Information on Teller–Ulam hydrogen bomb design

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Teller–Ulam hydrogen bomb design, exploring its mechanics, historical context, and current applications in ICBM technology. Participants delve into the details of fission and fusion processes, the role of various materials, and the implications for modern weaponry.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the basic mechanism of early uranium bombs, mentioning the use of tungsten carbide as a neutron reflector and the critical mass achieved by two subcritical masses of U-235.
  • Another participant discusses the design of plutonium bombs, noting the hollow sphere of Pu-239 and the role of high explosives in achieving critical mass, while questioning the necessity of a tamper.
  • A participant speculates on the operation of hydrogen bombs, suggesting that the initial fission reaction creates conditions for fusion, involving materials like polystyrene foam.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the availability of current ICBM design information, implying that it remains classified.
  • Another participant references leaked information about the W88 warhead, suggesting that it may clarify some of the original poster's questions.
  • There is a discussion about the size and design of MIRVs, with one participant questioning how explosives are integrated into their compact design, while another provides a size comparison to illustrate that MIRVs are not excessively small.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the mechanics of nuclear weapons, with some agreeing on the use of explosives to initiate fission, while others raise questions about the specifics of current designs and their classification. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the details of modern implementations and the necessity of certain components.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in available information, particularly regarding classified aspects of modern ICBM designs and the specifics of the Teller–Ulam configuration. There are also unresolved questions about the role of tamper materials and the exact mechanisms in contemporary warheads.

exet
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I have a question about the Teller–Ulam hydrogen bomb design. This will be a long post , but I hope someone can answer it for me.

When the first bombs were created, uranium device was simple enough to to figure out. Two sub critical masses of u-235 joined at... I think it was 3000 feet per second to create a critical mass. I think from what I read tungsten carbide was use as a neutron reflector to get the reaction going to achieve an explosion. Correct me if I am wrong.

The second bomb they dropped was a plutonium bomb. This gets a little complicated. From what I have read / watched, the plutonium was in a hollow sphere, because p-239 will fizzle if brought to critical mass. They then took high explosives and compressed the the sphere of plutonium to critical mass. Not sure if a tamper was needed. (correct me if I am wrong but I think a tamper is a neutron reflector)

Anyway the to designs worked, but along comes the hydrogen bomb. The way I think this works is as folllows: plutonium atom bomb goes off, which is very hot turning the polystyrene foam (basically styrofoam) into a plasma which in turn with the xrays given off sets the hydrogen fusion device to go off.

So basically I am just wondering with the ICBM MIRVS, do they still use the implosion technique, or do they use a neutron generator to set off the plutonium device, and if so do they use a tamper.

Thanks for taking a look at this. I am very tired and am going to go to bed now, but I hope someone can answer this. I cannot find any information in documentaries, or on google.

Thank you.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I would be surprised if the current ICBM designs weren't still classified...
 
Certain information about the W88 warhead was leaked to the press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 has a graphic that should answer at least some of the questions in the OP.
 
Ahhhh so they still do use the explosives to start the fission reaction. Wonder how they fit that into a tiny MIRV.
 
bare sphere (unreflected) Pu critical mass is just about 6" dia. The oblate design is a little tighter about the middle.
 
exet said:
Ahhhh so they still do use the explosives to start the fission reaction. Wonder how they fit that into a tiny MIRV.

MIRV's aren't THAT small. And it doesn't take a huge amount of explosives to start the reaction. See here for a size comparison: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/W87_MIRV.jpg
 

Similar threads

How does the Tamper in a nuclear bomb survive?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Inertial confinement fusion (First light, NIF, etc)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Nuclear weapon detonator physics
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Chernobyl Did Chernobyl divers prevent a multi megaton explosion?
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
24K
Undergrad Why is a Hydrogen bomb called a hydrogen bomb?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Down-scaled nuclear pulse propulsion
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Stupid question - how does fission bomb get initial neutron?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad What Makes Hydrogen Bombs More Powerful Than Atomic Bombs?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Atomic bombs and radiation in TV shows
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
Graduate Would this fissioning method be viable?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K