not make any sense. 

I probably wrote already before on my attitude towards soldiers (in most
cases mercenaries) who claim to suffer from a weapon system which they
deliberately use to kill as many opponents as possible. They are paid
for the risk.

Franz