Al-Qaida's U.S. nuclear targets

WorldNetDaily ^ | July 18, 2005 | JOSEPH FARAH

[Southack]

"So it uses a spherical implosion. Their so-called 'perfect spheres' are not perfect, they are merely close enough." - calenel

No. The document clearly says "perfect."

Here's the public example that I gave that *specifically* refutes your uninformed claim that implosions don't have to be perfect, only "close enough" to create an atomic reaction. In fact, the implosions have to be PERFECT:

Purdue findings support earlier nuclear fusion experiments

Jul 13 ,Physics

---

Full size image

Researchers at Purdue University have new evidence supporting earlier findings by other scientists who designed an inexpensive "tabletop" device that uses sound waves to produce nuclear fusion reactions.

...

In the Purdue research, however, the liquid was "seeded" with neutrons before it was bombarded with sound waves. Some of the bubbles created in the process were perfectly spherical, and they imploded with greater force than irregular bubbles. The research yielded evidence that only spherical bubbles implode with a force great enough to cause deuterium atoms to fuse together, similar to the way in which hydrogen atoms fuse in stars to create the thermonuclear furnaces that make stars shine.
http://pda.physorg.com/lofinews5130.html

[Southack]

"you have failed to refute my arguments" - calenel

That's incorrect, probably because you simply don't know enough about nuclear physics to comprehend that you've been debunked already in posts #105 and #106 on this thread, for instance.

But the text is still there. Still on this thread. Still in those posts...so if you ever do learn enough about nuclear phsyics to comprehend what I said, then you'll have your answer.

[calenel]

Prove that the spheres were really perfect. You can't. They can't. They just said 'perfect' to provide a class description for the most spherical of the spheres. And you know that, you are just trying to obfuscate.

[Southack]

"Prove that the spheres were really perfect. You can't. They can't. They just said 'perfect' to provide a class description for the most spherical of the spheres. And you know that, you are just trying to obfuscate." - calenel

The spheres were all measured. Only a very few were perfect even with an impressively stable ultrasonic energy source being used.

Only the perfect spheres caused neutron events.

Am I being clear, or are you still "obfuscated" by the lab process (experiment for you laymen) that I linked?

[calenel]

I'll see your 105 and 106 and raise you 108 and 109 and some info about plutonium you obviously don't know. And here is some more that specifically debunks your claims that plutonium can't go critical by itself and that it rusts away in air and that it bursts into flame at room temperature ('pyrophoric'). It does oxidize rapidly, especially if finely divided (powder), but it is the plutonium hydride (from water exposure) that will ignite at room temperature (:incidentally, iron also has pyrophoric 'rust'). Also, that plutonium oxide ('useless rust') is what they recover from spent fuel rods for reprocessing. It started as uranium oxide (that other 'useless rust').

[calenel]

"The spheres were all measured."

You cannot measure 'perfection'. And for the third or fourth time, now, that experiment has no bearing on the actual question. We are talking fission, not fusion, and a macro effect (spherical compression wave) not a micro effect (tiny bubbles...).

[Southack]

"And here is some more that specifically debunks your claims that plutonium can't go critical by itself" - calenel

We've been over this before, but you still haven't discerned the difference.

What you are doing is confusing "critical" and "supercritical" with "Prompt Critical." These are different beasts.

So here's some remedial chemistry for you...

There are 5 nuclear reactions with which we are concerned on this topic:
#1. A single Neutron event (e.g. fission or fussion),
#2. A Chain reaction of neutron events (i.e. sub-critical),
#3. A Self-sustaining chain reaction (i.e. "criticality") - also known as a nuclear reactor itself,
#4. Supercriticality (i.e. a radiation event),
#5. Prompt Criticality (i.e. an atomic bomb).

Your claim, because you have been confusing #3 and #4 above with #5, is that Plutonium all by itself can go Boom like a bomb (you used the word "bang").

That's incorrect. Plutonium can't go Prompt Critical by itself.

