Talk:Nuclear weapon design/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Implosion ...

One of the things that always bother me with that topic is the use of the word "implosion" where I would really think that "compression" would be the proper term. Now I fully understand that every area of human activity has its own language and for me a kilobyte will always be 1024 Bytes, but here I think that the unprepared reader should get a short explanation/correction inserted into all the (incredibly detailed) explanations. If it's not clear what I mean ... If you have a vessel with a vacuum inside (like an oldfashioned tube TV) and that vessel colapses inwards we have an implosion ... where as compression is usually used when high outside pressure crushes something. Of course it's basically the same thing - the indide pressure is lower than the outside pressure. Only the "unusual" pressure is different: implosion - low inside pressure / compression - high outside pressure ... So I would use "implosion" in the case where the fissle materials were actually sucked together instead of pressed together ... Just a thought ... JB. --84.186.134.5 (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As well as I know, the original idea was a hollow sphere, and that is when it was named. After the high spontaneous fission rate of plutonium was discovered, such that the gun design wouldn't work, implosion work increased. It was later found that a solid sphere, instead of a hollow one, works best, but the method wasn't renamed. Even so, it was usual to use misleading terms for security reasons. I only recently learned that the barn was named, not as a joke, but for secrecy reasons. Gah4 (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Implosion means compression driven by a convergent detonation of a high explosive shell. The term "implosion" is intended to convey that the detonation drives material inwards and to distinguish from an "explosion" that disperses material outwards. NPguy (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it took Los Alamos researchers some time to figure that out. The early work was on hollow spheres. Whether it should have been renamed when they went to solid spheres, I don't know. Gah4 (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you all insane?

Are you all fucking insane?

What ultimate stupidity has caused you to post instructions for building nuclear bombs on the internet? Don't we have enough trouble with regular bombs in the hands of terrorists now, do we actually have to tell them all how to make bigger holes in humanity?

Please consider removing this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.166.15.115 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 May 2011

All the information here is already available readily in many books and other internet sites. None is original. The only thing that stops terrorists from building bombs is availability of fissile material, not the know-how to make bombs once you have it, which is (by comparison) trivial (every single nation that has built a bomb, once it had the fissile material, has succeeded on its FIRST test-- that's how easy it is). Why don't you read the article itself, and learn something about it, instead of wringing your hands? SBHarris 16:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we know they succeeded on the first test? Likely those that don't succeed don't say much about it. Gah4 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

...and/or read Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears". It's not considered horror. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

References

There is no reliable information on how to build a bomb. Of the nuclear powers, only the U.S. has a sufficient legal and constitutional leeway to let people get away with publishing valid information on device details, and by 'people', I mean scientists/engineers who had/have clearances to work on the fabrication of actual working weapons. I don't mean academics with strictly the knowledge of how a nuclear weapon could be surmised to work from first-principles (atomic cross-section calculations and the like).

These working details are hard-won and can only be derived from empirical testing, reformulation, re-testing campaigns. For example, it was only by a fluke observation that it was determined that a working detonation—and not a fizzle—could not be achieved without a centralized neutron-source. This is one of the reasons why the Los Alamos team was able to determine that the Germans, as excellent as their theorists were, would not likely build a successful device: the simplistic model of "compressed to sufficient critical mass" just wasn't good enough.

The US government also has a policy of non-denial, for the most part. They tend to ignore ostensibly accurate information that is published without getting clearance. By ignoring the material, and by 'leaking' disinformative material, armchair-researchers are cast adrift on a heterogenous sea of truth and speciously plausible hogwash with no independent means of parsing out the wheat from the chaff. Even everything I wrote in the second paragraph, supra, could be hogwash.

Or to give a simple layperson's analogy and example, was Lee Oswald a formal CIA or ONI agent or asset? Ex-CIA persons with long records of service and knowledge will plainly asseverate that in no uncertain terms a file with a certain number designation can only mean he that he was a CIA asset, no argument, nothing else. "Stuff and nonsense" declares another, and equally credible, CIA person (especially one who is still employed therein), it can mean any individual who is/has become a person of interest to the CIA's interests. Lone-nut advocates and conspiracy theorists are left to publicly haggle over the mess, while CIA employees secretly laugh and point.

JohndanR (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The US published "The Los Alamos Primer", with what they knew pretty early in the years. LASL was 100% confident in the gun design so many years ago, and I suspect anyone with the ability to get the material now would also know enough. Whether we know it, I don't know. Implosion is harder, but I suspect again, anyone who can afford the material will figure it out. As well as I know it, the only secret that the US tried to keep, and failed, was Ulam-Teller. Gah4 (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fission fuel burnup fraction

From the article at present:

"Instead, typically (in a modern weapon) the core of a weapon contains only about 5 kilograms of plutonium, of which only 2 to 2.5 kilograms, representing 40 to 50 kilotons of energy, undergoes fission before the core blows itself apart."

