[ RadSafe ] Testing bombs

franz.schoenhofer at chello.at franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Mon Jun 30 13:46:58 CDT 2008 

George, could you please enlighten a dumb or probably mentally retarded person like me, what your definitions are based upon? They seem to be your private ones and you obviously expect that the whole world "has" to accept them, because you are such an incredible eminent scientist. We have to overthrow all our well established wording in nuclear sciences, just because a person supposedly living on selling used equipment wants to have it his own way. 

Furthermore I do not urge you to stop your hateful postings to me, whether on RADSAFE or privately - please go on with them, I always like a good laugh and if you think you are entitled to command me to apologize for whatsoever, you are wrong. I won't, because my comments are right on topic and correct. As you "demanded" I write this on the RADSAFE page. Since you threatened to humiliate me and have me banned from the list - please do it. I repeat that I like a good laugh. 

Being supported by Mr. Mitchell Davis and this military person Borisky, who uses US-government money for distributing his private opinion is not really a recommendation for you.

Best regards,

Franz
 
BTW: In a textbook on Physics I read when I was long, long ago a student, the author mentioned that one could regard chemistry as "very important physics of the outer electron shells".
  



---- "Geo>K0FF" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com> schrieb:
> 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/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list