Further, because you have confused "critical" and "supercritical" with "Prompt Critical," you think that I've said that Plutonium can't have a radiation event by itself. That is incorrect. Plutonium Nitrate *can* go critical by itself...but that's not a bomb. There's no "bang" there. There's just a large amount of radiation and heat...at most a small fizzle. That's #3 or #4 above.

Here's a picture of an actual supercritical Plutonium experiment, after the process ended (i.e. they didn't all get blown up):

A sphere of plutonium surrounded by neutron-reflecting blocks of tungsten carbide. A re-creation of a 1945 criticality accident to measure the radiation produced when an extra block was added, making the mass supercritical.

Also, keep in mind that this radiation event was created *not* by adding more Plutonium mass, but rather by reflecting more neutrons from the existing Plutonium sphere.

[Southack]

"that experiment has no bearing on the actual question. We are talking fission, not fusion, and a macro effect (spherical compression wave) not a micro effect (tiny bubbles...)." - calenel

You only say that because you don't know enough about nuclear physics to realize that an imploding bubble, whether created via a perfect blast wave or by ultrasonics, is just as relevant to one neutron event (e.g. fussion) as another (e.g. fission).

[calenel]

I apologize for the broken link, it was supposed to take you to this thread. For the first link, post 65 is the pertinent item.

I'll try and answer your questions:

I believe that it is possible to construct an improvised nuclear device if you can get a few key ingredients, specifically, the plutonium 'pit' and some kind of ignition device (think of it as a spark plug). Most of the debate has been about whether or not these two particular things could be managed 'in the field'. I say the obstacles are surmountable, my several opponents say they are not. In spite of the claims of one of them that I 'obviously know nothing' about nuclear physics, I am qualified to have an opinion.

The basic premise, that you can construct a nuclear weapon from plutonium and an appropriate initiator (beryllium/polonium being what was used in the 'Fat Man' bomb in WWII, proven 60 year old technology) and that all the rest can be fabricated or discarded, has not been refuted. I say, thank God that plutonium is so hard to get. Although I don't think it would be hard to transport the necessary ingredients across the border, I think it is unlikely that the plutonium, at least, could go missing without being noticed. As stated in an earlier post, I think a biological or chemical attack more likely.

[calenel]

You don't actually read the links people use when they respond to your nonsense, do you?

So here's some remedial chemistry for you...
There are 5 nuclear reactions with which we are concerned on this topic:
#1. A single Neutron event (e.g. fission or fussion),
#2. A Chain reaction of neutron events (i.e. sub-critical),
#3. A Self-sustaining chain reaction (i.e. "criticality") - also known as a nuclear reactor itself,
#4. Supercriticality (i.e. a radiation event),
#5. Prompt Criticality (i.e. an atomic bomb).

They don't teach that in 'remedial' chemistry, but what they would teach you some where along the way is that the proper spelling is 'fusion' not 'fussion'. Since you spelled it this way twice (post 128 as well), I presume you think that to be the correct spelling.

And, yes, we have been over this before. Your numbers 4 and 5 are both within the range of what I have termed a 'bang'. What, precisely, is the dividing line between #4 and #5? Both release radiation. Both are 'runaway' reactions that have a particular logical consequence: they grow until the geometry can no longer sustain them. In order to get the geometry to hold together long enough to get the amount of reaction you want, you artificially sustain it through compression and you artificially increase the available neutrons. And you can also reduce the amount of plutonium (or other) required to achieve any of these levels by using neutron reflectors or other technological assists - just as you can do the reverse procedure (moderation of a reaction) through technological assists (graphite rods for example).

Oh, nice picture. Where is all the 'rust' and where are the gouts of flame as the plutonium 'pyrophoric'-ates all over the place?

"There's just a large amount of radiation and heat...at most a small fizzle."

A 'bang' which did not sustain the necessary geometry...

Your link to the wikipedia definition of 'Criticality Accident' shows pictures of the Godiva device before and after a criticality accident. Looks a bit messed up. I wonder how that happened?