"Over half of the neutrons escape the bomb core,"

I know from research that for modern US warheads (at least the W78, W87 and W88) this is not at all true; the primary triggers for these thermonuclears are very nearly 100 percent efficient. That is, almost all the plutonium is fissioned. Tracking down sources is another matter, of course... Wikkileaker (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The statement is wrong from the opposite direction; modern primary stages are only 5 to 10 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to 42 TJ), sacrificing efficiency for compactness. See the W76 mod 2 for example.Kylesenior (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Start citing things

There are current 98 citation needed tags on this page. There are many more blocks of text missing both citation needed tags and citations.

In future, if you add blocks of text without citations, I will just undo what you have added. There are many examples of people adding walls of uncited text to this page and it is ridiculous.

I won't undo edits that reword things that are uncited (that would make me a hypocrite), but I will if you add in new information.

I will be downgrading the ratings on this article as well. It certain does not merit a military history B rating and may not merit the B rating in the other projects either.Kylesenior (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a mistype?

Below the title "Levitated-pit implosion" I read: "The first improvement on the Fat Man design was to put an air space between the tamper and the pit...", but as it is said above (and in related "Pit" article") that a pit IS nuclei fuel and tamper both, so maybe it would be right to say "...was to put an air space between the tamper and the fissile material..." ? 5.18.253.234 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. The tamper is not considered part of the put unless it is bonded to it. It is also possible (although rare) to have an enriched uranium tamper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Weapon design laboratories

Americans facilities are the only facility that pioneered the design? No. Remove it or include Russians as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2E07:2F00:58DC:B34C:837C:E914 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are. If someone stole something or reverse engineered something, they did not also pioneer it. 2001:1970:5627:4900:C4A1:5701:8DA6:E523 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The laboratory section is stupid in general. It doesn't add anything to the article, and listing LBL as a weapon design laboratory is silly (U. Chicago has more of a claim to that, if you want to go with "very early fission speculation on bomb design"). A better subsection would be about the kind of work done in weapons design laboratories globally and historically — the kinds of laboratory work that goes into actually designing weapons and making them workable, for example. There are good historical and ethnographic studies of weapons laboratories (like Gusterson's book) that could inform such a section. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@NuclearSecrets: I can add this article to my work list, but am fully committed with the FAR of Hanford Site at present, and am unlikely to get to it until much later in the year. I have borrowed Gusterson's book from the university library. Feel free to list suggestions for improvement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I hear you. We're all busy! My sense for what a useful section on weapon design laboratories might be a description of what a weapon design laboratory is, different design laboratory philosophies, and a pocket description of the lab developments in at least the US and USSR.

For example:

1) Nuclear weapons have historically been designed at centralized and isolated scientific laboratories, kept as such to increase their secrecy (and as a sign of the perceived sensitivity of the work). The work of designing a nuclear weapon has historically included: calculation, engineering, experiments to discern the key physical constants and processes, the development of computer simulations (here one might note that the high computational needs for weapons design have played a major role in the development of digital computing), tests and engineering for safety, engineering weapons concepts into actual usable devices and from there into actually deployable weapons, stockpile reliability, etc. Examples include Los Alamos, Livermore, Sandia, Sarov, etc. Examples of experiments that give insight into design include criticality experiments and implosion tests, as just two very distinctive sorts of things that really only take place in such labs.

2) In both the US and USSR, there emerged the idea that in order to foster internal competition for weapons development, there ought to be at least two nuclear weapons laboratories working independently on these issues. So Los Alamos and Livermore, Sarov and Snezhinsk. In the US case, this "competitive" arrangement was immensely controversial when it began, because it was seen as splitting up a finite resource pool. Ultimately both labs developed somewhat different approaches to weapons design, and different sorts of weapons. One might point to the sense that Los Alamos did the "tried and true" approach, considered somewhat conservative, whereas Livermore self-consciously tried to do very "revolutionary" things — sometimes successful, sometimes not (cue photo of a fizzle here). In the US, there is also Sandia, which acts as sort of a "support" lab for Los Alamos and Livermore in that it specializes in the safety, fuzing, and deployment aspects. One might also note that weapons laboratories are just one part of a large nuclear complex. In the US, they are also national laboratories, meaning they are part of a larger network of labs which are mostly unclassified.

3) Lastly, one might do a little "accomplishments" paragraph. E.g., first fission bombs at Los Alamos, with work duplicated at Sarov. First H-bomb at Los Alamos, work later independently reinvented at Sarov. But getting into the various differences between labs would become more interesting at this point onward, e.g., the first SLBM warheads, the first tactical nukes, etc., and perhaps (in the US case) a sense of which labs contributed what to the stockpile (the data is out there). And some parallel discussion with the Soviets. Some sense as well that designing actual nukes is only one function of the lab.

4) Double-lastly, something that described what labs we know of in other programs. Aldermaston, of course. Whatever we know about France, China, India, Pakistan. Dimona makes for an interesting case (a weapons laboratory and a production facility in one, buried under a reactor).

