How did people created the bomb, which was nicknamed, "Little Boy"? I know they compacted the molecules of the Uranium-235 together and then it would expand (explode) out. But how?
Printable View
How did people created the bomb, which was nicknamed, "Little Boy"? I know they compacted the molecules of the Uranium-235 together and then it would expand (explode) out. But how?
Well, the explosives do it. An atomic-bomb requires using a large sum of chemical explosives (I believe that C-4 is capable of doing the trick) to spark the atomic chain-reaction. That reaction sustains itself for a length of time, generating a massive amount of energy, and a LOT of waste product. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki used only a miniscule fraction of the atomic energy available in the plutonium (actually, that much material, if the chain reaction was 100%, would have destroyed all life on this little rock, boiled our ocean, turned the surface of this planet into liquid, blown the atmosphere into space, and possibly knocked us out of orbit).
Now, a nuke is different. It involves the same principle, but uses the atomic chain reaction to start a fusion reaction. Same amount of mass, and many times over more power. A typical nuke is less than half the size of those two infamous atomic bombs, and will do hundreds of times more damage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had survivors and buildings standing. One launch from a nuclear attack sub... and there would only have been irradiated ash.
There is no fusion involved in a nuclear weapon. Perhaps you mean fission? Fusion is colliding four hydrogen molecules at very, very high energy to form a Helium molecule - this releases a lot of energy and alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Fission, on the other hand, uses a neutron at very high energy to split a uranium molecule into smaller, unstable molecules. This also releases a great deal of energy, as well as beta and gamma radiation.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
fusions is actully caused by deutrium, and would be two hydrogen atoms colliding.
a H-bomb is nuclear fusion. you have a A-BOMB, a H-bomb and a N-bomb.
how they all work is very complicated......... give me a few hours to round up my stuff on this and i'll get back to you.
I believe that they do, is they take two atoms and shoot them at each other at such high velocity that they merge together, or something. This apparently causes an explosion. I know it's more complex than that, but I am pretty sure what I described has something to do with it.
According to my earth and space teacher at my school, humans have never been able to, and most likely will never be able to perform nuclear fission. (It was either fusion or fission, but I am almost certain it was fission)Quote:
There is no fusion involved in a nuclear weapon. Perhaps you mean fission? Fusion is colliding four hydrogen molecules at very, very high energy to form a Helium molecule - this releases a lot of energy and alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Fission, on the other hand, uses a neutron at very high energy to split a uranium molecule into smaller, unstable molecules. This also releases a great deal of energy, as well as beta and gamma radiation.
nik's right... the hit, their nuclei fuse (hence "fusion") and a lot of materials that can't fit get launched out in the form of energy and sub-atomic particles. Said particles smack into other atoms, possibly causing a fission breakage. The larger of these blocks created from fission can colide together and fuse back into atoms, releasing more energy. That's why it's a chain reaction. Granted, eventually, if you have a perfect reaction, you'll burn up all the spare matter and turn it all into energy.
The sun uses hydrogen and helium. We can't generate a sustained reaction using those lightest of elements, so we use unstable elements (uranium and plutonium) which only sustains until the heavy matter breaks down into lead and radon and radioactive alpha-particles and stuff.
nuclear fusion is possible. there are a few diferent types of nuclear weaponary. i will start with the most basic.
a fission (atom) bomb - urnaium 235 is smashed with a neutron causing it to break up into two smaller atoms and two or three neutrons. these then go and hit other atoms in a chain reaction. this releases a huge amount of energy as mass is lost somewhere and converted into energy (e=mc2)
that is how atom bombs work, by splitting the atom, fission. it's far more complicated than that really but i am not going to go into supercriticality, gun triggered or imploded starts or how a neurton gun works, or a tamper. unless someone asks me to.
atomic bombs are very ineffecient, the atoms bomb in japan had a 1.5 and a 17 percent effeciency (different types of detonation)
nuclear (hydrogen) bombs use fusion and are much harder to get to work. they use deutrium or tritium (hydrogen with added neutrons), both are hard to store or get to react o last very long at all. so deutrium is mixed with lithium to be stored in a solid state. also to work a fusion bomb is stored in a fission bomb to get it to work (to make tritium which you can't store fromt he lithium) and to give off enough heat to make the fusion possible.
deutrium combines with tritium and releases masses amount of energy and is very effecient (but you still had to detonate an atom bomb to make it work). it's a very complicated system and i would be happy to explain how both bombs work if it is required.
but fusion is possible. what hasn't be managed yet is cold or controllable fusion which could be used for nuclear power.
Blame gieger it's all his fault. Also it's an intresting idea that the majority of the developmental scientists on the bomb where British and German defectors.
[quote](It was either fusion or fission, but I am almost certain it was fission)[quote]
We don't have cold fusion. Go watch spider-man 2 again. Octavious was trying to substantiate a fusion reaction.
