.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: Abe2014
    New Today: 0
    New Yesterday: 1
    Overall: 712

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - ANY VIDEOS OF NEUTRON BOMBS?

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » General Atomic Chat
    Author Message
    segregator236
    Sunset (1 mt)


    Joined: Jun 24, 2007
    Posts: 104
    Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada

    PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:40 pm Reply with quote

    Well, you can't truly "steal" a nuclear bomb design. It's all very similar. For example, almost every nation has the implosion-bomb design, and their warheads have almost the same internal structure. The Chinese warhead was believed to be a copy of the American version, but China keeps their information very tightly.
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1582
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:47 pm Reply with quote

    Enhanced radiation "neutron" bombs are not fusion stage devices.

    Tritium/deuteride gas boosting and polonium initiation methods are also not the technologies of the more recent decades of nuclear devices of the P5 nuclear powers of the UN.


    Last edited by Graviton on Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:26 am Reply with quote

    To answer this question, check out what the inventor of the weapon, Sam Cohen, says on page 123 of his "Confessions...." book:

    http://www.athenalab.com/Confessions_Sam_Cohen_2006_Third_Edition.pdf

    In a nutshell, a fusion reaction using a fission trigger.

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1582
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:01 am Reply with quote

    The details are as follows from my readings beyond Cohen. The short-lived W82 Mod 0 was a fission-fusion, but its rapid replacement was the W82 Mod 1 that was only fission.

    My point was that the possibly redeployable Mod 1 ER design warhead is not fusion because of cost versus performance.

    The Mod 1 is the only design on the stockpile table since 1986. The Mod 0 was quickly killed a few years before, around 1982 because of design cost vs performance problems.

    Be careful of Cohen, since he might have been discussing his first design.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:35 pm Reply with quote

    I would like to make some things VERY clear.
    First of all, a polonium beryllium initiator has not been used since Greenhouse Item in 1951. Enhanced radiation "neutron" bombs are fusion devices believe it or not, obviously they have a primary fission trigger. In the tactical versions of these weapons a Deuterium -Tritium gas is the only fusion fuel, because this reaction releases 80 % of its energy as fast neutrons, thus less energy is available to create heat and blast and it is the easiest to ignite, a small fission trigger (200-400 T) is used to ignite the thermonuclear capsule. This gas is not used to boost the fission reaction in a neutron bomb, the U.S has deployed and retired 3 ER weapons the W66, W70 Mod 3, W79 Mod 0. The W82 was never deployed. Of course at their lowest yield option they were pure fission weapons, but that has nothing to do with a neutron warhead. Cool
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:23 pm Reply with quote

    Ah-ha. This is getting interesting. Where are you both getting you information from incidentally?

    Can't wait for the rebuttal from Grav. This thread is building up to a real clash of the titans.....! Cool
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:29 am Reply with quote

    Thank you Fastfission well I’m not a Titan only someone obsessed with nuclear technology since I was like 7 years old, the only drawback is that no one I know understands what the hell I’m talking about, anyway thank you for the Confessions document, and answering to your question, if you are insanely curious about nuclear weapons technology there is ONLY ONE document to read: Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions by Carey Sublette. You’ll find it here http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ If you want something better I think you should steal it from Los Alamos, Livermore or maybe Arzamas-16 if it is close to home and your Russian is pretty good. I’ve heard security is pretty tight in those places though.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:44 am Reply with quote

    NWA is a well known source and it is good to see the site being updated again after so many years.

    However, as pointed out several times in Tsar's old Atomic Forum there are a lot of errors on NWA especially in terms of wrongly identified tests and yields and so on.

    Nevertheless, NWA was my favourite site for a long time. Hats off to Carey Sublette!

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1582
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:37 am Reply with quote

    My verdict: I am not interested in clashes. Observers can all put the pom-pons away.

    Why were you appearing to advise me in the polonium/beryllium issue, when the details of the timeline were not the issue of the first generation initiators that are agreed to not exist beyond early nuclear weapons development in my previous posting?

    The NWA is also widely known for numerous errors in their data, by the way. Therefore infos from NWA are not necessarily granted as facts in many cases. Invoking possible support in recalling this fact, Fastfission is also likely aware of the NWA's problems from the former Atomic Forum, recalling these issues from before.

    There is no shelved version of the enhanced radiation warhead, by the way, since they were scrapped in the 1990s. Here is some data related to results of agreements removing all but approximately 480 US nuclear weapons from Europe at the time of this 2005 report: SEE PAGE 10.

    Nuclear weapons importance in Europe is quickly diminishing with an overwhelming expansion of NATO into eastern Europe.

    I also need to correct myself in not adding that there were at least 3 "ER" weapons:

    * the W66 for the Sprint payload (whose SAFEGUARD system was online for one day as US Congress killed its funding)

    * W70 for the Lance missile

    * W79 used in artillery shells

    I have to forcefully raise questions about this from the Wikipedia:

    Quote:
    A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb (ER weapon), is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. The X-ray mirrors and shell of the weapon are made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons are permitted to escape. Contrast this with cobalt bombs, also known as salted bombs.


    It's absurd to believe that design issues describing materials would emanate from any credible source. Nuclear casing design details are strictly classified. Would any credible source risk imprisonment for such details leaking? I don't think so.

    I also find it absurd to believe what has been written about what mods are fusion or not, since it is not clear if Cohen were describing his first generation design that was quickly scrapped for its lack of performance versus cost in the 1980s.

    A quick review of the classification process of US government info releases on nuclear weapons forbids internal (developer) release of any design details of nuclear weapons, other than basic ideas of wet -- prohibitively too costly and unwieldy (in terms of dangerous) for developing nations -- versus solid and milestones in early fusion studies.

