Nuclear weapon tampers and moderators

[hjerald1]

Earlier there were some discussions about weapon design particularly U tampers.
This web site is an interesting technical discussion of nuclear weapons design:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html

Of interest is the description of the WC tamper in Little Boy (and the reasons U-238 was not suitable) and the U-238 tamper in Fat Man.
Also are descriptions of Be moderators that were key in the development of smaller/higher yield fission designs (Ted B.Taylor contribution).
Jerry

[Edward Miller]

Very nice. There is a great weekend read called "The Curve of Binding Energy" where they talk about some of this stuff.

I think there is a lot of stuff that could be applied to increasing fusion rates and/or containment designs, but Be dust is pretty bad stuff.

There was also an article recently about how one of the national labs was trying to or just figured out how to make the foam or plastic that holds the pieces apart correctly. Apparently it's a lot more technical than just a polystyrene foam.

I don't know if it's prudent to discuss details of weapon designs on this forum.

[Quantum]

I'd be inclined to agree with Edward.

If there is to be any form of censorship on this site would not nuclear weapons be a prime contender?

[RobertTubbs]

There is no true censorship on this forum.

However, there is a list of things that might be considered by some a taboo to discuss on this forum, those being things like tritium and possibly deep discussion of the inner workings of nuclear bombs. In short anything some NRC (or other unspecified government official) jackass can google and trace back to an "amateur nuclear fusion" forum.

-----------

On a lighter note I enjoyed flipping through the pages of that site, there's a good wealth of information in there that might prove useful to someone here. Thanks for sharing that with us.

RT

[Quantum]

I also believe in free speech, however, I don't think we'd be doing ourselves any favours having such things discussed here.

Difficult to see how it relates to fusors and similar technologies.

None of us want to see censorship as such, though.

[Doug Coulter]

Yes, most of us have looked at that kind of thing from time to time, but for learning something that might make our main effort here more productive, No wackos here in that sense though -- no one here wants to make nukes, dirty bombs or that kind of thing, period. There are forums for the "teeny bombers" which are more appropriate for that kind of heads up, and you betcha they are monitored to keep us all "safe" from those idiots. The main ones that still exist are full of info that will help the DHS catch the idiots because what's on them is so bogus you can easily ID a teeny bomber or weirdo by the acid pits and missing body parts if they follow the advice on most of them (!). They'd all get excited about this kind of thing for sure -- just before jail time.

We don't do that sort of thing here. We are serious about science to *help* humanity, not vaporize it or make it real sick.

I think of it as the martial arts effect, or what my dad called the corvette effect. Real martial artists don't go beating people up at random, guys with really fast cars don't go around at 200mph much -- nothing to prove, we know we can, so don't have anything to prove thereby. Real programmers could eat up the WWW compared to the laughable script kiddies or even the misdirected mob/crime hires -- laid off from programming jobs because, hey, they stank at it, but we don't, it's a nice thing and we prefer it working right so we can make money off it legitimately. I could go on, but you get the idea. I hope.

[Carl Willis]

Since nuclear weapon physics and history has peripheral relevance to nuclear fusion generally, it's natural to see the topic come up from time to time, and to be of some interest. I don't think there's any problem with that.

What I hope we don't encounter are the pop-sci "armchair physics" discussions that abound elsewhere on the WWW concerning nuclear bombs. So the 350-pound basement-dwelling unemployed geek who has some arcane speculative theory about adiabatic compression in multistage tacnukes, or the squirrely attention-hound who thinks he knows the secrets to the interstage filler in the W495 "Moor Slayer," or other such pathetic silliness, need to keep their hogwash elsewhere. Nobody casually posting on this site could be assumed to have any credibility as an insider source on weapon projects, and so I hope we can keep that particular floodgate of unwashed masses closed when the weapons references inevitably come up.