We can split particles, that's fission.
We're not as good at putting them back together again, that's fusion and what our sun does.
And I find it very ironic that my pastor mentioned the bombs dropped in Japan in his sermon today.
Yeah, we can only put them together with a "critical" reaction... meaning, it takes an atomic blast to generate the nuclear one. Unsustainable given our current technology. We can't generate power with nukes, but we can unleash it like the wrath of god.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
fusion = the combination of two hydroegn isotopes to create a helium isotope
cold fusion = doing the above without needing to use an a-bomb first,
controlled cold fusion - keeping above reactiosn stable enough and not getting plasma all over your shoes (woul be used for nuclear power)
fission - smashing uranium and neutrons together to release small amounts of energy (splitting the atom actually gives off not alot of energy at all, splitting billions of atoms on the other hand is quite powerful)
controlled fission - using various rods to control a fission reaction so it doesn't explode, (absorb neutrons so the whole thing doesn't detonate at once) this is what we know as nuclear power
From www.wisegeek.com:
I say again, there is no fusion involved in a nuclear bomb. Only fission.Quote:
An atom bomb works by initiating a nuclear chain reaction, which releases a huge amount of energy relative to conventional explosives. Per unit volume, an atom bomb may be millions or billions of times more powerful than TNT. The first atomic explosion occurred on 16 July 1945 at the Alamogordo Test Range in New Mexico, during a test called Trinity. It was developed during the top secret Manhattan Project, which was directed by General Leslie R. Groves of the US Army.
Nuclear reactions occur when neutrons are fired at closely packed atoms with heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium isotopes). These heavy nuclei break apart into lighter nuclei when hit by a neutron, in turn generating more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, creating a chain reaction. This process is known as fission. (Another process known as fusion releases energy by fusing together nuclei rather than breaking them apart.) By breaking down the nuclei themselves rather than releasing energy through a conventional chemical reaction, atom bombs can release more than 80 terajoules of energy per kilogram (TJ/kg).
In the earliest bombs, the chain reaction was initiated simply by firing two half-spheres of high purity uranium isotope at one another in a small chamber. In updated designs, a uranium or plutonium bomb core is surrounded by high-explosive lenses designed to compress the core upon detonation. The compressed core goes critical, initiating a chain reaction that persists until many of the heavy nuclei have been broken apart.
oh for the last time there is nuclear fusion in a nuclear bomb. fission in an atom bomb, fusion in a nuclear bomb.
you can read up on how they work on howstuffworks.
start of topic -
http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
fission bombs -
http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb3.htm
fusion bombs -
http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb8.htm
i do hope this is the end of the argument.
doc france your quote only refers to atom bombs not thermonuclear weapons. they work in very different ways though a thermonuclear (fusion) device requires an a-bomb (fission) to start it's reaction.
Fair enough.
I can't believe that someone used Spiderman 2 in a scientific argument. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
so does everyone understand this now? (probably not really) but as long as we all have a basic understanding of how to build a nuclear weapon we can feel safer. :tongue:
you got this in US history class huh? damn, i hate US history
Nuclear fusion can be done in the lab as well as in simple all-out destruction--however, the energy needed to contain the energy put out is so intense that by the time you would be able to channel the heat put out from the fusion into some useful purpose (such as the standard; making steam for power generation) you'll have used up more power in the containment than you'd gain from the fusion itself.
The idea of 'cold fusion' is to somehow do it so that it makes ~less~ energy--so that we can actually do something with the energy produced. Otherwise, it's like sticking an a-bomb in the firebox of a steam-engine. Yeah, you get heat, but by the time all is said and done, your train ain't goin' nowhere.
Actually, enough of the documents involved with the Manhattan Project were declassified that a physics student came to class one day with instructions on how to make an A-bomb. The FBI confiscated the poor kid's report, and they reclassified the documents.... I have no idea what the kid's grade was.Quote:
you got this in US history class huh? damn, i hate US history
Actually, an a-bomb wouldn't be all that complex to make. In fact, I could probably construct one entirely out of parts found in my car. However, finding a supply of quality refined and processed Plutonium... that isn't going to happen. Only a few countries have the capacity to do that. But the bomb itself is actually far less advanced than your typical guided missile.
Little boy... Nice name for a nuclear bomb =X
udsuna, the matter to energy conversion for the hiroshima bomb was somewhere around 2%, that is if I recall correctly. Even if they had reached 100% conversion, it wouldn't have done what you described.
thanks cloud no.9 for the explaining. it was educational and fun ;)
I knowxD We dissected it in English for the hero archetype and octavius' role as a tragic heroxDQuote:
Originally Posted by Flying Mullet
(and hey, if it's a way to remember the difference between fusion and fission, then spiffy!)