Is a blast chamber possible for a nuclear weapon?
- Thread starter Braznor
- Start date
I don't think it's possible, they usually test underground
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ground_nuclear_testing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ground_nuclear_testing
Comdrpopnfresh
Golden Member
- Jul 25, 2006
- 1,202
- 2
- 81
No testing in the US, if that's where you're asking about. The radius of the sphere would have to be rather large, and there would have to be an opening. Ceramic may help with the heat, but the flash radiation and ensuing pressure wave would make it difficult
Define "blast chamber". If you are talking about something that can fit inside a building the answer is definitly no.
Maybe if the chamber was spherical (with the bomb in the centre) with a diameter of a few km.
Remember that the nukes that complettely destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of the of the order of 20 kiloton, and while the effects do not scale linearly a 4 megaton weapon would still destroy even a large city if detonated at the right altitude.
There is simply no way to contain an explosion like that.
Maybe if the chamber was spherical (with the bomb in the centre) with a diameter of a few km.
Remember that the nukes that complettely destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of the of the order of 20 kiloton, and while the effects do not scale linearly a 4 megaton weapon would still destroy even a large city if detonated at the right altitude.
There is simply no way to contain an explosion like that.
yes, like any explosion it can be contained. You would need a much larger and stronger container than anything built before obviously, but if you look at nukes detonated underground the explosion is contained in a very small area considerably less than a square mile. People these days tend to considerably overestimate the power of nuclear weapons. If you want to be scientific about it you can look at the overpressure produced by a nuclear weapon at different distances and then determine what amount of structure could contain that pressure. For example consider a 5000psi concrete wall and then determine how large a sphere would be required to keep the pressure inside below that level. IF you really want to get tecnical it would help ALOT to have a good deal of water in the sphere due to its high specific heat it would absorb considerably more energy at low temperatures and pressures than air.
I would say a several hundred meter radius sphere would probably work for a smaller bomb. you might need over a kilometer for the bomb in question though.
One might note for example that the energy released by a 2MT bomb is about the same as a nuclear or coal plant running for a month if my conversions are accurate. Thats alot of steam, but not any un-Godly amount.
I would say a several hundred meter radius sphere would probably work for a smaller bomb. you might need over a kilometer for the bomb in question though.
One might note for example that the energy released by a 2MT bomb is about the same as a nuclear or coal plant running for a month if my conversions are accurate. Thats alot of steam, but not any un-Godly amount.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
A better idea would be to use a vacuum chamber. There's be no expansion of the air so your only worry would be how to dissipate 4 MT worth of radiation. A highly reflective surface to slow the absorption and some great thermal conductor with a large heatsink would probably work well. I guess a 10m thick 1km radius hollow spherical copper shell with a highly polished interior, pumped out to a good vacuum and buried in the antarctic ice sheet would be your best bet.
if I had to guess I would say that would be considerable overkill. Also, there is no reason to be reflective since its all going to be absorbed anyways. Your only going to vaporize a thin layer anyways and copper inst very strong. Using a foot thick steel would probably work. 10m of copper doesn't really gain you much so far as I can see if only an inch is going to be vaporized.
Rubycon
Madame President
- Aug 10, 2005
- 17,768
- 485
- 126
Why even bother with testing at this time and age? If we can develop a way to contain the blast on a non intrusive level (I shudder at using the term "force field"!) then we've just made every (bombing) method of defense obsolete. (for those in possession of such technology.)
Then of course a new arms race begins...
One could map an area with surgical precision and then detonate something making everything inside this cordoned area lethal to all life.
Imagine a scenario:
A truck carrying a "payload" parks in the middle of the targeted area. Yet just outside of this area contains many soft targets where collateral damage at any level would be entirely unacceptable. So once the device is set and armed the "field" is activated and the device detonated. Sounds like a scene out of a sci-fi movie but one day may become a reality. :Q
Then of course a new arms race begins...
One could map an area with surgical precision and then detonate something making everything inside this cordoned area lethal to all life.
