I don't understand how works an atomic bomb. Can someone

>>7999614
nice try Kim Yong Un

File: God.jpg (56KB, 470x588px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 470x588px

>>7999619
>haters gonna hate

>>7999614
The process of "splitting the atom" or nuclear fission which breaks apart the nucleus of one parent element, creating two daughter nuclei and some excess energy in the form of neutrons and gamma rays which then go on to carry out more splitting of atoms in a chain reaction

>>7999614
Some elements like uranium and plutonium are naturally radioactive. They spontaneously release neutrons which go into other nuclei. This makes the other nuclei unstable so they decay as well, continuing the process. If the neutron doesn't go into another nucleus, the reaction will die out.

However, if you do have enough together, they will decay in a chain reaction. This releases a shitload of energy since each decay releases a bit. You can get enough material together by imploding it to make it more dense, adding neutron reflectors, and just adding more of it.

That's a regular nuke. A hydrogen bomb has one of those to start it, but it uses the energy from that to start fusion, which is when deuterium and tritium, two isotopes of hydrogen, fuse together releasing a neutron and a shitload of energy. You can add more fusion stages to increase the yield, you can play around with the primary shapes (not always spherical but most are) and you can do boosted fission which is a mix of both.

Obviously there are a lot of details I skimmed over but this is the gist of it.

>>7999713

I wonder if one day (or if someone has on secrecy) developed a third stage nuke. Like uses fission to trigger a fusion explosion that then triggers something else. Does anything come after fusion?

File: binden001_kernreaktionen_gru.gif (5KB, 592x336px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 592x336px

>>7999761
fusion/fission ar both changes of nuclear binding energies as shown picrelated.

when you think of something else it has to be something totally new

>>7999614
squeeze magic rock till boom. its not that hard desu.

File: Nucleon binding energy.png (21KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x329px

>>7999761
No, I'm afraid there's no secret third thing that would release even more energy.

This is a graph of nuclear 'binding energy', the amount of energy needed to remove a nucleon (proton or neutron) from the nucleus of an atom. Converting a nucleus from one type to another type with higher 'binding energy' releases energy into the surroundings. Fusion is going from left to right on this graph, fission is going from right to left.

As you can see, binding energy peaks around iron, which has the stablest nucleus of any element. Uranium has a lower binding energy per nucelon due to the interaction of the strong force and the electromagnetic force, so breaking it into smaller pieces releases energy and this is the basis of the fission bomb.

However, hydrogen has a much, much lower binding energy than iron OR uranium, and adding even a few more nucleons (fusion) greatly increases the binding energy and so releases far more energy than fission does.

But obviously as fusion and fission cover both directions on the graph, there's nothing to create a 'third' more powerful stage out of, at least not purely using atomic physics as atom and hydrogen bombs do.

>>7999761
Does anything come after fusion?

Others will say no, but if you're talking like a progressive scale, although it isn't nuclear technology, next up is most likely to be anti-matter.
Complete deconstruction and erasing of matter. How it can be done is purely minor theory (as in it isn't scientific theory but english theory) and isn't quite perfected as a model, but basically you'd take the quarks ribbon vibrations that make up matter and tear them apart, sending the atom and all parts of it into a non-existant state. If it's even possible is unknown, and even the existence of quarks alone is a pretty loose theory. We're not talking like theory of gravity or evolution, as in it does exist but the principles can't be commonly observed as common sense, but we're talking like ideas based on logical premise but don't have any evidence or can be tested at all.
The other type of anti-matter would be harnessing black holes, but the mass and power required to do so would require structures thousand of times larger than our sun, and there's no way in hell that's happening.

File: hydrogen bomb.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

what happens when you detonate a nuke in outer space? is there still a shockwave or big fireball?

>>7999614
is that video real

File: wikipedia.png (175KB, 295x1059px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 295x1059px

>>7999614
yeah it is from a 1958 H-bomb test called "Poplar" and was 9.8 megatons
https://youtu.be/s6PGZ4yiJqY?t=9s

File: BoO7ZQL.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>8000584
>what happens when you detonate a nuke in outer space? is there still a shockwave or big fireball?

>>7999761
>Does anything come after fusion?

Yes. Collapse of the core of the fusioning object and a supernova/hypernova or a black hole/singularity

E = mc^2

>>8000584
>nuke in outer space?
Yes, there is a shockwave but it is smaller and faster since there is no atmosphere to add to the shockwave.

Since there is no air/soil/water there is no large amount of matter that can be heated into a large (slower) fireball. Similarly there will be less matter to absorb the radiation so the radiation pulse including the neutron flux will be higher in outer space.