🚀 go-pugleaf

Kenneth Pangborn proven a liar by another person and still comes back
for more ass kicking.  His own ass. http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com.

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message 
> "J. P. Young" <jpyoung@io.com> wrote in message

> > I have a disagreement that I was hoping a few people in sci.physics
> > could help me out with. There is a poster in several other newsgroups
> > that STRONGLY believes in the following three statements:
> >
> > 1) "Plutonium is 'enriched Uranium'"
> 
> Wrong.  They are different elements.  That material commonly called
> "enriched uranium" is uranium in which the natural isotope proportions have
> been pushed toward the U235 direction.
> 
> > 2) "Plutonium is made by enriching Uranium in a reactor."
> 
> Wrong, but almost right.  You start with urnaium ,and end up with plutonium.
> Don't forget the neptunium.
> 
> > 3) While on the surface, the process of making Pu-239 is referred to
> > as a process of "decay", because you add protons, it is called
> > "enrichment."
> 
> I have heard it called "transmutation" or "conversion".  There are several
> steps:  U238 + neutron = U239.  U239 - beta = Np239.  Np239 - beta = Pu239.
> 
> > I contend that all of these statements are incorrect. I've presented
> > what I feel is pretty good evidence that these are incorrect, but this
> > guy is sticking to his guns.
> >
> > The first one is simply incorrect because Plutonium and "enriched
> > Uranium" are different substances.
> >
> > The second and third ones are wrong, in my opinion, for basically the
> > same reason. I am objecting to the "enriching"/"enrichment" terms, not
> > that Plutonium can be created in a Uranium-based reactor.
> >
> > I was wondering if someone could respond to our posts in
> > alt.true-crime or soc.men and set this person straight. Also, if I'm
> > wrong, and these statements are accurate, please set me straight. If
> > it would be better to cross-post this discussion to sci.physics, let
> > me know, but I'd prefer not to pollute a sci group with this simple,
> > ticky-tac garbage.
> >
> > Here are the latest Google Groups links to some of his many posts on
> > the subject:
> >
> >
> http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1150548086d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT
> F-8&selm=20030912081135.17919.00000871%40mb-m05.aol.com
> >
> Oh, Ken Pangborn.  He is a troll.  Argue with him if you wish, but only for
> amusement.

    The is usenet's general opinion but Kenneth Pangborn is more than
a troll.  He is a mentally ill stalker who deserves to be locked up in
a mental hospital.He is also a pathelogical liar.

> 
> >
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=20030912075347
> .17919.00000869%40mb-m05.aol.com
> 
> So you know about google, but you didn't smack him with some google
> references?
> 
> e.g.: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htm