Anyway, just for fun I attached two photos of pieces of a Mk-17 nuclear bomb I recently found south of the Albuquerque airport. The bomb in question was accidentally dropped in 1957 from an altitude of about 2000 ft. with the first-stage "pit" removed (but with the second-stage fissile "spark plug" present). The detonation of the conventional explosives obliterated a cow on the ground and tossed bomb parts far and wide. Most were cleaned up; many were not and remain to this day. I am deeply grateful for the scouting skills of Taylor Wilson, who brought this site to my attention last week. It's practically in my own backyard and I knew nothing about it. The first image shows a piece of charred plastic (interstage or structural material) that is contaminated with an alpha emitter (probably from the "spark plug"). The second photo shows a 30-lb chunk of lead (probably part of the bomb's liner / reflector).

-Carl

[Starfire]

As one who has seen the effects of even chemical bombs first hand - bombs are not nice things.

[Quantum]

I agree with John on this one. Bombs are not nice things.

I also don't believe in censorship, as previously stated.

I also agree with Carl and Doug, in as far as the only way anyone will obtain enough material to reach critical mass will be in the middle east, Pakistan or Iran.

The technology discussed on this site isn't even relevant to dirty bombs

One thing does puzzle me though, Carl. Why do people collect radioactive waste?

(This is a serious question, I've forgotten our past differences.)

[Doug Coulter]

I can say a couple reasons to have some interesting waste. One is to have a source of a bunch of known lines to calibrate things, and the chemistry is interesting. Even naturally occurring "waste" like that torbermite is very interesting.

[Carl Willis]

>One thing does puzzle me though, Carl. Why do people collect radioactive waste?

Why collect rare coins, minerals, butterflies, stamps, baseball cards, or radioactive items?
Why do people collect anything? I can only speak for myself, but I think the only explanation to be had is along the lines of Hillary's answer when asked why he wanted to climb Mt. Everest: "Because it is there."

Also I should add that one man's trash is another man's treasure. So one man's radioactive trash is another man's radioactive treasure. Some like it hot, and one really can't dispute matters of taste.

-Carl

[Quantum]

Thanks, Doug........

Thanks, Carl. You obviously feel very passionately for it. I respect your ......'right'....etc.

I can understand wanting a sample for calibration purposes......But if it could pose a risk to my family...........Some 'deliberation' would be required......

[Wilfried Heil]

Carl - looks like you've got your hands on a remnant of some of the world's earliest plutonium.
An ugly piece of history.

Anyway, congratulations on that find.

[Doug Coulter]

If they'd give it to me, I'd take the risk. I would love to have a 55 gal drum of really hot waste. I'd bury that thing with a bunch of thermocouples so quick your head would spin, and have a lifetime of free power. I'll take the responsibility of guarding it -- it will mostly just sit there not needing attention. I understand there are some containers that don't degrade quick at all when buried....

Risks....life is full of them. I don't court danger, but I don't let it stop me from having a life, either.
Danger to me simply means I need better preparation to handle it. I sometimes like to drive fast, but not because the danger thrills me, just the going fast does. But I only do that on my terms, and when I think it will be safe to do, with proper equipment, and so forth. I did recently find out that going 200mph in a ground vehicle is a little more exciting than I like -- and at that point the danger involved was not worth the thrill, so....I slowed down, even though my passenger (a cop --a get out of jail free card) wanted to see more. Car was fine, and had more, didn't try to fly or get unstable, it was just too doggone fast for my brain to process the necessary info to stay alive, so I quit. That would have been far more dangerous for someone who didn't have pro racing experience as I do, or the good gear, and surely would have been fatal to me had I had a teenager's feelings of immortality.
As Carl says, different strokes.

If you commute to work -- drunk drivers are more likely to kill you than any terrorist or most other causes if I get the numbers right -- so most people can't avoid one of the bigger risks there is, and don't even think about it when they twist that car key. I frequent a security forum (Bruce Schneier) and we discuss the irrational responses to mis-perceived risks all the time there. It's a common problem, and frankly dictates a lot of what the DHS does, which we have tagged "security theater" -- things that don't actually help security in any real way, but make people think they're safer, perhaps.

