Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Southack; Squantos
Who told you that?

We are not discussing hydrogen bombs, but simple fission devices.

80 posted on 12/14/2002 5:38:35 PM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Travis McGee
With respect Southack's information is incorrect.

Stay Safe !

94 posted on 12/14/2002 5:48:43 PM PST by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: Travis McGee

Little Boy: Gun-type uranium bomb

To prevent spontaneous detonation of an atomic bomb, the fissile material is kept in a subcritical configuration. It is then rapidly assembled into a supercritical mass using conventional explosives. Once the bomb has achieved this mass, any neutron introduced into it will be likely to initiate a chain reaction. The mechanism for "Little Boy", the U-235 bomb, was a gun that fired one subcritical piece of U-235 into another to form a supercritical mass. The pieces had to be assembled within a time less than the average time between appearance of a spontaneous neutron from either U-235 or cosmic radiation. A conventional explosive in an artillery barrel could fire the U-235 mass at speeds of a few millimeters per second, fast enough to prevent a fizzle caused by a spontaneous neutron setting off a premature chain reaction.

Originally, the gun-type mechanism was planned for both the U-235 and Pu-239 weapons. However, a problem arose with the Pu-239 bomb that required a different assembly mechanism. A small amount of Pu-240 is produced with the Pu-239 in the reactor.

Pu-240 emits large numbers of neutrons spontaneously: 1,030 neutrons per gram per second compared with 0.0004 neutrons per gram per second for U-235. Even at a concentration of 1% Pu-240 in the fissile Pu-239, the required mass of Pu emits 52,000 neutrons per second or one neutron every 20 microseconds. Thus, it is very probable that a neutron from Pu-240 will initiate a premature chain reaction during the critical last 100 microseconds in a gun-type assembly. This problem was discovered in mid 1944, well after the start of construction of the massive Hanford plutonium production facilities.

Fat Man: Implosion-type bomb

Removal of the Pu-240 was impractical. So the scientists and engineers looked for a faster method of assembling the plutonium. A mechanism based on implosion provided the solution to this problem. In this design, the fissile material is shaped into a single sphere with a mass slightly less than critical. Layers of carefully shaped high explosives surround the sphere. When the explosives are detonated, the force of the shock wave compresses the fissile material into a smaller volume, forming a supercritical mass. This method of assembly is much faster than the gun-type mechanism and thus eliminates the problems resulting from spontaneous neutron emission of Pu-240. The spherical mass resulted in a pumpkin-shaped weapon called "Fat Man".

To assure that a chain reaction occurs, an initiator is placed at the center of the sphere of fissile materials. It consists of a source of alpha particles, radioactive polonium, surrounded with thin aluminum foil. The foil-wrapped source is then surrounded with beryllium powder. When the initial explosion squeezes the fissile material into a supercritical mass, the foil breaks, allowing the alpha particles to reach the beryllium and produce the initial neutrons.

97 posted on 12/14/2002 5:51:49 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: Travis McGee
Thanks for helping dispel one of the persistent myths about small nukes. I was wondering when someone on this thread would correct the misconception that nukes need to have the "fissionable material" and "electronics" serviced every 60 days. (Yours was the first post I found correcting the misconception.)

For some reason, people do not understand the difference between fission and fusion nuclear bombs. A suitcase nuke would be very simple, small, and make a very small bang (for a nuke). I assume it would use plutonium, with enough extra fissionable material to not need servicing for YEARS. The electronics would be very simple (for a nuke), and stable as well.

Congress held some hearings when the suitcase nuke info first came out. It was many years ago (ten years?), but a mock-up was shown on the news. The mock-up was shown installed in a larger but still typical briefcase.

I don't know where the notion developed that the smallest nukes have to be as big as a steamer trunk, and need frequent servicing (wishful thinking, perhaps). Some certainly would, but definitely NOT all.

A myth has circulated for quite a while that all nukes must be relatively big and need frequent servicing. I wish it were so.
179 posted on 12/15/2002 10:46:45 AM PST by EternalHope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson