Nuclear Power Related Media Thread, page-5413

I think you need to understand the difference in the laser technologies involved and their relative maturity, to come to a more rational comparison and come to terms that development and proving takes a lot of time and money - it's easy to criticize something you clearly do not understand; if you can't be patent then maybe you should not be a shareholder in such ventures - they a high risk but high return (but it takes time and guts).if successful (thyey have a high failure tate particularly in enrichment technology - read about the US, Brazil, French, Japanese, Russian failures and the US$Bn spent to no avail on MLIS and AVLIS on this technology to understand the risks. May I also recommend that you read the history of CRISLA and Silex/Cameco (see HERE particularly on pages 55/57) to understand a bit of the history.

Please look at the LIST patent (see HERE) to discover where LIST were in 2015 (they were largely in a warehouse during the intervening period to now & also Jeff Eerkins is now 94 years old, and has just got lease of a laboratory to install their test loop and (by their estimation) are at TRL/4. If you need to understand where we were around 2010 then Snyder (see HERE) is a good source. If you don't understand them may I suggest that you talk to someone that does before you express further criticism of the time and effort expended by Silex particularly during the "famine" years of July 2014 to 2021 and also 2002 to 2006. If you read the latest LIST announcement you may also notice that they are only now moving into the "classification" stage - this is required to start using UF₆ - all I can presume is that were using WF₆ (Tungsten Hexaflouride) as a proxy for UF₆ during their prototype tests at the University of Missouri in the early 2000's - there are significant differences - UF₆ is radioactive and subject to strict NRC regulation.