[ RadSafe ] Testing bombs

Mon Jun 30 12:45:56 CDT 2008

Thank you Mike for these most qualified remarks. Thank you also for your description of the possible difference between the Trinity "device" and the Hiroshima "weapon", which I had not heard before. That the Trinity test was successful and the basis for the "weapon" can be seen even today. At my visit to the Trinity Site I mentioned before there was a truck showing a "fat man" replica, with all the appliances for dropping (tail fins - correct expression?). The problems with the explosive "lenses" are widely known and since I am the proud owner of an original copy of investigations by the US authorities on espionage in Los Alamos I know that these lenses were a very important topic.

Best regards,

Franz

---- "Brennan schrieb:
> 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/