What a neat device. Unlike those extra spicy, dangerous sources that say "drop and run" on them, this thing only runs when you line up the CF-252 with the HEU plates. It has an off switch to stop the cascade. Perfect for lab use.
> In 1975, Kodak powered up the country’s first californium neutron flux multiplier (CFX) ... to provide Kodak R&D with an ample stream of neutrons for materials analysis.
> If an X-ray shows you the crack in a pipe, neutrons will show you the leak.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me?
> And aside from a license renewal snafu in 1980, the device made no waves until its existence was shared with the local newspaper—it wasn’t a secret, just unpublicized.
This matches other sources on the internet: a bomb requires about 15kg of U-235 [0] with a good use of neutron reflectors, and HEU by definition contains 20%+ of U-235 [1]. We don't know exactly what the U-235 concentration was in the Kodak device, but reasonable values would make the claim "roughly" correct.
Their SNM license was for “up to 93.5% enriched”[1] and their decommissioning plan describes them as MTR-type Al-clad plates. So I’d take a reasonable guess that these are at 93% nominal enrichment, like ATR and HFIR fuel plates.
What a neat device. Unlike those extra spicy, dangerous sources that say "drop and run" on them, this thing only runs when you line up the CF-252 with the HEU plates. It has an off switch to stop the cascade. Perfect for lab use.
> In 1975, Kodak powered up the country’s first californium neutron flux multiplier (CFX) ... to provide Kodak R&D with an ample stream of neutrons for materials analysis. > If an X-ray shows you the crack in a pipe, neutrons will show you the leak.
> Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine trusting private corporations with the stuff atomic bombs are made of today.
Valar Atomics would like a word.
https://archive.ph/gb4Kj
I'm getting "Windows Subsystem for Linux" vibes from the project name. Shouldn't this be called a HEUFX with a Californium source?
It wasn't a secret like the article admits later on.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me?
> And aside from a license renewal snafu in 1980, the device made no waves until its existence was shared with the local newspaper—it wasn’t a secret, just unpublicized.
Quote: "and though it takes roughly 100 pounds of it to build an atomic bomb...”
Are they stupid at PM or just selling misinformation?
This matches other sources on the internet: a bomb requires about 15kg of U-235 [0] with a good use of neutron reflectors, and HEU by definition contains 20%+ of U-235 [1]. We don't know exactly what the U-235 concentration was in the Kodak device, but reasonable values would make the claim "roughly" correct.
[0] https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-weapon/Princip...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium
Their SNM license was for “up to 93.5% enriched”[1] and their decommissioning plan describes them as MTR-type Al-clad plates. So I’d take a reasonable guess that these are at 93% nominal enrichment, like ATR and HFIR fuel plates.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0900/ML090080661.pdf
[2] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml0816/ML081690374.pdf
At least it wasn't "though it takes at least the equivalent of 12.5 bald eagles of it to build an atomic bomb"
The whole article is a journalistic nothingburger.