Does all the Californium ever refined even equal the mass of one bullet? That must be what Woody Allen used to produce that A-Bomb pill in “Casino Royal”!
<font face=“Westminster” size=4>You are correct. All the Californium in the world is insufficient to create even one bombs as described in my post.
If, however; you discover a way to make relatively large quantities of Californium relatively cheaply–HOO BOY!
You would also get rich in a hurry; because there is always a fortune waiting for anyone who can find a new way to do stupid things; preferably in as expensive a way as possible.</font>
Is an appreciation of beauty a function of the human soul?
“Critical Mass” came about by the misconception that if you got X amount of fissible material in a uniform spherical mass it would result in a nuclear explosion.
It will explode, yes, but the explosion results merely from the heat generated by a sustained (vice runaway) chain reaction. The metal vaporizes and blows your chunk of material apart. Then you get radiation sickness, all your monitoring equipment is messed up, and you have to wait thirty years for the theorists to convince someone that it would be a good idea to try this sort of thing again to see what really happened. BUT, too late, “critical mass” has already caught on (and is still a useful, if misleading, safety precaution)
What is this “Guest” poster thing I am seeing?
The thread’s been resurrected for God knows what reason from 1999. That user status no longer exists.
Wow, night of the living dead posts.
The one who awoke this thread from it’s eternal slumber in the depths of obscurity may simply have been doing a search for threads concerning nuclear weapons and typed a response without noticing the date on it.
No, this was one of the original participants in the thread. And one who only posts once or twice a year.
So, it’s more like, do a vanity search and then pick up again as if entire years hadn’t passed in the interim.
Wow, I didn’t notice the dates. Maybe he is speaking Entish?
At least it’s a topic people are presently wondering about.
I think someone was looking around for thread on the Hafnium isomer gamma-bomb that was in the news a couple days ago.
What if one were to shoot a grapefruit-sized chunk of Californication with a 1920’s Death Ray?
What the fuck? You resurrect this thread again, after four more months have passed, just to post this crap?
Is it that disconcerting to see an old thread get some more use? I think it’s very enlightening to have all of this knowledge preserved in one place, so we don’t have to go looking for it every single time the topic comes up.
well, if we must resurrect it, how about a link to an article about this so- called hafnium gamma bomb?
hafnium isomer gamma bomb
it has a name so long that you would never have time to shout a warning.
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
To attempt to wrap this thing into a coherent statement, let’s look at the following:
-
To produce an “atomic” (fission) bomb, you must have a fissionable isotope refined to “weapon-grade” richness.
-
Only two fissionable isotopes exist in nature in measurable quantities: U-235 and U-234, and the latter is so scarce as toi be negligible.
-
Pu-239 can be readily produced from the relatively common U-238, adding a second significant fissionable isotope.
-
It takes a critical mass of your fissionable isotope to produce a bomb.
-
Both U-235 and Pu-239 have critical masses high enough to forestall any “one-man atomic bomb.”
-
While causing above-normal density by implosion can make a subcritical mass explode, the technology req
Looks like Polycarp worked out the required technology. See you in the afterlife, Poly. 
To attempt to wrap this thing into a coherent statement, let’s look at the following:
-
To produce an “atomic” (fission) bomb, you must have a fissionable isotope refined to “weapon-grade” richness.
-
Only two fissionable isotopes exist in nature in measurable quantities: U-235 and U-234, and the latter is so scarce as toi be negligible.
-
Pu-239 can be readily produced from the relatively common U-238, adding a second significant fissionable isotope.
-
It takes a critical mass of your fissionable isotope to produce a bomb.
-
Both U-235 and Pu-239 have critical masses high enough to forestall any “one-man atomic bomb.”
-
While causing above-normal density by implosion can make a subcritical mass explode, the technology required to produce that density would add enough mass to the device to rule it out.
-
We have created elements above plutonium, some isotopes of which have sufficient half-lives to make them plausible in these scenarios.
-
The critical mass for isotopes of americium or californium has not been stated here, and may not be public knowledge. But theoretically, one might produce a very small (and small yield) atomic weapon using them.
It is worth noting that it’s quite possible to coat a fissionable with a substance which produces massive gamma or neutron radiation when the fissionable is detonated. This is the basis for the “neutron bomb” of a few years ago, and presumably from the hafnium isomer bomb being spoken of here.
This was a shoulder=launched small atomic bomb, similar to a WWII bazooka. From what I remember, the US Army actually had tested a few of these things…they must have made an impressive blast!
Just the thing you need to stop a T34 tank!
The US did have suitcase nukes - trust me on that one.
Here’s a story about 100 (yikes!) missing Soviet suitcase nukes, as related by Alexander Lebed, Russia’s former chief of national security:
http://www.ci-ce-ct.com/article/showquestion.asp?faq=14&fldAuto=1229