Hello my nuclear friends, first a word of warning my nuclear physics knowledge is somewhat lacking as i prefer the realms of organic chemistry however
i non the less am very curious about the nucleus and how one would go about synthesizing a nucleus from other nucleus's.
I would also like to point out that i by no means want to use plutonium 239 to make any weapons either fission fusion or poison based, i am merely
interested in synthesizing plutonium because well its mother fucken plutonium, I also don't really care if its highly contaminated with plutonium 40
or any other somewhat useless isotopes.
I am sure that there are some government officials out there that would call me a terrorist for merely asking about this but we would need minimum
around 1 kg of plutonium 239 to achieve any kind of critical mass and i only really expect anyone using this method to produce 10-20mg or fuck if it
was really successful a gram, perhaps this is me dreaming too hard. To put it simply this is a life long goal and one that i do not intend to begin
practical work on for a good couple of years yet, after all i barely understand the basics.
And so i have an idea although i doubt its an original one but i have never been able to find much info on such a process (probably because its kinda
dodgy insane and expensive).
Could an individual with access to large quantities of deuterium, use said deuterium in a fusion reactor to generate neutrons and then with the aid of
perhaps electromagnets or mirrors or perhaps both, accelerate and direct the generated neutrons into a neutron beam which could then be targeted at
some uranium dioxide over the coarse of a rather long period of time im guessing, to synthesize a small quantity of plutonium which may then be
isolated from the uranium.
I am first a little confused as to how a fusion reactor works because i thought that deuturium had to be fussed with tritium producing helium 5 which
then gave up a neutron to helium 4, so could someone please elaborate as to how a farnsworth fusor works without a large supply of tritium?
The next thing i am confused about is creating a neutron beam itself, neutrons are neutral of course and have no charge and thus i don't know if
electromagnets work in order to accelerate and direct them but if it is possible then in what way would the electromagnets have to be facing i.e. does
the magnetic field have to move in the direction that we want to accelerate the neutrons?
The collision is the next thing that i am curious about, in nuclear reactors the neutrons must travel at a certain speed in order to achieve the
most collisions with the target nucleus and this is done by use of moderator which is often water, this slows down the neutron enough for it to
collide with the desired nucleus.
Also what would be the best way for us to organize uranium oxide in order to get the highest yield possible of plutonium 239 i.e. would we want to put
it in layers with space in between or just a large bulk of our uranium in the middle of the neutron beam.
The next obvious problem is preparing the uranium itself, i am thinking that you would need to first react your crushed uranium ore with nitric acid
to get uranyl nitrate and then filter and boiling off the acid and then heating the uranyl nitrate in a tube furnace with a flow of oxygen at 400*C to
600*C to get uranium mixed oxides (for the purpose of this discussion we will simply call it uranium trioxide) which would then have to be reduced in
a similar manner by a flow of hydrogen over the trioxide in a tube furnace at 700*C.
Then of coarse the isolation of plutonium or a plutonium salt from the uranium. When uranium 238 is hit by the neutron it forms uranium 239 which then
undergoes beta decay to Neptunium 239 followed by further beta decay to plutonium 239. uranium 239 has a half life of 23.45 minutes and neptunium 239
has a half life of 2.356 days then i suspect we will need to leave the uranium plutonium neptunium and other unknown elements mixture for a couple of
months to ensure that all or most of the neptunium has decayed to plutonium.
After this we would need to isolate our plutonium by first dissolving again into nitric acid to get uranium nitrate and of coarse plutonium
nitrate, now i googled the shit out of this but had serious trouble finding any details of the oxidation states of plutonium that i could get access
to freely, the best i could do was unfortunately: http://ieer.org/resource/factsheets/plutonium-factsheet/
Im guessing since the oxidation state of plutonium dioxide is 4+ then once we dissolve this in nitric acid then the oxidation state should remain at
4+ since we have not introduced any reducing agents and if anything nitric acid is an oxidizer and thus we will still have plutonium 4 nitrate
Pu(NO3)4.
Plutonium in its 4+ oxidation state is soluble in a mixture of Tributyl phosphate and kerosene as a 10-40% solution, and thus as described in this
video we could 'i assume' extract the plutonium nitrate from the aqueous solution of uranium nitrate without any uranium making it into the kerosene
solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89UNPdNtOoE
Next we would need to reduce the Pu(NO3)4 to Pu(NO3)3 in the kerosene TBP solution, In the video he uses hydrxylamine nitrate or hydroxyammonium
nitrate which i guess is just the nitric acid salt of hydroxylamine, after we had reduced the plutonium to 3+ it would then be insoluble in the
kerosene TBP mixture and could be extracted with H2O and the h20 evaporated to get our crude or hopefully pure plutonium 3 nitrate.
From here im guessing the same reduction would have to be done as with the uranium nitrate with hydrogen however i have absolutely no clue as to how
hot the condition would have to be.
Unfortunately because naked plutonium metal reacts with atmospheric oxygen i don't know how easily we could handle its naked metal but if we were
able to reduce it down to its naked metal under an inert atmosphere then we could simply melt the plutonium metal at 640*C into a bead which we could
put into an appropriate storage container, the formation of oxide which have much higher melting points might make this rather difficult however.
[Edited on 19-3-2017 by Assured Fish]BlackDragon2712 - 19-3-2017 at 13:13
In my list of "not to mess around" chemicals plutonium is scratching the top... though making a fusor... a Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor is a very
interesting concept.... maybe you should start from there.
Though consider that the highest amount of neutrons produced by a deuterium-deuterium fusor ever was 3×10^11 neutrons per second... I'm very
confident that the actual ammount of neutrons you would produce in a household made fusor reactor would be much lower... if any.phlogiston - 19-3-2017 at 15:07
There is no way you'll make a visible amount.
However, a detectable amount is perhaps attainable.
Read this:
In my list of "not to mess around" chemicals plutonium is scratching the top... though making a fusor... a Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor is a very
interesting concept.... maybe you should start from there.
I can imagine plutonium probably scares the pants of most chemists given its apparent toxicity, but many amateur chemists on this forum including
myself have handled excessively dangerous chemicals before, for me it was mercury nitrate. Given that mercuric and lead salts are the kinda chemicals
that afford precisely no error what so ever; surely then plutonium and i guess uranium salts would be treated with the same caution. I realize that
plutonium would likely need to be treated (even just for principle sake) with a bit more safety precautions than the others in that a glove box would
likely need to be the go to as opposed to a fume hood or like when i made mercury nitrate; with a fan blowing anything in the opposite direction to
me. None of these salts are volatile what so ever and the only risk they pose when it comes to exposure through the air would be from dust although
given how dense plutonium salts are likely to be, this probably poses considerably less risk than any of the other salts i mentioned.
Also something to note is that many researchers have handled plutonium and its salts in the open atmosphere without exposure e.g. The so called
demon core which was a large sub critical mass of plutonium which the researchers at the time stood in the same room with, without high ventilation
and without fear of exposure to plutonium particles.
Another example is from YouTube where in the plutonium video which i will link again, the professor whose name escapes me describes his lecturer Alfie
Maddock spilling a 10mg sample of plutonium (i suspect in solution) on a table top and then sawing around this mess which would mean that he was
handling it outside of a gloves box and probably a fume hood, he then burnt the wooden table top that he had sawed which if anything would have
vaporized the particles into the atmosphere, yet he was still able to retrieve 9.5mg of the sample thus indicating that exposure to plutonium salts
through the atmosphere isn't really a viable route of exposure.
Thus it leaves the only real means of danger to the chemist handling this stuff as dermal exposure; which any reasonably experienced chemist should be
able to avoid with ease. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89UNPdNtOoE
Now lets say nobody actually has the balls to try and actually synthesize plutonium on an amateur scale, then could we simply entertain the idea and
explore how we could go about doing so in theory.
I also very much intend to make a Farnsworth fusor at some point in the near future even if I actually never intend to go through with this bat shit
insane idea. I should also point out that upon reading through my siblings that this may have come off somewhat defensive or combative but by no means
was this intended.
Quote:
Though consider that the highest amount of neutrons produced by a deuterium-deuterium fusor ever was 3×10^11 neutrons per second... I'm very
confident that the actual ammount of neutrons you would produce in a household made fusor reactor would be much lower... if any.
