YT2095 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 we ALL know how huge nukes can be, but there`s such a thing as a "battle feild" nuke that can be launched in a Tank shell ! So, `im left wondering how small can these little phukerz get? grenade sized? sure... it`s all about "Critical Mass" so I was originaly thinking such a device would have to be the size of a BIG CAR, I was wrong! where does it end, so to speak? I kinda thought anything less than a few 10`s of Kilograms would be unviable and just make a dirty bomb (now all the CIA`s looking at this post ) but I seriously want to know how tiny (comparatively) these things can be. IF anyone reading this DOES know, please keep it vague! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I'm going to play Generals: Zero Hour now. Is that vague enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 yer a phreakin nut case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 You don't need very much plutonium at all (I think 3kg is the requirement, which will decrease with better engineering). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Sayonara³ said in post #2 :I'm going to play Generals: Zero Hour now. Is that vague enough? I've got that, but I've been playing Homeworld 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 3 Kilo! thats hardly even the size of a walnut for Plutonium! the idea of that freaks me out on so many different levels ya wouldn`t beleive! OK, granted, ya can hardly buy it at the corner shop, but it sure wouldn`t be a huge amount either to get into the wrong hands and smuggled out and INTO the wrong hands (( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 yer a phreakin nut case what gave it away? I'd say that those things could probably get pretty dang small, but best leave this to those nuclear physicists out there, not me^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 hey Dudde, ya gotta admit though, the idea of having a few ounces in the shed at the bottom of the garden with a little Honda electric generator hooked up`s pretty appealing wave good bye to electric and gas bills (and yer house if ya didn`t do it right) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Making a Nuke is not simple even if you have all equipment/materials. If it goes wrong you won't get a nuclear explosion. I'm much more afraid of a dirty bom. those aren't difficult to make, ones you have the needed materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I imagine the limiting size factor would be in the power of the detonator. As we get smaller more powerful explosives to detonate around the plutonium, the less plutonium we will need. At least that is my understanding of it. They probably used something like TNT in the early bombs and needed lots of it. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 aman is right. However, technology has progressed and shaped charges allow smaller amounts of fissile material to gain critical mass. Using plutonium requires the least mass, but is the most difficult. The easiest is just banging two large lumps of uranium together, but that's going to be ineffective unless you've enriched it with a larger ratio of 235 to 238. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 3, 2003 Author Share Posted October 3, 2003 yeah, the DV of TNT isn`t all that great roughly 7000m/s. Modern day materials, depending on use, can be well in excess of 9000m/s. in fact the last time I looked, a meterial called Octagen was then classed as the most energetic non nuclear explosive know. so it would seem the greater the DV the less rest mass is needed of the Pu. Mr_L Shaped charge technology hasn`t advanced all that much, most advancements have been the binder materials used, rubberising or plastisizing, but cone jets and linear SCs hasn`t been much to improve upon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I didn't say that shaped charge technology has advanced, but our ability to use it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Doesn't shaped charge technology depend a lot on the containment materials? Reading about material strength, I wouldn't be suprised to see detonators shaped inside fabricated beetle exoskeletons. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 3, 2003 Author Share Posted October 3, 2003 2 points here... 1) Mr-L "our ability to use it has" , what do you mean? 2) Aman, yes and no, the configuration is the most important though, and the material used as the "cutter". also a detonator is only the cap used to initiate the shock wave front, it`s not the actual charge. " a beetle skeleton" LOL, I wouldn`t put it past someone to have tried that or similar by now! Kinda adds a new meaning to "Bug Bombs" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now