Is this design possible? A true 4 stage thermonuclear doomsday explosive?

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
The convention Teller design for a thermonuclear warhead works this way :

200px-Teller-Ulam_device_3D.svg.png


nuclear_bomb_internal_352.gif


sp07_nuke_fission_lg.jpg



First the yellow explosive lenses around the core implodes the plutonium into critical mass. The resulting explosion compresses and heats up the secondary stage consisting of FOGBANK, the uranium tamper (which can be replaced with lead to make it less radioactive), the fusion fuel (usually deuterium) and the fission sparkplug at the center of the fusion fuel.

56429992628300626.png


fusion.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

A three stage nuclear weapon is possible by adding another casket of the same behind the secondary stage. Both would be immersed in FOGBANK, a type of gel the US (for a brief period) lost information about how to manufacture it. This was also the design for the Soviet Tsar Bomba with the yield of 50 MT.

So in my novel, there exists a doomsday weapon which used can destroy all life on the planet. It consists of a true fourth stage where the three stage nuclear warheads itself act as explosive lenses for a much larger larger fission and fusion core. It would probably take a few thousand of them, all of them arranged in shaped charges configuration around the core to compress it.

The core itself would consists of crust of fissile material, uranium235, perhaps only a thin one because of the availability of the material. Next inside would be thousands/millions of tons of Deuterium and a small quantity of tritium. Inside this fusion core would be a smaller ball of Plutonium239 to act as the sparkplug.

Again this core would be immersed in a vat of FOGBANK, to act as the radiation reflector.

How many MT of explosive yield would that be? Lets say we use ten thousand tons of deuterium as the fourth stage, what would the yield be?

Would this destroy the planet? Perhaps punch a hole through the Earth's crust, causing a 11 or 12 magnitude earthquake?
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
Based on my many years experience in thermalnuclear dynamics and kinematics, quite possibly.
 

DirkGently1

Senior member
Mar 31, 2011
904
0
0
In a work of fiction i guess anything is possible. Realistically it would take another planet sized body colliding with the Earth to stand a chance of destroying it.
 
Last edited:

dennilfloss

Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Oct 21, 1999
30,509
12
0
dennilfloss.blogspot.com
No need for thousands of tons of material and blasting the planet. If you want to sanitize the planet such that only bacteria living deep inside the crust survive, give your bombs a cobalt casing. Then you'll only need a few hundred tons to poison the whole surface of Earth with very radioactive stuff that has just the right half-life. :twisted:
 
Last edited:

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,801
581
126
expecting chris hanson wearing a DHS jacket to come in here any minute. why don't you have a seat over here...
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,963
1,095
126
At that point you might was well use the fission reactions to accelerate two mass at each other and try for some anti-matter.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
I think it might be easier to make a really big, more conventional 4th stage, then a 5th (or multiple 5ths) on top of that. Using nukes as lenses might be difficult in terms of getting the timing just right, but I'm not sure.

Also, it's been speculated that Tsar Bomba wasn't really a 3 stage design, they just clustered multiple large secondaries around the primary.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,674
146
106
www.neftastic.com
At that point you might was well use the fission reactions to accelerate two mass at each other and try for some anti-matter.

You wouldn't be able to generate enough antimatter to make a difference. A "handful" of antimatter particles will take far more energy to generate than the output they would provide, meaning you'd be "wasting" 99% of the destructive force of your fission reactions at that point.

From what I recall, enriched lithium generates a fusion reaction better than straight deuterium. IIRC Tsar Bomba also generated some 60% of it's yield in an unintended uncontrolled reaction that catalyzed the fissile tamper materials rather than the fusion materials.

Personally, for fictional novel purposes, I prefer the more exotic scenarios where a new form of mass energy generation is accidentally discovered by using subparticles that haven't yet been discovered.
 

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
dude, you may want to post in highly technical if you want to get serious answers and are seriously writing a novel.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Tsar Bomba was designed to be a 100MT+ device, the Soviets claimed that they scaled it back to 50MT because something that big would cause "problems" for them back home if they were to detonate it.

To get a 11+ magnitude earthquake, you would need something like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs slamming into the earth. I doubt any nuke can do that.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
You wouldn't be able to generate enough antimatter to make a difference. A "handful" of antimatter particles will take far more energy to generate than the output they would provide, meaning you'd be "wasting" 99% of the destructive force of your fission reactions at that point.

From what I recall, enriched lithium generates a fusion reaction better than straight deuterium. IIRC Tsar Bomba also generated some 60% of it's yield in an unintended uncontrolled reaction that catalyzed the fissile tamper materials rather than the fusion materials.
Tsar Bomba had its yield reduced by using a non fissile (lead) tamper instead of uranium. Supposedly it would've been near 100 MT instead of 'only' 50-57.

You might be thinking of Castle Bravo. They were trying lithium out and found that Li7 could yield tritium (Li-7 + n -> T + He-4 + n - 2.47 MeV. They already knew about Li-6 + n -> T + He-4 + 4.78 MeV). So they got more tritium than expected, a thus a bigger boom.

info from nuclearweaponarchive.org
Tsar Bomba
Castle Bravo
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Tsar Bomba was designed to be a 100MT+ device, the Soviets claimed that they scaled it back to 50MT because something that big would cause "problems" for them back home if they were to detonate it.

To get a 11+ magnitude earthquake, you would need something like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs slamming into the earth. I doubt any nuke can do that.

Just place nukes at the oceanic ridges duh!
 

Beev

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2006
7,775
0
0
This thread made me think about destroying the planet, so I just spent the last hour looking up melting points for metals, giant drill schematics, and tungsten prices :p.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Determine Earth's resonant frequency, then build a massive and powerful "shaker" device. Apply consistent force at the resonant frequency, and wait until the crust starts splitting apart. ;)



...
Personally, for fictional novel purposes, I prefer the more exotic scenarios where a new form of mass energy generation is accidentally discovered by using subparticles that haven't yet been discovered.
Especially good at taking out solar systems.
 
Last edited:

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,825
3,776
136
There was some concern I believe with the first nuclear test that the chain reaction would never stop and would destroy the planet. Of course they tried it anyway.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,963
1,095
126
There was some concern I believe with the first nuclear test that the chain reaction would never stop and would destroy the planet. Of course they tried it anyway.

Think the concern was that the atmosphere would burn. they feared the O2 would ignite at the bomb and then the flame spread around the world. Don't think it was a real concern just a what if.