I think i understand how the Farnsorth reactor works now with just deuterium, The deuterium fuses with another deuterium forming either stable helium
4 or more likely an unstable helium 4 which then gives off either a photon, x ray or a neutron to helium 3.
300 billion neutrons doesn't sound like alot but this is of coarse per second and if we were able to use the correct modulator (which from what ive
read would actually have to be a hydrocarbon) then we could make use of a rather large sum of the neutrons that are emitted, but perhaps there is a
better way of generating neutrons than by deuterium deuterium fusion if someone could suggest it.
Sigma sell deuterium for $242 for a 10 Liter steel canister which i suspect should last a pretty long period of time and we could likely find it
cheaper given that sigma products are usually way over priced, deuterium oxide is normally $1 a gram which would then need to be hydrolyzed. I
searched around for some tritium oxide and tritium gas but i don't think im gonna be ably to find much except small tritium batteries that NerdRage
used in his video which i don't think contained anymore than maybe 10-20mg if that, which isn't really a viable option which i guess just leaves us
with deuterium deuterium fusion for now.
Could you possibly link me to the reactor that was able to produce the 300 billion neutrons per second, perhaps that reactor design might be more
suited to this endevour and hopefully repeatable on an amateur level.
And also another question; is it at all possible for us to theoretically calculate the number of collisions provided of coarse we knew the rate of
neutrons being generated and the speed at which these neutrons are travelling and the mass of our target etc?Assured Fish - 19-3-2017 at 16:18
I love you.
This reference at the very least is highly encouraging, but also perhaps highlights some other interesting products of the neutron irradiation of
uranium. Thank you BlackDragon2712 - 19-3-2017 at 16:28
I should also point out that upon reading through my siblings that this may have come off somewhat defensive or combative but by no means was this
intended.
I do understand... but I never said you shouldn't do it... I have worked with dangerous materials as well so I do understand when someone tells you
you shouldn't do something haha
Could you possibly link me to the reactor that was able to produce the 300 billion neutrons per second, perhaps that reactor design might be more
suited to this endevour and hopefully repeatable on an amateur level.
The demon core ended up killing some of the scientists handling it, FWIW.
But there's other ways to get neutrons for transmutation. An alpha source, like old radium clock dial paint or americium from old smoke detectors can
be mixed with beryllium to make neutrons. A simple columnator to focus these to a target could be fashioned out of a heavy metal, like lead. Aim this
at a natural uranium or thorium target for some extended time, and I'm quite sure you would get transmutation to heavier actinides, maybe even enough
to be detected. Once fertile gets converted to fissile, more neutron bombardment will be multiplied by fission, making still more transmutation.
Enough of this, and fission products could become detectable, too.BlackDragon2712 - 19-3-2017 at 20:15
The last time someone tried that, it didn't go well as we can recall... I still belive that the idea of a fusor as the neutron source is the best way
to go since it's more controllable in the sense that it can actually be turned off... and trying to collect enough alpha sources would be harder than
making a fusor imho
[Edited on 05/12/2013 by BlackDragon2712]Assured Fish - 19-3-2017 at 20:25
Quote:
The demon core ended up killing some of the scientists handling it, FWIW.
The demon core did not kill people because of the toxicity of the plutonium which was my point, it killed people because it went critical for a few
seconds. I think someone spilled something on it like water which slowed some neutrons down.BlackDragon2712 - 19-3-2017 at 20:41
The demon core ended up killing some of the scientists handling it, FWIW.
The demon core did not kill people because of the toxicity of the plutonium which was my point, it killed people because it went critical for a few
seconds. I think someone spilled something on it like water which slowed some neutrons down.
It was a wolframium brick which reflected enough neutrons to sustain a critical reaction for a few seconds ... the amount of neutrons released was so
big that the air in the surround got ionized and it turned blue ... very scary stuffneptunium - 11-4-2023 at 15:33
There is a lot of misconception and information in these last few messages. As I see it here 6 years after this exchange! (wow! sorry about that! )
No you cannot focus neutron with a moderator, they just fly in every which way with a broad spectrum of energy. A collimator in front of a
ridiculously weak alpha source will simply restrict the alpha particles to an even weaker beam, a typical neutron source working on the alpha/neutron
principle is usually in the low Curie range and certainly not micro Curie. The Be release of a neutron is a pretty rare event so a lot of "projectile"
are necessary to even see anything..
