Or comment

or comment

Other urls found in this thread:

physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae534.cfm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

atoms for bomb

what is your definition of "a few"

If you are implying the splitting of atoms involved in either a uranium or plutonium explosion in the 20kt range then the correct answer is an enormous number

pretty sure it was more than "a few" atoms

...

atoms being split could be argued they died

so the atoms lost first, they just took the cities down in their death rattle

pretty sure ur mum is more than a few atoms.

that's fusion not fission

kek

Let's use fat man (Nagasaki) as an example. The result was the fission of about 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) of the 6.19 kilograms (13.6 lb) of plutonium in the pit, i.e. of about 16% of the fissile material present. 1 gram (0.035 oz) of matter in the bomb is converted into the active energy of heat and radiation, releasing the energy equivalent to the detonation of 21 kilotons of TNT or 88 terajoules.

So 1,000 grams was actually involved in fission or about 5 moles (based on atomic weight of 244) or ~3.02×10^24 atoms.

That is so many atoms that you can't realistically fathom that number in any real way.

>that's fusion not fission

...fusion bomb. Duh.

why would you want fission when fusion is better

What are you jabbering about? Fission and fusion are just modes of atomic energy release. Neither is "better"

It also happens that the two cities implied in this post were both destroyed in Fission explosions. The hydrogen (Fusion) bomb hadn't been invented yet you absolute faggot.

Doesn't a considerable portion of the energy of the blast come from the chain reaction spreading through the atmosphere? That 1,000 grams of plutonium wasn't the only thing that exploded.

doesn't say the date on the pic, it can be modern day.
Fusion creates a lot more energy therefore it is better.

see this however fusion does indeed release more energy than fission, that's one of the aspects why we try to get fusion reactors working. this and the fact that you don't produce radioactive waste

No. You're statement is wrong.

A considerable portion of the energy only comes from the fission of material in the bomb. A negligible amount of energy comes from the TNT used in the initial explosion to compress the core. All the rest of the event is just people getting their shit wrecked by the initial gamma ray burst, then ionizing particles from the fission event, followed by the shockwave, and later the cancer that comes mostly from ingested iodine and other radioactive decay products.

The atmosphere doesn't participate in shit you absolute retard.

You are implying one method makes a bigger nlast? WRONG

It all depends on how the bomb is constructed. In facthe largest bombs in history, Tsar Bomb as the prime example, had most of their energy released from their fissile casing. NOT from the lithium deuteride secondary.

All you niggers need to read up on bombs n' shit

weak bait or just a retard

and one more point, you might be thinking fusion is better because it is "cleaner". In the case of wrecking a combantant in war time it can be argued that dirtier is better

still, fusion, at least a controlled fusion WILL produce more energy than fission. Kinda hard physics at work here, but google it, read once a good article about it

not the article i once read, but it also gets the point. it all about the binding energy:
physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae534.cfm

so you can say while fusion produces more energy its way harder to archive than fission

you're just mad cus ur wrong

I know. my point was that if someone is building a bomb they can make it any yield they want using either method. You can make a 50 MT uranium only fission bomb if you wanted. So the point that hydrogen bombs are "bigger" is in practice generally true but in theory not the case.

Just being pedantic since this is an argument thread and I happen to study this stuff a little.

>their shit wrecked by the initial gamma ray burst, then ionizing particles from the fission event
clarification needed: There is no difference between these two. i think what you mean is the gamma rays and the heat

Did you make this yourself? This is the most pathetic attempt at edgy trolling I've ever seen on Sup Forums.

i don't mean the part with the fusion, i'm on your side on this. i mean the part with the date. i mean we clearly talk about the events in the past or did they drop new bombs?

yeah, that's true

a few atoms potentially

>You're statement is wrong.