Look, we can quibble about terms all day and that will guarantee that only you and I will be on this thread (assuming that that is not already the case). I've already given you an invitation to provide some of those definitions. But the basic point is: could an improvised nuclear device work? I say yes and you still have not refuted it. So, therefore, it is possible for AQ or others to deliver a nuclear weapon in the US. No amount of 'tiny bubbles' or 'perfect' spheres or tritium half-lives or any of that stuff matters.

[calenel]

"You only say that because you don't know enough about nuclear physics to realize that an imploding bubble, whether created via a perfect blast wave or by ultrasonics, is just as relevant to one neutron event (e.g. fussion) as another (e.g. fission)."

But (and you still don't get this, somehow) the compression of the plutonium that is accomplished by the compression wave does not create the neutron (and there are more than one) event. The mixing of the polonium and the beryllium creates a batch of neutrons, which are in just the right place and time to initiate the fission reaction. It is a brute force, shotgun blast effect, not a precision process. That is why your supposed example does not apply. Oh, since you seem to believe I don't know what I am talking about (you have stated "you don't know enough about nuclear physics" and the like numerous times), what are your credentials?

[JudgemAll]

Fiddling while Rome burns, blaming border "vigilantes" and Christians for scapegoat, dreaming of reducing America to a regional capital in the world.

[Southack]

"But (and you still don't get this, somehow) the compression of the plutonium that is accomplished by the compression wave does not create the neutron (and there are more than one) event. The mixing of the polonium and the beryllium creates a batch of neutrons, which are in just the right place and time to initiate the fission reaction." - calenel

 

Slight errors in shaping the replacement conventional explosives, or in the resistance or capacitance of the wiring, or in a mismatch in the electronics, or in the purity of the fissionable material, or in the decay rate of the chosen trigger materials...will all void a nuke's ability to go 'boom.' - Southack

Plutonium will go critical if you put too much of it in one place - it doesn't even require compression. Delivering a charge to a set of points in space-time is basic physics and you could test your harness ahead of time with some other simple electronics to insure that it would meet the requirements. And the shaped charge only has to hold the plutonium together for a short time.

72 posted on 07/21/2005 1:34:55 AM CDT by calenel (The Democratic Party is the Socialist Mafia. It is a Criminal Enterprise.)

[Southack]

"the compression of the plutonium that is accomplished by the compression wave does not create the neutron" - calenel

That's the first correct thing that you've said on this thread...and that's only because you got it from me when I first explained Polynium/Berylium triggers (something you initially had the nerve to call non "exotic.")

[Southack]

Here is the "damage" that Al Qaeda could do if they followed your advice and knowledge on this thread (note: the lab survived):

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is copied below.

The Lady Godiva device after the criticality accident of 3 Feb 1954. An unreflected 54Kg sphere of 93.7% pure ²³⁵U, [in the scrammed state]. The criticality excursion released 5.6x10¹⁶ neutrons and warped or broke several support structures of the device. There was no radiation exposure to workers who were 1/4 mile away controlling the experiment and there was no contamination of the area.

Image from Los Alamos Natl. Labs "review of criticality accidents - 2000 revision"

[little jeremiah]

Thanks, and I am sure that you two are not the only ones reading this thread, since I am and I can't understand more than one word in twenty.

[Jimbaugh]

Could you take a look at this video and let me know what technology they are using.

http://www.biggerhammer.net/videos/birdman_nuke50.wmv

[Southack]

I'm afraid that your super-secret radioactive humor bomb is beyond my pay grade.

[Jimbaugh]

Just a little engineer humor to lighten up the discussion.

[Servant of the 9]

No one is stupid enough to try sneaking a nuke across a land border when they can just put it in a container and have it shipped to any major port.
If you got causgght on the land border and had to self destruct, you would accomplish nothing.
If sent by sea and customs happens to open that container, it goes off and takes out that city. If they don't open it, it is delivered to al-Quaida agents here and they can take it anywhere.

So9