Nuke Thread.

>>34384958
>Oh, and why does uranium have so much more stored energy than other elements?

It doesn't.

>>34384962
Welp, perhaps I am retarded.
Thanks for confirming Anon.

File: Greenhorn easy nuclear test.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34385095

File: nuclear compilation.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34385172

File: Teapot apple 2, 29 kiloton nuclear test (atomic) continued destruction.webm (2MB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x400px

>>34385196

>>34384962
>>34385095
Uranium is just easier to detonate/react in a predictable way as far as i understand. Thats why they came first

>>34384958

After reading quite a bit about nukes, I'm getting the impression that SALT was a mistake or at least too extremist in its application, maybe focusing too much on the idea of avoiding MAD doctrine.

>No Orion project(also excalibur, pluto, casaba-howitzer... al the awesome stuff)
>No further developments in smaller, cleaner nukes
>No space proliferation through its militarization
>No further research in nuclear physics/chemistry through nuclear tests
>Constant hegemony of nuclear superpowers for decades, without discussion.

On contrast SALT avoided.

>MAD scenario, whether it would happen or not
>More accidental destruction of satellites in LEO
>Easy nuclear proliferation

If SALT happened around 1945, it would have solved the problem of atmospheric isotope imbalances(now you can't use C-14 to date bodies before 1960 since there are artificial C-14 isotopes in CO2 right now that you have probably breathed) and... thats it.

Radiophobia and MAD paranoia seem to be the main agents behind the SALT treaty, and after the fall of the soviet union, and regional nuclear proliferation... was it worth it?

>>34385210
no
its just the only one you find straight out of the ground

all of the others have to be synthesized

File: NUCLEAR TEST mini fire ball.webm (510KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x720px

>>34385200
OP here.
My questions still stand.

File: Nuclear bomb desert.webm (3MB, 1164x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1164x720px

>>34385337
So, OP here again.
I've been trying to teach myself about this, and I got the history and doctrine down pat, but the science confuses the fuck out of me.

Quite frankly, I really don't know the structural difference between a kilogram of uranium vs a kilogram of iron.
Why can one be thrown through a reactor and used to make plutonium, and the other be used as well, cast iron?

File: Nuclear Artillery.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34385344
>>34385344
Anyone got any tips for the basic science of well, fuck.
Heck, I don't even know very basic chemistry or physics.
Anyone linking a book or something useful, I'll return it ten-fold, just leave an email.

>>34385344
Binding energy per nucleon

File: nuclear bomb ( red colours).webm (3MB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x576px

>>34385348

File: atom bomb at night.webm (369KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 480x360px

>>34385351
Oh!
I think I get what you mean, could you explain in a little more detail?

>>34385337
AHA
and the source of the mushroom shape occurs to me....

it is the inverse of, the reflection of the spherical blast wave going from the ground back up into the rising fireball....

interesting

File: close range town nuke blast atom central.webm (514KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 1280x720px

>>34385358

>>34384958
>Oh, and why does uranium have so much more stored energy than other elements?

Uranium 235 is a rare isotope of Uranium (.072% naturally) and has a fairly rare property in its internal stability. The atom is very sensitive to having neutrons hitting it, and when they do hit it they cause the nucleus to fragment into 2 large chuncks (fission fragments) and also fire out on average 2 other neutrons. these 2 new neutrons go on to hit other nucleus' and repeat the process. So U235 doesnt have inherently more energy inside of it, it is just a case where the energy can be released (fairly) easily

File: Plumbob_Whitney.jpg (198KB, 655x800px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 655x800px

>>34385275
Think SALT, like other treaties, was trying to stabilize the situation more than it was trying to save lives in mutual destruction. An important part of being in an arms race is to not have one party gain a massive upper hand with offensive weapons. If one country gains a weapon that could wipe out its opposition before they can get their missiles off, then that country is extremely vulnerable to attack. Seeing their vulnerability, the country may decide to launch a preemptive strike to assure that it will not be disarmed.

