Talk:Nuclear weapon design

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force

Role of EPFCGs in Nuclear Weapons Design

Nuclear weapons create extraordinarily high EMP fields and contain the components of a very effective explosively pumped flux compression generator (EPFCG). Properly arranged, EPFCGs can confine and initiate fusion reactions. Should this article have a section discussing the role of EPFCG in the design of nuclear weapons? sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The EMP is produced by late stage fireball physics, not the immediate detonation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK; mentioning standard EMP wasn't correct. But, if a magnetic field existed within a conductive layer of the tamper just before implosion (e.g. a Be layer), then the implosion would compress the B field and act as an EPFCG generating enormous currents. The current can then be arranged to confine the plasma and improve its fusion yield and/or to create an electromagnetic field in a subsequent stage in preparation for the compression and ignition of that later stage. Magnetized target fusion employs the same plasma confinement principle without using fission power. The public drawings of Teller-Ulam designs, such as the W80, show a secondary arranged in a cylindrical manner similar to EPFCG designs. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that that's useful or necessary; the fusion burn runs to completion just fine contained by the inertial mass of the remaining tamper/pusher. Thermonuclear weapons are pretty darn efficient already - the compression factors involved are enough to produce 10-50% burns in the fusion stage, to the point that fusion byproducts start to interfere with the ongoing fusion process.

There's no need to add another system; if inertial confinement and compression works, why get electrical/magnetic confinement involved?

Have you worked out numbers for the confinement energy of such an imploded field compared to the inertial confinement?

Are you familiar with the Nuclear Weapons FAQ section on Radiation Implosion, http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-4.html#Nfaq4.4.3?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

pusher

the article says it's supposed to reflect some of the wave backwards. i believe this to be misunderstanding of the physics, use of a lower density material like alumin would reduce wave impedance, therefore reducing the impedance mismatch between wave and material leading to LESS of the wave being reflected away into the other direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.47.244 (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Length of lead section

Currently, the beginning lead section goes on for paragraphs and paragraphs before we get to the index. I'm not intimately familiar with Wikipedia styling, but this seems excessively long, and like most information should be moved down below the index Raptortech97 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) --80.217.2.28 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2011 (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)

Linear Implosion

Can someone show me where in the literature, not theoretical, but in a SAND-type publication where the rationale for a cylinder-type implosion device was ever used? And, please don't point out the W48.

Others have speculated the W48 is a gun weapon, again with no relevant reference.

In the November - December 1993 edition of the Energy and Technology Review, published by LLNL (doi:10.2172/10127762, 4.5 MB), there is an article on an incident involving dismantlement of one of these devices. They state on page 10 (13 in the PDF) a heavy spring is used to hold the pit in place. There are no pits in a gun system.

Then, on that page, they describe a cracking of the outer shell of the pit. This means the pit isn't solid, and further reading suggests that the pit is in fact layered. Finally, on page 13 (16 in the PDF), they further describe the pit as a hemishell. Failure of the pit was attributed to a failed waist welding procedure.

Looking at the Brookings institution photo of the guy with the grin on his face, and a finger inside the artillery round, and referencing it against the most interesting line drawing on the Greenpeace site, I am saying it's spherical implosion. Of course, assuming the entire article wasn't disinformation, and the display round was complete in its innards.

There is my reference. Cite yours in your response, and don't bother with third hand tales.

What say ye now??? —207.65.105.202 (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about back pack nuclear bomb

The South Korean media is describing a North korean back pack bomb (which oddly seems to be deployed near the China border) along with a picture of the design. See:

Daily NK - NK Running 'Backpack Bomb' Unit

Question: There are four bottle like structures located in the upper left of the image. Two are red, outside the barrel. The other two are light orange, inside the barrel. What are they? 172.162.40.132 (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And how can this information be used to improve this article? --80.217.2.199 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Its a question about nuclear weapon design.172.162.39.45 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)BG

That diagram appears to be a non-technical experts' "how a small gun type bomb might look", not derived from an actual design.

I would not assume it has any basis in an actual design.

If someone who can read Korean can translate the illustration captions it would help see what the shapes are supposed to represent.

I don't think it's relevant or appropriate to include in the article. It's almost certainly an artists' conception not the real thing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good article. I (fortunately) don't have to read -neese to determine what that graphic is about. It is a drawing and photograph from the legendary Kurt Weldon incident. You know, where the staffer built a mockup with a lantern battery, household light switch, wood, water pipe and aluminum foil, and now everybody thinks its' a credible design?

Happy to help,

Shawn Hughes 98.70.111.10 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Diagram inconsistency

Disclaimer: I am *so* not a nuclear physicist...

The diagram given in the section "Oralloy thermonuclear warheads" claims to be a cross-section of the W88. It shows a spherical primary. The section on the W88, however, shows a more complex egg shape, and also provides some references to support that diagram. Can someone who knows The Real Deal please clarify one or the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Look again: the W88 diagram in this article shows a spherical secondary (below the prolate primary). Compare W87 with W88. This stuff is all from newspapers and a popular book written by somebody who is obviously not a nuke engineer, or else they'd be in jail. I have the feeling that the people who know the "real deal" about the innards of W88, have probably signed security/secrecy contacts which prevent them from contributing directly to Wikipedia about that subject, on pain of imprisonment. So don't get your hopes up. SBHarris 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)