How would fusion based weapons be ?

How would fission based weapons work ? If we dominate fission tech what is the weaponizing potential ? How would it destroy or kill ?

:dubious:

Are youaware that there is a class of weapons, otherwise known as “nuclear”, which use fission?

If not, that would probably be the first place to start your research.

We’ve had both fission (atomic bomb) and fusion (hydrogen bomb) weapons for decades. For an interesting read, look up Tsar Bomba, the biggest H-bomb ever detonated.

A fission weapon works, in short, by the near-instantaneous chain reaction resulting from bringing together a critical mass of a fissionable isotope. Typically this isotope is U-235, Pu-239, or U-233, and the resultant explosion is in the range of the equivalent that would be produced by the explosion of 20,000 tons of TNT. (“Kiloton” and “Megaton” as measurements of the destructiveness of nuclear weapons are based on that parallelism with TNT.)

IIRC, the largest conventional bombs used in World War II produced about a one-ton-of-TNT destructiveness.

The minimum size of A-bomb in terms of destructiveness is set by what the critical mass for the isotope is. I seem to recall research into an “atomic bullet” (actually an artillery shell), using an isotope of Americium, that could be used tactically, with about the destructivity of a “blockbuster” bomb.

Are you thinking of the atomic cannon? It was a big artillery piece firing an atomic shell of about 15kt.

Very small atomic explosions were possible - the “Davy Crockett” could be dialed down to about 10 tons of TNT (or up to 250 tons…far more than any conventional munition) - although the “Grand Slam” conventional bomb used in WW2 weighed ten tons about half of that was the bomb casing. It carried over 9,000 pounds of actual explosives.

http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/miscellaneous/tallboy/tallboy.html

IIRC the largest conventional bomb ever built is the MOAB, which carries almost 19,000 lbs of explosives.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

OH F#Ç@… I meant FUSION ! Fusion weapons… :eek: :smack: :smack:

Moderator please… change title…

Thermo bombs are fusion ?

Well we’ve already got those too. Hydrogen bombs use a fission reaction to create immense pressure, causing a fusion reaction in the Hydrogen, causing a big boom.

Yeah, it fuses the hydrogen into helium. You need a lot of the heavier isotopes of hydrogen for this to work too, IIRC.

If I may reverse your saying, then fusion devices are often referred to as “thermonuclear” due to the great heat they release.

Here is some info on them.

For a more general discussion of fission and fusion devices, you may find this section of the same site above informative.

I think you are having a bad day. Try going back to sleep. :wink:
We exploded the first H-bomb or Fusion Bomb in the 50’s.

Try these links or this search

Jim

I’m kinda curious if controlled fusion could be practically adapted to naval vessels like subs or carriers. Current models use fission to heat water into steam to drive turbines, but could the process be improved with fusion, or would it require constant refueling of heavy hydrogen, offsetting the practical value of the improved heat production?

If you have a way of generating more energy than you spend in a controlled manner using fusion, you might have a nobel prize waiting for you. We do not yet have fusion reactors that actually generate useful energy.

and you can focus the force of a fusion reaction and use it to burn small insects and start fires using a magnifying glass

The holy grail on Engineering at this poit would be a Fusion Reactor.
I hope we get some incredible break through soon.

Jim

Well, yeah, I know. I’m rather looking forward to the results of the ITER project, among others. My question was about the hypothetical practicality of a ship-based fusion reactor. Would it have to refueled more often than a fission-based vessel, reducing operational efficiency?

For that matter, could a future fusion supercarrier have a system built in that extracts heavy water from seawater, allowing it to fuel itself?

I think a lot depends on the fusion reactor we eventually develope. Perhaps fission reactors will be more efficinet, perhaps we can fuse simple hydrogen and we can get that from sea water, therefore the ship never needs refuling, perhaps we will need He3 for it, only available on the moon.

As for the power contained in fusionable material, i’ve heard (unsupported) that a space shuttle’s external sized fuel tank, filled with He3 could supply today’s US peak demand for power for about 1 year.

I used to be more in touch with science topics... but age and other hobbies have taken their toll.  Plus in fact I had had a bad day and little sleep !

What about non-bomb fusion weaponry ? Also non-propulsion…

Actually I believe the “thermo” part is referring to the great heat needed to start the thermonuclear reaction–in a thermonuclear bomb, the extreme temperatures created by a nuclear fission explosion (which also releases a lot of heat, but which doesn’t require extremely high temperatures to get started) are needed to get the fusion reaction going. That was the whole point why cold fusion would have been such a big deal if it had actually worked.

Hmm, I never thought of that, but it does make sense. Good point.