This was pretty much the same deal with the ABM treaty (anti ballistic missile). If one country develops a very good ABM system then they could be potentially invulnerable during a nuclear war. If an opposing country sees this ABM system's widespread deployment, then they may strike before the system is installed and blunts their offensive capabilities.

So yeah, having your opponents trump card make him act like a cornered raccoon

>>34385488
Alright, but why is Uranium, weather its majority or U-235, more sensitive than iron?

>>34385348
I really have enjoyed Matthew Bunn's "how nuclear bombs work" on youtube. One thing unique about him is that he actually has government clearance and has to hold his tongue when talking about some things regarding nukes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVhQOhxb1Mc

File: HEE.jpg (51KB, 430x846px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 430x846px

>>34385538
basically the nucleus is just the right size to be barley holding itself together and one small knock will make it fall apart. The protons and neutrons in the nucleus have a force that drives them apart and a different one that holds them together. The bonding force acts at a shorter distance than the repelling force and U235 just happens to be the right size so that the bonding force is JUST beating out the repelling force. Something like iron however, is at a size that the binding force well exceeds the repelling force of its nucleus making it very stable.

This isnt the whole story because stability isnt based purely on the size of the nucleus, but larger atoms do tend to be more unstable

File: images (76).jpg (26KB, 444x331px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 444x331px

>>34384958
EODfag
Precursor wave, Mach stem, etc
>not specifically Nuke.
They apply to any blast wave.
MACH stem
>picrelated
From any airburst, nuke or conventional, the blast wave propogates out radially from the bomb.
At some point, the circulsr wavefront will hit the ground and reflect back.
Like in >>34385196, the uplifted dome of dust being picked up by the reflected wave matches the curve in the diagram.
The two waves colliding push together to intensify into the Mach Stem, which then spreads outward like a circular wall of high pressure.

File: Tanoshi, its full of friends!.png (2MB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x853px

>>34385697
Could you explain from that image there what the path of triple point is?

And is the mach stem where the incident (initial) wave and the reflected wave (bounce back) overlap? Is it a perfect overlap or?

Whats the difference between dynamic and overpressure?

Thanks Eod-fa--
Friend!

File: images (77).jpg (17KB, 471x312px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 471x312px

>>34385697
EODfag
An interesting article on building behavior under blast loadings.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tuan_Ngo2/publication/270162972_Blast_loading_and_blast_effects_on_structures-an_overview/links/54a2326c0cf256bf8baf7efa/Blast-loading-and-blast-effects-on-structures-an-overview.pdf
>Section 11 on layers colapsing may also be of use for the " muhjetfuelcantmeltsteelbeams" crowd.

>picrelated.
The flame is visually interesting, but its the shockwave bubble that does most of the effect in any explosive event.

>>34385744
EODfag
The path of the triple point is simply the location in 3dspace/time where the incident and reflected waves are crashing together.
Rough analogy: Like an ocean wave hitting the shore and crashing back into the rest of the wave still coming behind it doubles up in height.
So at the first point on that curve in the diagram, the reflected wave turns back and hits the incident wave immediately behind it at the ground surface, but each millisecond after that the location where that turnback occurs is out further and up higher as that impact is pushing the new Mach stem of doubled pressure outwards until it becomes an expanding wall and stronger than the rsst of the shock bubble expanding freely upwards in the air.

>>34385337
EODfag
A progresive demonstration of reflection and Mach Stem.
The initial sherical ball of heated products is impacted from below by the curved reflected wave coming back up underneath it.
The flat ring of dust shows the Mach stem being pushed out from the initial circular area where the spherical downward incident blast touches down on the ground and radiates outward.
>the trick in seeing it is to ignore the flashy bits and look for the 'invisible' air being pushed by the blast wave

>>34385830
So at the ground, there wouldn't be just one shockwave in a sense, there'd be two, so close that you as an observer couldn't tell them apart? Back to back, both the origin and the reflection.
Christ, no wonder air-bursts are effective!