I barely got a peak using 1milli curie of Po210 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdQ3B0B9vF0
The fusor is a neat concept and great idea! ...until you realize all these neutrons are coming from a single, very small point and flying 360degrees
out with no way of focusing them, I know that because the shell of my fusor never showed any residual activity from Fe or Cr after many many MANY
runs! here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxEDokcNMXU
and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzrQ_es9kqA
There is a device called a neutristor, it`s basically a small Xray but for neutrons. it does use Deuterium and it produces a decent (unfocused) beam.
but it`s not cheap and may still not be enough for what you are trying to do .. An amateur may be able to build one though...
The final problem is the chemical separation of Pu from U in the final irradiated product. You described it as a clean process with no mess and no
fuss. If you bombard depleted U with a wide range of energy neutron, you`ll get a wide range of fission product, actinides and some Pu. In a light
water reactor (which produces several order of magnitude more neutron than the best fusor, and 24/7 BTW) the fuel is not "approachable" for many
decades because of all that crap. On a small scale and if you just want to be able to detect it, than sure.. I think it`s possible. getting anywhere
near the milligram range ? absolutely not.
That`s my 2 cents and of course I could be dead wrong, but I suspect an amateur would need some serious financial (and legal) support or get some
equipment usually inaccessible to most of us and do it like Karl Willis in a university setting. Xanax - 24-4-2023 at 06:27
I was trying to make plutonium-239 from uranium-238. Mixed radium and americium with beryllium. I don't know the results, but I was thinking that the
neutrons should be uptaked by the U-238, and then after 2 short beta decays, there is plutonium...
Then I had no idea that I must have the right speed and energy for the neutron. Just labbed for fun!
Then the police came with the SWAT-team and stole all my radioactive elements... Admagistr - 24-4-2023 at 06:58
Then the police came with the SWAT-team and stole all my radioactive elements... [/rquote]
And how did the police find out about your experiments??And what punishment did you receive from them, only they confiscated everything from you??Pentaborane - 20-7-2023 at 18:26
If you bombard depleted U with a wide range of energy neutron, you`ll get a wide range of fission product, actinides and some Pu. In a light water
reactor (which produces several order of magnitude more neutron than the best fusor, and 24/7 BTW) the fuel is not "approachable" for many decades
because of all that crap.
This is absolutely the case. Fission product activity would make this extremely hazardous, not to mention the radiotoxicity of the product itself. I
would not recommend doing this in any world for both legal and safety reasons. That said, it is worth reading the attached writeup on what it took to
actually isolate the first samples of Pu.
While "true" Pu chemistry is out of reach of the amateur, we often use lanthanides as actinide surrogates because of their similar chemistry
(sometimes detrimentally similar, some lanthanides are strong neutron absorbers, which is a bit of a problem if you want to reprocesses fuel for
recycle). Cerium tends to be a fairly good Pu surrogate. It has its limitations but is satisfactory for many applications. We often used this for new
flowsheet development where we didn't want to mess with the real thing. It may not be as "interesting" as true Pu, but it is much easier to work with
and will behave very similarly.
Attachment: Pu History.pdf (5MB) This file has been downloaded 263 times
[Edited on 21-7-2023 by Pentaborane]Σldritch - 21-7-2023 at 05:55
I've given this some thought myself. Plutonium is such an interesting element with its strange electronic properties. It should make great
superconductors and even now with it being so exotic and dangerous there is a technology relevant one already (PuCo2Ga5 IIRC). Almost stable too as
Pu-244 however obtaining it in that form is even harder with todays technology though it exists naturally.
I think there are ways though you will have to use technology largely forgotten nowadays and combine it with that on the cutting edge.
The proton-21 experiment provides an entry point for the curious reader. Another is Tesla's work. I won't bother to tell the rest; people are not
amenable enough to evidence here. But it is certainly possible to do, I am sure; with great effort - separative or otherwise.
