[Homer_J_Simpson]

I’d liked to have seen the full article on isolation of the U-235 isotope.

I loaded "U-235" into my internal word-finder unit. Whenever it rolls past my optical units while I am scrolling fiche my digital unit will automatically press "Print."

Good catch, henkster. This article goes deeper than I would have guessed from the fuzzy page 1 headline at the top of the thread.

1

2

3

4

[henkster]

Homer

Thanks for posting the full article. It was very informative, and much more comprehensive than I thought it was. As I’d mentioned earlier, the astute reader of the New York Times science beat could have discerned that construction of a bomb from U235 was theoretically possible. So the average crewman on the Enola Gay could deduce they were “splitting atoms today.” I did notice that they downplayed the destructive force liberated from an “atomic explosion.” But all of that was not well understood at this time. Two things the article does not mention:

1. The scale of industrial plant and complexity of engineering processes necessary to isolate a sufficient quantity of U235, and

2. Just what becomes of that new “new” Uranium isotope “239.”

One thing the article got wrong; ordinary water will not act as a “moderator” for the neutrons in their “reactor.” Something “heavier” is needed. Maybe graphite, maybe a different “type” of water?

This article was a very good catch. Now keep your eyes open about December of this year, and let’s see if there is any news out of the University of Chicago...