    There were so-called inadvertent releases of documents that were never meant to be declassified, yet notice the fact that they were all DELETED form documents that were already sanitized, therefore not containing any useful information during those releases, even though the original documents contained infos regarding top secret information.

    This inadvertent release of DELETED documents is the unauthorized alternative to the common use of DERIVATIVE format documents drawing from classified documents, but not citing the released information's source in original form. An example of documents of this form is found at the DTRA/DNA files describing the nuclear testing operations here.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:42 pm Reply with quote

    Dear Grav:

    I was not lecturing anyone on initiators but you brought the polonium issue in this neutron bomb discussion in the first place and we both agree that it is not a recent technology of the 5 Nuclear powers.
    I must confess I used to think as you do about the ER weapon about nine years ago, It occurred to me it was something like a gun type fission weapon that separated in two parts and ejected the uranium target and the bullet to collide in the air, thus letting deadly radiation escape freely, I mean which casing could be lighter than no casing at all, right? but very soon afterwards I found the NWFAQ and it was very enlightening although its not perfect due to the highly classified information it refers to, once you finish reading AT LEAST the first two sections it will be clear that the core needs a tamper to delay explosive disassembly, and even if the tamper of the fission weapon (either implosion or gun type) and the casing were very light and /or made of an advanced material that permits must of the neutrons to escape like you propose, this will be useless for a neutron bomb since fission neutrons are not very energetic (2.45 MeV the fastest fission neutrons VS 14.06 MeV D-T fusion neutrons) and the distribution of energy in a fission reaction is overwhelmingly dedicated to undesirable flash and blast (90%) , while in the D-T fusion reaction is only 20% thus this thermonuclear reaction which is the easiest to ignite is extremely useful for the purposes of a neutron bomb and explains the huge difference in effects between a fission weapon and a neutron bomb. The structure of a fission bomb is really irrelevant, it is the FUSION reaction with a highly classified (although probably now stolen) light and/or advanced tamper and casing design that makes the whole difference.

    The statements of Wikipedia about the X-ray mirrors cannot be verified since details of the design are classified. But the other part is true.

    If you are not yet satisfied with this very reasonable explanation from NWFAQ,
    For example in the Fas page http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
    You will find about the W70 warhead: “Mod 3: enhanced radiation ("neutron bomb") version, 2 yield options (slightly less than 1 Kt, and slightly more than 1 Kt), both 60% fusion and 40% fission; PAL D.” This really suggests the neutron bomb IS a thermonuclear device. I know you have a problem with time of the design but either an early or a state of the art design of a neutron bomb HAS to use fusion as a main source of radiation since a fission explosion will blow and burn everything regardless of bomb design because of the reasons I pointed out.

    If this doesn’t satisfy you, maybe you should consult any other source on the neutron bomb and you will find a statement like this “a type of thermonuclear weapon”.
    View user's profile Send private message
    sonicbomb
    Forum Admin
    Forum Admin


    Joined: Aug 06, 2006
    Posts: 1727
    Location: UK

    PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:17 pm Reply with quote

    I have split this thread and put everything from this point in the political area.
    Please keep any further posts on thread.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1582
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:38 pm Reply with quote

    It is on-thread. It's just too complex for some to tolerate.

    Example:

    1. Argument about ER weapons.

    2. Fact: nobody really knows what they're talking about in terms of nuclear weapons designs as they existed beyond at best a vague reference of Cohen. Nuclear weapons designs are top secret in official circles, with the rest left to arrogant speculators that are highly unreliable.

    As I pointed out, there is an official record of inadvertently released material on classified papers, yet there is consistency in the fact that they were listed as already DELETED versions where the classified material was already removed.

    3. Such weapons were modified in at least 3 different groupings by different groups, and the earliest were quickly decommissioned for cost versus performance, as well as political problems.

    4. There were some arguments of credibility involving activist sites like the FAS, and the highly political Nobel awards. These related to the fundamentals of unreliable information. Nobel prizes do NOT add strength to arguments through appeal to fallacies including false appeal to authority.

    5. Issues expanded to some examples supporting my views of these bad sources stated, including irrelevant Nobel credentials and FAS articles.

    6. Questions of perspective relating to Spanish Flu killing more people than WWI military actions, in direct relation to killings related to leaderships which MUCH LATER included Woodrow Wilson'ss participation were not an error of mine. Europe was embroiled in this problem much longer than USA's involvement, which also increased its end, by the way.

    Spaniards are also not to blame for Spanish Flu, so that is a dead point.

    If people cannot see these relations to the flow of arguments and support for them leading to more disagreements, then they have difficulty seeing the flow of this thread.

    I am just baffled at the lack of knowledge versus convictions of so many, and the willingness of so many people to think they really know as much about nuclear weapons or history, for that matter, as they assume.

    Example: these web calculations of nuclear weapons effects lack a huge amount of reality in complexity, and people assume such models, overwhelmingly presented by amateurs, are correct. Bad idea.

    Moral equivalency is also a subject for more discussion in the Political Arena. Moral equivalency fallacies are too easily generated and twisted to compare well-meant Western leaders to such tyrants as Stalin and Arafat.

    FACT: it's terribly rare to be able to discuss any politically charged topic without a very wide basis of arguing supportive facts, as well as putting down the false ones. Therefore political threads nearly always rapidly expand in parallel arguments. This is reality.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:31 pm Reply with quote



    I happened to come across this from VCE. In the video*, you can see the picture I posted. For whatever it's worth.

    *1:23
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    Grapple
    Sunset (1 mt)


    Joined: Mar 03, 2008
    Posts: 115
    Location: Malden Island

    PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:02 pm Reply with quote

    Shocked

    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:14 pm Reply with quote

    Grapple wrote:
    Shocked



    Yes, I concur. A bit ghastly.
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.12 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::