During the Vietnam war, drunk drivers killed more people per year than we lost in the whole war....but we protested one, and accept the other, go figure. Now it's texting drivers, but who cares if you are dead which distraction by someone else irresponsible caused it?

By comparison, the risks involved in keeping some radioactive samples are nil, if you don't take them out and fondle them too much and spread dust around from them so it can get into your body. Pretty tame, actually. One of my other hobbies is making and shooting high explosives (I am laying a mile long water pipe in bedrock here), and by comparison, though that is pretty safe when done right -- it's s lot more dangerous than a chunk of hot ore or waste properly stored.

[Scott Fusare]

"During the Vietnam war, drunk drivers killed more people per year than we lost in the whole war....but we protested one, and accept the other, go figure. Now it's texting drivers, but who cares if you are dead which distraction by someone else irresponsible caused it?"

To be pedantic I believe that was total road deaths not just those from drunk driving. Also, drawing an equivalency between combat deaths and domestic accidents is a moral slippery slope particularly when conscription is involved.


Scott

[Jon Rosenstiel]

Carl,

Nice find indeed.

HpGe is cooling down as I write… if you want send me a couple of samples for some high-res gamma spectroscopy.

Jon R

[Carl Willis]

Right away, Jon! Should be interesting. I'd really like to do an alpha spec on it, but don't have a surface-barrier detector on me now.

-Carl

[Doug Coulter]

Well, deaths run what, nearly 50k a year, about half due (charged in court anyway) to drunks, sometimes on both sides of the accident or just they don't always charge dead guys even if they could. Vietnam IIRC was about 36k of our guys, so it's kind of close either way.

I fully agree about a moral slippery slope (in general), I was subject to that conscription myself, but since I was already working for the intelligence community, I didn't have to go as a grunt. But I don't think it's particularly relevant here where the issue was mis-perceived risk in various situations. Maybe an unfortunate choice of examples, which would be my bad as there are zillions of such examples that don't have to go there at all. People blithely take risks where the numbers are pretty bad, but totally freak out over things where the numbers are not nearly as bad -- the DC sniper comes to mind there, he killed far fewer than again, traffic accidents in that area in that period, but.....I talked to a number of mostly rational people who lived there then and they were just totally freaked out and afraid to leave home -- but had no choice if they wanted to keep their jobs, when this bad guy didn't really increase anyone's risk even a measurable amount over all the other ways people die (cars are a big one, but there are of course a lot of others too -- doctors are right on up there with mistakes for example).

New and improved plasticizers and cleaning agents have now been identified as a major heath risk, particularly for young boys (feminizes them) and perhaps contribute to the epidemic of diabetes we are seeing, the worst in history, and it can't all be obesity -- there've been fat people all along, and "you're fat" was a compliment. But did anyone consider the risks of putting artificial strange chemicals into themselves in small amounts over long periods? Nah, can't be that important. But it was. And people still drink bottled water that costs more than beer does. In plastic bottles.

On the other hand, and there's always another hand, in a society where you pretty much MUST drive, what's the difference between that and conscription? Where I live you will *die* without a car, it's 25 miles to the nearest place to buy anything to eat -- self sufficiency eludes me and I'm better than most, have a farm, run on solar power, hunt, etc -- but still can't do it all. Some cities have mass transit -- but my own sister has a permanently paralyzed neck -- can't turn her head at all, from an accident on mass transit in San Francisco, where a drunk in a trash truck crashed into her bus. Still no choice -- she had to go out to make ends meet -- so maybe I wasn't that far off comparing to conscription, the essential badness of which was that some people *didn't* have to go, that was kind of unfair -- the guys who wanted that war should have all gone first IMO. But do you know anyone not an utter parasite on society that doesn't have to drive to a job? Hard to find any -- they do exist, but not terribly many.

