[ RadSafe ] Testing bombs

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

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/