[ RadSafe ] Testing bombs

[Geo>K0FF]

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/
>