From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Chris Ahlstrom wrote:   
   > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote this post by blinking in Morse code:   
   >> chine.bleu wrote:   
   >>> Their problem was a chemical blind alley. A reactor requires some   
   >>> chemistry to work.   
   >> No *chemical* reactions take place in a *nuclear* reactor.   
   >   
   > You sure?   
      
   Yes.   
      
   > I understand no *useful* chemical reactions occur, but   
   > there are always reactions back and forth in an equilibrium.   
      
   In a *nuclear* reactor, basically slow(ed) neutrons merge with a large   
   *nucleus* that therefore becomes unstable and splits into smaller *nuclei*,   
   releasing binding energy, e.g.   
      
     ^{235}U + n^0 --> ^{236}U --> ^{92}Kr + ^{141}Ba + 3 n^0.   
      
   See also:    
      
   > Just positing a slightly contrary position.   
   >   
   > And would gladly welcome elucidation.   
      
   Chemical reactions involve the acceptance or donation of electrons or   
   "protons" (actually, hydrogen ions) so that atoms can combine to (different)   
   molecules.  That does not happen in a nuclear reaction because there are no   
   molecules and no atoms anymore: the temperature is too high.   
      
   A nuclear reaction changes the number of protons or neutrons in a nucleus,   
   thereby (effectively) changes the chemical element or isotope (by   
   definition); this *never* happens in a *chemical* reaction.   
      
   I am aware that nuclear physics is sometimes taught in chemistry classes,   
   especially in developing countries; but that is just a didactical mistake.   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)