I could go on -- people think their money is safer in the bank than the stock market. Nope. Banks have NEVER paid interest that beats true inflation, it's a *sure* loss, not a "risk". The markets, well, can go either way, depends on the skill of the trader involved. I made money on it going down, and made more on it coming back up -- any motion is money if you're on the correct side of it. Some people lost too, they weren't as quick on the draw. But I'd have to lose a heck of a lot of money on the markets (maybe half) to get back to where I'd be if I'd just stuffed it into "high yield, low risk CDs".

So the issue is misperception of risk and misguided reaction to it, not how the risk occurred or it's fairness -- it's mostly unfair out there all the time for everyone. I must drive to live, no choice. Jerks text while driving (worse than being drunk I'm told) and I have no choice about that either. What's the difference again? I may be killed by other peoples actions completely out of my control, period, and dead is dead.

The point is, people react irrationally to risks, more so if some risk factor is out of their control (I for example feel safer in a plane I'm flying or a car I'm driving, vs someone else, even though it may not be the case), and the risk is rare, and pay little attention to worse risks that are common. We just gave up nearly all our civil rights over a few thousand people killed in New York awhile back. Was that worth it? Time will tell, and it will say "no" in no uncertain terms I am sure at some point. I await those turkeys coming up with a single *credible* plot they've busted with all this warrant-less mass wiretapping etc. Guys talking trash in bars who have no clue how to do the bad thing they're talking about don't count. Entrapment doesn't count. I mean a real threat. Zero.

Oops, wrong forum for this, take it over to the pro security forum for more. I am quoting the real pros here, not making this up.

[Frank Sanns]

I don't think anybody is collecting any waste but rather something of historical significance or compositional uniqueness.

Speaking generically, collecting is just one kind of hobby, which an activity or interest that is usually undertaken for pleasure or relaxation. It usually does not put food on the table but is usually done in one's spare time and generally results in feelings of well being.

One might ask one's self why one would want to have a hobby posting on a site about building a fusor.

Frank Sanns

[Scott Fusare]

Wow, didn't mean to ignite that Doug

Life is a never ending series of risk taking and, as the old saying goes, no one gets out alive. The best we can hope for is that the choice of participating, or not, in the behavior is ours alone. As you point out, that's often not the case.

[Doug Coulter]

Sorry, long day, lots going on.

[Quantum]

Doug, I agree that 9-11 was just an excuse for George W to take your rights away, No-one has been caught in nearly ten years.....We had a few kids blow up some trains and buses over here, but if it wasn't for the publicity of 9-11 etc, they probably wouldn't have bothered.

As far as collecting 'hot rocks' etc. I was just interested in why some people are so enthusiastic about it. Like its 'Kryptonite' or something.

It obviously needs 'storing' correctly, but little mention is made of that in most posts on the subject.

I assume that people like Richard do check that the people they sell it to know what they are doing with it, but any kid can get hold of a geiger counter and go looking, if they are in the right place.

I like to drive fast sometimes too, with no pro-racing experience. I've had a few V12 Jags, etc, not to mention bikes.

BTW. They generally use stainless drums for radioactive waste. At least Rolls Royce do at the site where they build the powerplants for submarines, etc.

[Quantum]

"One might ask one's self why one would want to have a hobby posting on a site about building a fusor. "

Frank, There are two reasons why I like this site.

One is that there is an enormous amount of useful information stored away in past threads.

The other is that some very interesting people, with very interesting ideas, post on this site. Yourself included.

[Richard Hull]

People who are not avid collectors will never understand the collector mentality. There is a great gulf affixed that cannot be crossed by any form of understanding or explanation issuing from the mouth of man.

You either collect or you do not collect. If you collect thousands of cigar bands, you understand the collection of stamps, coins, girlfriends or radioactives. You may not see the enjoyment but you do understand the why.

As there is a "hands-on" imperative buried deep in the spirit of many, so there is also a collecting imperative equally resident within the spirit of many people.

Richard Hull

[Doug Coulter]

Wow
more said in fewer words than I am used to (but wish I were) -- really good. I am humbled at your expository ability, Richard.