>>34385910
EODfag
Better than that, the two waves reflected and incident actually combine into one doubly intensified wave, like two sets of pond ripples combining into double height waves. Because its the same wave reflected on itself it intensifies as its in phase with itself and doesnt cancel out.

>*progressive *spherical etc. mfw trying to type blast physics after a few beers

>>34385940
AH HA AH what the fuck thats horrifying.

-ly effective.
Now question two- Can one theoritically tunnel with nukes? Say I got a bid bad soviet command bunker dug under a mountain? How many LGM-30's does it take to get to the center of a communist command center?

>>34385697
exactly!
see:
>>34385457

also:
>Mach Stem, which then spreads outward like a circular wall of high pressure.

and there is a mathematically determined optimum detonation height for every weapon depending on surface features and composition, exact explosion type, and yield

>>34385966
Hey, EOD-fag, you want my books on nuclear doctrine? Send a email or something.

File: images (78).jpg (31KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 443x332px

>>34385966
EODfag
Disclaimer - I'm a conventional explosives guy, for the goals and possible results of multiple W87 strikes you'll have to summon the untripped Oppenheimer.
But basically no single blast or series of single blast events will 'tunnel'. Depending upon soil structure a surface blast will generally try to excavate a conical crater pushing rock or dirt outwards and throwing it away. A second single shot in the bottom of the hole will throw a wider conical hole rather than dig a doubled distance down.
A charge driven deep before exploding - a bunkerbuster or a buried mine charge like the WW1 Lochnagar craters - will try to lift the layer of dirt above it to form that conical crater
>picrelated 100years after
Or if the toplayer is too deep/heavy it wil just compess it all outwards similar to an airburst sphere forming a camouflet chamber
>nextimage
So, basically you either need a big enough nuke to dig one very deep crater down to the spot, or just deliver enough groundshock to collapse the bunker like an earthquake, or have a hardened penetrator to spear it deep enough to find the spot first then detonate.

File: images (79).jpg (27KB, 508x290px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 508x290px

>>34386064
EODfag
>thenextimage
Smaller examples of camouflets. Deeper ones dont vent to the surface as they compress the entry channel in the general squeezing dirt outwards and can even be subsurface voids with no crater.

>>34386064
What about with bangalores?

>>34385582
Iron is actually the most stable element. Atoms lighter than iron can release energy in fusion, and atoms heavier than iron in fission. Doing anything to iron Atoms instead just binds energy.

>>34386097
EODfag
Using a Bangalore for making a tunnel?
Assuming you can piledrive the tubular charge from the surface down to the target spot without breaking it, you've already made the 'tunnel' physically not explosively. Detonating the bangalore is just propagating the blast wave down the length of the pipe/tunnel until the bottom end becomes the final point of an explosive charge buried at the site.
Its effectively the same as digging a tunnel down to the bunker by pick&shovel then firing a single point charge at the end of it, but most of your explosive in the tube is being wasted digging outwards along the way.

File: images (80).jpg (25KB, 220x331px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 220x331px

>>34386155
EODfag
As an alternative, you could drive a tunnel by firing a shaped charge downwards as we do to start a cratring charge. The slug from the shape charge liner is physically digging down, and the rest of the explosive effect is actually counterproductive as it will try to close over the top of your neatly driven posthole in the general blast disruption.
>picveryrelated then you lower a secondary charge down into the bottom of the hole to crater upwards

>>34385095
It's just that in U235 and other fissionable isotopes (PU239 and U233 for example), the energy can be easily released.

>>34385966
>How many LGM-30's does it take to get to the center of a communist command center?
Depends on the command center.
In most cases, the intention is to destroy the bunker with ground shock, rather than direct contact with the explosion.
Tunnelling with successive strikes, for many reasons is not really an option. In general, you might get one, or two warheads on target, but after that you begin to have problems getting more on target.

