| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"tonyjeffs" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2006 03:42:06 PM |
| Object: |
Nuclear bomb |
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
Asking purely out of interest - I'm having a discussion on politics
elsewhere. I thought the latter would work, but now I'm not sure.
tony
.
|
|
| User: "Kono imo!" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
14 Apr 2006 07:16:00 PM |
|
|
"tonyjeffs" <9@tonyjeffs.com> wrote in message
news:1145047326.609994.27720@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
Asking purely out of interest - I'm having a discussion on politics
elsewhere. I thought the latter would work, but now I'm not sure.
tony
Get the plutonium first.
(you certainly do not need that much! In fact, I bet you can't ever get that
much)
.
|
|
|
| User: "tonyjeffs" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
15 Apr 2006 04:08:00 AM |
|
|
I did have a luminous alarm clock once... maybe that'd be a start!
Many thanks for the replies. All very interesting.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
14 Apr 2006 04:30:14 PM |
|
|
In article <1145047326.609994.27720@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "tonyjeffs" <9@tonyjeffs.com> writes:
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
Yes, pretty much so.
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
No, because you wouldn't be able to do it. As you'll be approaching
critical mass you'll get enough power generation to disperse the pile.
This is called a "fizzle".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
14 Apr 2006 04:35:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1145047326.609994.27720@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "tonyjeffs" <9@tonyjeffs.com> writes:
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
Yes, pretty much so.
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
No, because you wouldn't be able to do it. As you'll be approaching
critical mass you'll get enough power generation to disperse the pile.
This is called a "fizzle".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Would a fizzle still take place if you had a suicide bomber slam two
subcritical pieces together, as quickly as he could?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
14 Apr 2006 05:01:08 PM |
|
|
In article <1145050526.534168.247180@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, writes:
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1145047326.609994.27720@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "tonyjeffs" <9@tonyjeffs.com> writes:
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
Yes, pretty much so.
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
No, because you wouldn't be able to do it. As you'll be approaching
critical mass you'll get enough power generation to disperse the pile.
This is called a "fizzle".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Would a fizzle still take place if you had a suicide bomber slam two
subcritical pieces together, as quickly as he could?
Yes, certainly so. Note two points:
1) The supercritical mass assembly for the Slim Boy bomb (the U235
one) was based on firing one subcritical piece into another from an
artillery gun. That was the magnitude of the speed required.
2) The mechanism mentioned above was not used for the Fat Man (Pu239)
bomb because *it was not fast enough*. That's why detonation wave was
used instead.
So, your suicide bomber is too slow, by orders of magnitude. Mind
you, this doesn't mean that he'll get absolutely no effect. He can
get a small local explosion, equaivalent to some kg or tens of kg of
TNT, and some local radiation contamination. But a very, very far cry
from a real nuclear explosion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
14 Apr 2006 05:36:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1145050526.534168.247180@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, writes:
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1145047326.609994.27720@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "tonyjeffs" <9@tonyjeffs.com> writes:
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
Yes, pretty much so.
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
No, because you wouldn't be able to do it. As you'll be approaching
critical mass you'll get enough power generation to disperse the pile.
This is called a "fizzle".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Would a fizzle still take place if you had a suicide bomber slam two
subcritical pieces together, as quickly as he could?
Yes, certainly so. Note two points:
1) The supercritical mass assembly for the Slim Boy bomb (the U235
one) was based on firing one subcritical piece into another from an
artillery gun. That was the magnitude of the speed required.
2) The mechanism mentioned above was not used for the Fat Man (Pu239)
bomb because *it was not fast enough*. That's why detonation wave was
used instead.
So, your suicide bomber is too slow, by orders of magnitude. Mind
you, this doesn't mean that he'll get absolutely no effect. He can
get a small local explosion, equaivalent to some kg or tens of kg of
TNT, and some local radiation contamination. But a very, very far cry
from a real nuclear explosion.
Yeah, I figured he'd get a big enough bang to blow himself up, and
maybe even the building he was in... and also spread radioactive
contamination across a few city blocks. But not as big a bang as in
Hiroshima, no.
The question I was wondering was, would he blow himself up, or survive
and not have to worry about haircuts ever again for the rest of his
(short) life... ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
14 Apr 2006 05:53:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1145054172.401748.12400@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1145050526.534168.247180@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, writes:
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1145047326.609994.27720@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "tonyjeffs" <9@tonyjeffs.com> writes:
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
Yes, pretty much so.
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
No, because you wouldn't be able to do it. As you'll be approaching
critical mass you'll get enough power generation to disperse the pile.
