Generally adept. I'm very good at problem solving and figuring out how something works. If it's mechanical, structural, or crafting/fabricating of some sort I'm generally pretty capable. I'm usually good at technical things.
Well that's good. Hydrogen bombs are pretty damn complex.
So we got the U-235 and Pu-239. Guntype, implosion, or boosted fission?
( Honestly atom bombs aren't all that complex except the boosted types. The hard part of developing them was refining the Uranium and making the Plutonium used in them. Once you got the materials and all the needed safety equipment it's pretty simple in both the gun type and implosion type bombs. I think most people with a basic understanding of chemistry and physics could make some kind of working atomic weapon if they had the resources and drive to. Actually there was a High school team a few years ago that designed a working blueprint and design ( sans- nuclear material) if I'm not mistaken. Most people get enough of a working understanding of the concepts needed for designing a fission type bomb in HS. They just don't realize it.)
hey glis, yeah.... i remember from high school science .... i learnt about fusion and fission......
whilst fusion wasnt doable from what i remember, ... or fusion is doable but harder...
i remember clearly fission....
the neutrons from the atoms collides with each others and compeltely makes the elements lose their electrons.... and theres a huuuuuugeeeee burst of energy !!...
atomic bomb isnt hard to do... bsically, its a big cylinder.... inside , the core is empty..... and the walls are made in urianium/plutonium ( whatever highly reactive material to fission )....
then when the bopmb drop, under the big velocity, it implodes, and the urianium implodes on itslef and the neutrons fly everywhere and it do a fission and here it is
Fusion is possible. Hydrogen bombs are fusion based weapons. What hasn't been able to be produced as of yet are complete fusion weapons which would result in very little radioactive fallout. A double edged sword, the nuclear fallout is the worst part of nuclear weapons so having little to no fallout is preferable. Yet if radioactive fallout wasn't a result of using nuclear weapons then their use would suddenly be more acceptable and military would be more prone to use them. So it's probably a good thing they haven't moved pass the theoretical stage yet.
What you are probably remembering from high school is about fusion based nuclear reactors for power production. There hasn't yet been a working fusion reactor as of yet and doesn't seem to be likely for many more decades at least. Some small scale proof of concept designs have been made but keeping the reaction going and the necessary plasma containment has been a big hurdle in getting it to work.
Try Clancy's "Sum of all fears". He goes into great detail about creating a fusion bomb. And they blow up Denver...not Baltimore as the movie depicts. It's a good read.
Not quite. The "gun" type has two sub-critical masses of U-235 (the mass it needs to explode), A cup-shaped one at one end of the tube and a ball-shaped one at the other end. The velocity need to smash them together is very high, so an high explosive is used to force them together to reach critical mass. This type is no longer used as its yield is rather small compared to the "Hydrogen" or fusion bomb.
Can't a gun type theoretically use a plutonium bullet if it's pure 239? If I remember correctly 239 could also be used in a gun type but is just not practical to refine the material.
Benedict Arnold 