File: 2017_06_28 18_35_48.png (293KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1920x1080px

its pretty fun to dick around with nukes in Children of a Dead Earth tho i cant seem to get my own working one

>>34385095
Uranium nuclei are larger, which means that the neutrons and protons are not bound together as much. Per nucleon, the amount of bounding energy is low.

File: 1487302636746.gif (1MB, 375x153px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 375x153px

all very intesting, have a gif

>>34386916
The hell is this?

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/04/10/critical-mass/

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/misc/criticality/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurney_equations

For those that are interested, these are the first equations used to describe how energy is transferred in an explosion of particular geometry. One of them describes a spherical explosion with a hollow pit.

File: binding_energy.gif (36KB, 500x401px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x401px

The binding energy of the parts of the nucleus of an atom is differently depending on size and ratio of protons and neutrons. Some ratios of protons and neutrons are especially stable and sizes become more unstable the more protons and neutrons are thrown together.
So if you go from the big elements (uranium, plutonium) to the left, it will free energy (fission) or if you go from hydrogen to helium it will free energy (fusion).

>>34386916
The hell is this? [2]

>>34385344
Different atoms, uranium atoms when heated become very unstable, if you can control the temp and decay you can utilize the decay for energy, or you can chain the reaction for bomb like effects. E =mc^2 energy is linearly proportional to mass, so if you could release all the energy from 1kg of iron it would be the same as 1kg of uranium.

>>34387239
>>34387621
He tells you in the post. Can you read?
>its pretty fun to dick around with nukes in Children of a Dead Earth

Use your critical thinking skills.

File: Example.png (30KB, 818x535px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 818x535px

>>34387621

Children of a dead Earth.

Its a game on steam, that tries to simulate as hard as possible how realistic spaceship warfare would go, taking into account things from: Orbits, deltaV, propellant, fleet composition and equipment, heat...

The ammount of uncontrolled autism is astounding. The developer went material from material, and compound for compound and created a simulator for the behaviour of those materials under different stresses(impact from railguns from certain angles, heat from lasers also taking into account angles) in fact, checking the game files I saw that he accumulated quite a library of things like heat conductivity, activation energy, tensile strenght, specific heat... just check the example I just took from the game files, its quite similar for other things in game like; metals,ions, organic compounds, chemical reactions... he didn't add anything for which he could not find enough information as he states about when asked why he didn't add the Casaba-Howitzer or Orion drive to the game.

Even if you don't buy the game he has a nice blog about it:

https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/

>>34387173
This means that everything denser than iron (which is the most stable element) can be fissile, but of course, the denser it is, the more easily it can do this. However, a copper nucleus would probably not desintegrate as easily as a uranium nucleus does (ie. start a chain reaction) so it isnt suitable for it. Anything lighter than iron, the binding energy is so strong, that splitting it, while possible, wouldnt release as much energy as it took to split it. Its the exact same thing but in reverse for fusion, as >>34387367 image shows.

>>34387730

Wow, thanks! And it's on SA-SA-SA-SALE!!!

>>34387696
>thinking skills
You have astonishingly high hopes for humanity.

>>34386916
>689 mt
>millitons
Wasn't that guy supposed to at least try to get his science right?

Also why TJ/m2 when he gets kg/m3 right?

>>34388370
>kg/m3
For fucks sake hiroshimoot, there is no reason to convert superscript characters to plain numbers.

File: 1497909721922.jpg (9KB, 251x289px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 251x289px

>>34385582
is this picture real? If so, holy shit that's a fast camera. I can only imagine that is the first millisecond if that.

>>34386150
Not really true, but energy released during fission of elements less dense than iron is less than the energy it takes to make that fission hapen.

>>34387696
Pfft, you think I can read?

>>34386916
So this is basically a .50 cal nuclear bullet that explodes with the force of a moab?

>>34388850
It would appear so, I don't think that's possible in real life though.

File: Hardtack_II.jpg (100KB, 800x792px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x792px

>>34388745
Yeah I believe so
Check out this one

>>34386186
Didn't the Russians have a rocket-powered drill?