[ RadSafe ] Testing bombs

Sun Jul 6 17:42:46 CDT 2008

John, wouldn't you say that by definition, even when an X-Ray  is formed 
following a nuclear reaction, it is still formed by atomic reactions  in the 
electron shell area?
 If it is an X-Ray it is coming from the
electron shell area, not the nucleus. If it comes from the nucleus, it is a 
Gamma Ray. There are no other differences between Gamma- and X- Rays.

George Dowell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John R Johnson" <idias at interchange.ubc.ca>
To: "Geo>K0FF" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>; "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" 
<Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs

> All
>
> Unless the X-Rays result from a nuclear reaction.
>
> John
> ***************
> John R Johnson, PhD
> CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
> 4535 West 9th Ave
> 604-676-3556
> Vancouver, B. C.
> V6R 2E2, Canada
> idias at interchange.ubc.ca
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Geo>K0FF" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>
> To: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs
>
>
>> Sure Mike, I know that, but technically speaking and being precise, any 
>> reaction dealing with elements (atoms) are atomic by nature. Reactions 
>> dealing with the nucleus are nuclear.
>>
>> Hence, Gamma Rays are nuclear, X-Rays are atomic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Positronium is sometimes considered an atom. If it is, then sometime 
>> positron annihilation is nuclear, other times it is atomic.
>>
>> ATOMIC: Pertaining to the atoms
>>
>> Nuclear: Pertaining to the nucleus of an atom.
>>
>> from Electronics and Nucleonics Dictionary, 3rd ed. Markus, McGraw Hill.
>>
>> Therefore all chemical reactions are technically and correctly called 
>> atomic in nature.
>>
>> By the way, once in a while I offer a for sale item on Radsafe, this was 
>> pre approved by the list owner. If members don't like it, I will take 
>> them elsewhere and charge fair market value. my policy has always been to 
>> offer to the trade, especially students at a low price first. These mare 
>> my own personal items have been upgraded by newer or more capable 
>> equipment in my private lab.
>>
>> George Dowell
>> New London Nucleonics Lab
>> GEOelectronics at netscape.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
>> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:11 AM
>> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs
>>
>>
>> Hi, George.
>>
>> Speaking as someone who at one point was a qualified Weapons Officer in
>> the Navy's nuclear weapons program, the way we divided up things that go
>> BANG! was:  (1) energy from chemical sources - conventional  (2)  energy
>> from fission - atomic
>> (3) energy from fusion (usually deuterium - tritium) - nuclear.  This
>> was useful because all our strategic weapons had all three components,
>> and we needed to be able to discuss how they worked together.
>>
>> As to the Trinity test, if I remember correctly the package was the same
>> as the one used in Fat Man, but it was not put into the casing suitable
>> for dropping from and airplane, and the triggering system was obviously
>> different, so I'd say it was a "device" rather than a "weapon", but with
>> no enthusiasm for arguing the point.  Based on a fair amount of reading,
>> there was a great desire to test to make sure the weapons would work,
>> and it was decided to test only the plutonium design because (1) there
>> wasn't enough purified U235 for two weapons, and wouldn't be for some
>> time, and (2) the plutonium design was much more technically
>> challenging.  The challenge came not from whether or not a chain
>> reaction was possible in plutonium, but from whether or not the large
>> number of conventional explosive charges could be detonated with the
>> extreme precision necessary to make the reaction happen.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>> Behalf Of Geo>K0FF
>> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:38 PM
>> To: Maury Siskel; Steven Dapra
>> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs
>>
>> All these bombs are nuclear bombs., that is having to do with the
>> nucleus The fusion bombs are "Hydrogen bombs". All other explosive, TNT
>> etc. are atomic bombs by definition, that is having to do with atomic
>> reactions outside the nucleus.
>>
>> George Dowell
>> NLNL
>> New London Nucleonics lab
>>
>> GEOelectronics at netscape.com
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Maury Siskel" <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
>> To: "Steven Dapra" <sjd at swcp.com>
>> Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 9:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs
>>
>>
>>> If memory serves (and it certainly may not) Trinity was a test of an
>>> atomic explosive device, not of either Little Boy or Fat Man. The test
>>
>>> simply confirmed that the explosive device did in fact work. Little
>>> Boy and Fat Man both were explosive  devices in suitable shapes
>>> suitable for release from a B-29 bomber. Little Boy weighed about 4.5
>>> tons and had an explosive yield of about 13 KT; Fat Man was larger
>>> with  an explosive yield of about 21 KT.  Both employed nuclear
>>> fission and were the only bombs completed then by the US . They were
>>> transported aboard the cruiser, USS Indianapolis to Tinian and then
>>> dropped first on Hiroshima and a few days later on Nagasaki.
>>>
>>> So called nuclear bombs were developed after the war and employed
>>> nuclear fusion. These used a fission 'trigger' to start the fusion
>>> process. Thus far, they have never been used in warfare -- the two
>>> atomic devices were the only ones ever used in war.
>>>
>>> Nuclear weapons development and testing ensued for some years
>>> including the largest known single weapon yield by Russia which
>> exceeded 50 MT.
>>> Present day testing to the best of my understanding is done by means
>>> of simulations along with some destructive reliability tests of some
>>> components. Concerns are related to the deterioration of some
>>> components as a function of age.
>>>
>>> Most others, including Franz, on this List are far more capable than
>>> am I of telling this story. Everyone must have begun their July 4th
>> vacations.
>>> Google also will quickly yield good accounts. (Pun intended)  <g>
>>> Cheers, Maury&Dog
>>>
>>> ==================
>>> Steven Dapra wrote:
>>>
>>>> June 28, 2008
>>>>
>>>>     From time to time I have read that one of the Hiroshima and
>>>> Nagasaki bombs had to be tested before it was used, and that one did
>>>> not --- that the engineers were so certain the latter bomb would
>>>> explode that they didn't bother testing it.  I also read recently
>>>> that hydrogen bombs must be tested.  Of these three types of bombs,
>>>> which ones must be tested, and why?  For the one that did not have to
>>
>>>> be tested, why not?  (I don't have any bombs I want to test, I am
>>>> merely curious.)
>>>>
>>>> Steven Dapra
>>>> sjd at swcp.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>>
>>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>>>
>>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>>>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>
>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>>
>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
> 