REALLY Heavy metal work

And the delivery system can be a shipping container with the bomb in place long before the intended use.

David

Reply to
David R. Birch
Loading thread data ...

In Feynman's memoirs ("Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"), he talks about the testing that they did to calibrate their math: they had a sub- critical ring of fissionable material, and another sub-critical sphere. They'd drop the one through the other, and observe the neutron flux.

So they may not have actually done a gun-type explosion, but it sounds like there was a whole lot of due-diligence paid to the whole thing.

Reply to
Tim Wescott

I'm sure that there are purely mechanical ways of building your gun mechanism that would put some redundancy in. The one that comes to mind first would be load a honkin' big round -- cartridge, primer, powder, and U-235 "bullet" -- that gets automatically loaded into the gun (with interlocks) and won't do s**t outside of it. Perhaps better, have the U-235 in the tube, but keep the explosive physically separate until the minute that it is needed.

But -- the Iranians do appear crazy. Or at least fanatical, which looks like insanity to anyone who doesn't share their particular brand of fanaticism.

Reply to
Tim Wescott

Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm not suggesting they just said, "Hey, let's try this by dropping one on Hiroshima!"

I still find it remarkable that they relied on those calculations, when some scientists were still worried that the Earth's entire atmosphere might go up in a conflagration.

It was a lot of predictive science packed into a short time under enormous pressure.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Yes, that's the deal, typical power and research reactors produce

239 Pu SLOWLY, and if you leave the fuel in too long, you get too much 240 Pu, which is undesirable. Of course, if you have decades of reactor operation to harvest, instead of the Manhattan project kind of insane timeline, then it is less of a problem.

The Manhattan project was truly amazing, they built something that was only a theoretical possibility in just a couple years, in the MIDDLE of a huge war!

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

Yes, typically TONS of low-enriched Uranium for a light water moderated reactor. There are some gadgets called water boilers that used really small amounts of dissolved uranium and would go critical on a few kg of it. They made wide pans to store it, and sucked it up into a spherical chamber to make it go critical. If it ever overheated, it would boil off some of the water and drive the fluid back into the wide pan. Well, I'm pretty sure nobody could get one of these licensed to operate today!

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

After reading Feynman, Oppenheimer, and others, I find it even more amazing that they built the bomb. So many times they came so close to disaster. And all the number crunching that was done by hand and by primitive calculators. Eric

Reply to
etpm

I've read that they even measured the results of a "Buffon's Needle" trial:

formatting link
jsw

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

Those primitive calculators were also known as grad students. My aunt Becky was one of them in New York, although they weren't told at the time what the calculations were for.

David

Reply to
David R. Birch

It was done with a high speed switching component that is still restricted.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

formatting link
/djgo7

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

That's it. i figured that you and maybe Don Nichols would know, but I was waiting to see if anyone else knew. An EE on another group managed to pick up one surplus.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Yes, but krytrons are also a 1940s technology, and far easier to duplicate than say an ultracentrifuge. And I bet one can buy them from non-US sources.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

With high speed solid state electronics commonly available who needs ancient tube technology?

Reply to
Richard

The switching time and power levels it can handle still make it a very useful part in trigger applications.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Probably anyone who wants that device to work reliably in a high radiation environment. Ionizing radiation can do all sorts of nasty things to semiconductors. jk

Reply to
jk

Reading the article about these high speed, high voltage, high current devices tells why semiconductors have not been able to replace the vacuum tube for some applications. I found it very interesting. Not only the vacuum tube technology but the state of the art semiconductor technology too. Eric

Reply to
etpm

No magic there. Still '40s tech. Clearly the Soviet Union, the UK, France, China, India, and Pakistan have managed to produce equivalents. And it's becoming abundantly clear that any information that the Pakistanis hold is accessible to any terrorist who wants it.

Reply to
J. Clarke

It doesn't have to work in a high radiation environment. The high radiation comes _after_ it has worked. And a very short time after the high radiation, it is reduced to vapor.

Reply to
J. Clarke

That's only for soft targets like cities. Hardened bunkers and missile silos rate more than one warhead, also a defensive burst in their path exposes incoming missiles to a very high radiation environment.

v5ddt5

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.