All of the above takes time, I know. Even just writing it out has taken some time... Just ideas at this point. But more useful than something that summarizes LBL, LANL, LLNL by themselves (and I don't think LBL should really be part of this at all). --NuclearSecrets (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation and/or other info about "25" and "49".

The article has this paragraph:

"Materials which can sustain a chain reaction are called fissile. The two fissile materials used in nuclear weapons are: 235U, also known as highly enriched uranium (HEU), oralloy (Oy) meaning Oak Ridge Alloy, or 25 (the last digits of the atomic number, which is 92 for uranium, and the atomic weight, here 235, respectively); and 239Pu, also known as plutonium, or 49 (from 94 and 239).[citation needed]"

I really like "25" and "49" as terms, and I want to know more about who has used these ingenious terms, and when. I can't find anything about them using Google. So could someone please add a citation about them?

Also, how was "25" pronounced: "twenty-five" or "two five"? The latter is more concise, but less cryptic.

I wonder whether "28" was used to mean U-238, and were yet other nuclides ever referred to by this delightful system? Polar Apposite (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The terms are in The Los Alamos Primer, which was originally written before plutonium was named. I don't remember that a pronunciation is given. Gah4 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The primer is very interesting. Thanks for telling me about it. You are right, it does use the terms "25" and "49" (and also "28"). I have many questions about the primer. One of those I posted on the talk page of the article about the primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Los_Alamos_Primer#How_was_it_printed%2Ftyped%3F Polar Apposite (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added a reference to Rhodes for 25 and 49. You'll find them in most books on the Manhattan Project, but I'm not aware of the system being used for anything else. The paragraph is wrong though: uranium-233 has also been used in nuclear weapons. Maybe NuclearSecrets will know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I just came across a use of "23" by the Metlab. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgical_Laboratory? Anyway, could you please give a link that use of "23". Polar Apposite (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Metallurgical Laboratory. It also refers to uranium-234 as "24".

"Dear Glenn:

Thanks for your fine letter. The problem you raise is not a new one, nor is it limited to the 49. I've thought about it a little in connection with the 25-24, and it is probably time to get possibilities clear.

With the 25 alone matters would not be so bad: a concentration of light impurities (B, Be, Al, C, N) of 10^-4 would give us the more than ideal 10^19 years equivalent. If, as in our present set up, almost all the 24 goes along with the 25, then things are about 25 times worse. I believe that we can probably get along with 10 years equivalent if we have to. Therefore I should say that the chemical problem with the 24-25 mixture was hard but probably soluble. Do you agree in this?

With the 49, even allowing a factor 10 in your estimate of yield and a factor 100 in our requirements, it still comes to a purity of about 10^-8. Is this hopeless?

It would be a help to know what you think on these points fairly soon, since if your answers are in the negative it will mean not only rather radical and I am afraid rather inefficient redesign, but also the immediate prospect of some new production problems for other materials.

How bad is 23?

With all good greetings

— Robert Oppenheimer, in Seaborg, G. T. (1977). History of MET Lab Section C-I, April 1942--April 1943. Lawrence Berkeley laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. pp. 337–338. doi:10.2172/7110621.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So Oppenheimer himself used it. Fascinating. I wonder whether it shows up in the new movie based on his life? Or in fiction at all? Polar Apposite (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha ha, I just noticed the "With all good greetings". I wonder what he had in mind? "Heil Hitler" would be a no-no, for sure. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Manhattan Project's work on 233 is not extensively covered. There was concern that the enrichment process would also increase not just the amount of uranium-235 but also enrich the product in unwanted uranium-234. (This occurred, but turned out to be no problem. See the K-25#Operations for details.) The use of uranium-233 in a gun-type device was investigated by the Metallurgical Laboratory but ultimately discarded. In 1945, Wigner's group at the Metallurgical Laboratory designed a breeder reactor fuelled by plutonium to breed uranium-2333 from thorium. It was never built, but the design was very influential. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Tested, sure, but probably not used in production weapons. Carey Sublette, Alex Wellerstein (i.e. NuclearSecrets above), a few others and myself discussed this last year. The general conclusion was that U233 was not used in the more commonly speculated weapons like the W58 and W55. Nor was Thorium used as a tamper, but rather MagThor alloy was used in these weapons, hence why they were so hot. U233 just has some really awful properties for use in a nuclear weapon (U232 contamination being the main one). Sure, it can be done and you can make a bomb with it, but why bother when you can make better fissile fuels with lest investment? Kylesenior (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This feels US-centric to me... there has been speculation over the years that the Indians and Soviets used U-233 at times. I would add a "primarily" before "used," as that seems safe-enough... NuclearSecrets (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

True, but I think it will always be centric to the nations we have the best info for. Kylesenior (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To add, our discussion isn't suitable as a Wikipedia citation. If Alex or Carey were to publish it on their sites it would be okay as they are both experts in the field, but not at the moment. Kylesenior (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

References