Imagine a scenario:
A truck carrying a "payload" parks in the middle of the targeted area. Yet just outside of this area contains many soft targets where collateral damage at any level would be entirely unacceptable. So once the device is set and armed the "field" is activated and the device detonated. Sounds like a scene out of a sci-fi movie but one day may become a reality. :Q
Well, the obvious reason is to figure out if they work or not. Most countries don't have nukes, so as they develop them they would want to test them out to be "sure", and other countries that have them would want to make sure their aging stockpiles still work.
That said, it is clearly not economical to design something to contain the blast, its much simpler to just dig a hole in the ground and detonate them, or to just blow one up in the desert where nobody lives. 1000+ nukes have been detonated so far and there hasn't been any considerable negative effects on humanity, so whats a few more really going to do? Hell, popping a few off in a public setting might be a good thing just to remind people they are still around.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Well because all the energy is released in a few nanoseconds, you'll have all that energy hitting the surface at once. If you make it reflective you'll only have to absorb maybe 1/1000th of the energy at a time. You'll then have the time it takes light to cross 10km before you have to absorb any more, and then you'll still only get 1/1000th of what's left.
It'll make it so you can spread the absorption and dissipation out over a second or so. The outward pressure will be much greater of course, hence the thicker walls.
And yeah it's probably overkill, but 1 km and 10m were nice round numbers.
Comdrpopnfresh
Golden Member
- Jul 25, 2006
- 1,202
- 2
- 81
just gonna neglect to mention radiation, huh? Try shielding yourself from gamma rays and x-rays by standing behind some polished copper and let me know how it turns out.
Comdrpopnfresh
Golden Member
- Jul 25, 2006
- 1,202
- 2
- 81
We have those- they're called nuclear power plants. I prefer them over what you're mentioning, because they don't blow up.
When it comes to nuclear explosions, the tried and true method for protection is simply lots of mass between you and the explosion. The more mass, the better. It almost doesn't matter the material as long as it is opaque (so you don't go blind).
Remember that the blast wave created by a nuclear explosion does most of the damage, and this blast wave is created by super-heated air which is the result of a lot of kinetic energy being released.
No air - very little blast wave. This is why nukes detonated underground make a nice a hole a few hundred feet in diameter, but otherwise only shake/displace the above ground a bit and bounce some trucks around.
I recall a very rough formula given by one of my old physics profs that equated 20kilotons of nuke power = 5 grams of matter converted to energy.
More interesting when nukes are detonated in the water below fleets of mothballed air-craft carriers, etc.
No air - very little blast wave. This is why nukes detonated underground make a nice a hole a few hundred feet in diameter, but otherwise only shake/displace the above ground a bit and bounce some trucks around.
I recall a very rough formula given by one of my old physics profs that equated 20kilotons of nuke power = 5 grams of matter converted to energy.
More interesting when nukes are detonated in the water below fleets of mothballed air-craft carriers, etc.
What do you think they were doing when they made giant hollow spherical chambers underground for testing nukes? They were not creating synthetic ceramic materials. They were using naturally-occurring materials, and lots of it, with a cheap price per pound! Besides, all the supporting structures outside the spherical container were already in place, and VERY thick and stiff! Contained the blast forces and the radiation, too. And no after-the-blast collection and storage or materials to handle.
Why does it have to be a Megaton, or even a Kiloton blast?
I don't know what the lower limits are, but maybe it could be done with a very small Nuclear blast.
Basically, isn't that what Fusion is all about?
I don't know what the lower limits are, but maybe it could be done with a very small Nuclear blast.
Basically, isn't that what Fusion is all about?
slightly off topic but wasn't one of the ways of harnessing fusion basically using small thermo nuclear bombs? I think the idea was to have a large underground cavern filled with salt let off the bomb in the cavern, and use the super heated salt to power steam turbines on the surface, basically like geothermal energy. If I remember right the goverment didn't end up trying it is because it wasn't commercially viable with the security concerns of having to use dozens of small nukes per day and the transport associated with it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter