Got a question about nuclear explosions. What is the absolute

You can put a fork in your microwave and find out ;)

>>8244948
I can answer that ;)
the smallest explosion is splitting one single U235 atom by one neutron. Boom!

Happens from time to time in nature too...

>>8244956
What determines the power of a nuclear explosion ? Is it the proton-neutron composition ?

>>8244961
The number of atoms splitted. Depends on the amount of nuclear fuel and the density.

>>8244956
sorry, there is no highly rapid increase in temperature and volume (of gas products) associated with the radioactive decay of a single atom.

this is, by chemical definition, not an explosion.

furthermore, a single decay can not constitute a runaway chain-reaction, so this does not fit the nuclear physics definition, either.

>>8245023
>being obsessed about definitions
>missing the humor

okay, strictly you're right about the chemical defintion, then take as many fissions as you need it to be an explosion.

I don't think there is a separate nuclear physics definition. The chain reaction simply causes a "normal" explosion.

>>8244934
Criticality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh89h8FxNhQ

Finally got arsed to read up on have them nuclear bombs work the other day.
>radioactive materials have a critical mass
>k < 1 means it's just radioactive
>k = 1 means it's barely critical
>k > 1 means shit's going down

Pretty interesting to read how a shield of deuterium can make a less than critical mass become critical by reflecting neutrons back.

>>8245103
>aight, you guys ready for the experiment?
>i got a suggestion for a change of setup
>and what is that?
>how about instead of lowering the top half we raise the bottom part up?
>why?
>because if we drop the top half everyone in the room dies
>and if we drop the lower half nothing happens
>dude i won't drop it, let's go

>>8244956
This is the smallest one with Uranium-235 anyways, technically there could be even smaller ones using larger, less stable elements.

>>8245140
> Not going to stop thinking until the absolute smallest nuclear explosion is found

>>8245066
>missing the humor
That's quite a loose definition of "humor".

File: nevada 2.jpg (884KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 1200x1600px

Is it possible to make a nuke explosion with the same force as a hand grenade?
And would I be able to throw it far enough not to die from radiation exposure?

>>8245454

maybe, but not reliably (the explosive yield could vary widely, i suspect), and you wouldn't be able to throw it at all because it would weigh at least 50 kg. And you would certainly be dead instantly if you were near that thing.

And all of that would only be achieved by using a 20 kT weapon in the wrong way.

Every sensible nuclear weapon design used in the proper way would at least yield several dozen tons TNT equivalent.

For small explosions use conventional explosives; Nuclear weapons are for more than 1 kT.

>>8245454

Here is a physically small 15 kT tactical nuclear weapon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsB83fAtNQE

>>8244934
It would be extremely radioactive.

>>8245690
FOR YOU

>>8245692

underrated.