This is called a "fizzle".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Would a fizzle still take place if you had a suicide bomber slam two
subcritical pieces together, as quickly as he could?
Yes, certainly so. Note two points:
1) The supercritical mass assembly for the Slim Boy bomb (the U235
one) was based on firing one subcritical piece into another from an
artillery gun. That was the magnitude of the speed required.
2) The mechanism mentioned above was not used for the Fat Man (Pu239)
bomb because *it was not fast enough*. That's why detonation wave was
used instead.
So, your suicide bomber is too slow, by orders of magnitude. Mind
you, this doesn't mean that he'll get absolutely no effect. He can
get a small local explosion, equaivalent to some kg or tens of kg of
TNT, and some local radiation contamination. But a very, very far cry
from a real nuclear explosion.
Yeah, I figured he'd get a big enough bang to blow himself up, and
maybe even the building he was in... and also spread radioactive
contamination across a few city blocks. But not as big a bang as in
Hiroshima, no.
The question I was wondering was, would he blow himself up, or survive
and not have to worry about haircuts ever again for the rest of his
(short) life... ;)
Well, Slotin did it (though by no means bringing the pieces together as
quickly as he could) and he didn't live long afterwards. Some of the
people who were in the room with him, though, lived to a ripe old age.
Anyway, I would venture the guess that if somebody will hit them as
hard as he can, there'll be enough energy released to kill him right
away. But I didn't check the numbers.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
14 Apr 2006 03:58:35 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (14 Apr 2006 13:42:06 -0700) it happened "tonyjeffs"
<9@tonyjeffs.com> wrote in
<1145047326.609994.27720@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
Asking purely out of interest - I'm having a discussion on politics
elsewhere. I thought the latter would work, but now I'm not sure.
tony
If you put material together just like that, it would fizzle,
You have to bring it together fast enough for a chain reaction
to engulf all of it before pressure makes it fly apart [and stop
the reaction].
Sometimes a hollow sphere is used with explosives all around it.
the first bomb did shoot to pieces together.
Google
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
15 Apr 2006 07:41:45 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:58:35 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in <e1p2e3$kr3$1@news.datemas.de>:
Asking purely out of interest - I'm having a discussion on politics
elsewhere. I thought the latter would work, but now I'm not sure.
tony
If you put material together just like that, it would fizzle,
You have to bring it together fast enough for a chain reaction
to engulf all of it before pressure makes it fly apart [and stop
the reaction].
Sometimes a hollow sphere is used with explosives all around it.
the first bomb did shoot to pieces together.
Google
I want to add something,
Although the hollow sphere construction is found all over internet,
I seriously doubt that is possible.
Just try compressing a hollow lead ball.
A hollow sphere is just about the most difficult (strongest) thing
and it simply will not compress.
I had a look at a movie where the [technician] guy was inserting the
plutonium in the second WW2 nuke.
My impression is, that it perhaps 2 half spheres that slide over each other.
No air pressure to counter.
Short distance to travel
. .
---> . . Pu half 1
. .
. .
---------------------------------
. .
. . <----------------- movement
. .
. . Pu half 2
Well, just wanted to help those Iranians a bit.
After all, kept thinking, that president of them must be a CIA man.
His orders from the white house are: 'tease world, so US can invade'.
This will kill all oil export from Iran for a while, and oil prices
will go up.
As Bush club is Saudi moles, Saudi will be happy.
Occams rasor, you are all being conned.
Now this Pu stuff, its all over the place in Russia, maybe can be gotten
for some cellphones.
hehe
You could aslso make a hollow Pu cylinder, and shoot a Pu core into it.
have to try some day.
------------
------------______________
[______________] <------------- * charge
-----------
-----------
Lets do the nuke lets do the nuke lets do the nuuuuuuuuuke
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear bomb |
14 Apr 2006 03:57:43 PM |
|
|
tonyjeffs wrote:
Does a nuclear bomb need conventional explosives to drive the
part-spheres together?
If someone had say 100 x 1kg bricks of weapon grade plutonium and
stacked them tightly together in a cube or something approximating a
sphere, whould that be enough?
Asking purely out of interest - I'm having a discussion on politics
elsewhere. I thought the latter would work, but now I'm not sure.
tony
It might work (maybe even a suicide bomber holding two subcritical
halves could slam them together with his hands), but the explosives and
the careful spherical design seem to be to improve the efficiency of
the bomb. (why waste perfectly good U-235 in a smaller bang?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bomb
"A major challenge in all nuclear weapon designs is ensuring that a
significant fraction of the fuel is consumed before the weapon destroys
itself."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
