Micro Nuclear Device: Is It Possible?

Debree
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have a limited understanding of how nuclear devices work and understand the basic physics related to fusion and fission.

However whilst I do not believe the latest assertions by Bashir the cleric from Indonesia who reckons the CIA set off a micro nuclear device in Bali - rather than it being some radical moslems from Indonesia.

It did get me to wondering though is there any such thing as a micro nuclear device? The explosions we classically see from nuclear tests and WW2 footage show enormous blasts, and the other information I have read seems to indicate that the critcal mass of product required would result in a sizable blast area - certainly much bigger than the one nightclub destroyed in Bali.

Can anyone tell me if:

a. there is any such thing as a micro nuclear bomb / device
b. if there was such a thing would it be possible for it to be mistaken for a normal device - ie by blast size?
c. and confirm that surely there would be some radiation output?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This'll get moved to S&D, or GD as a "conspiracy" thread. 'Bout the smallest nuclear warheads built for the U. S. arsenal were the Davy Crockett, or the "silver bullets" for the 155 (apocryphal --- heard about 'em at Ft. Sill, but never been able to confirm their existence). DC couldn't throw the warhead far enough to get the crew out of the fallout zone --- might as well put it in a suitcase and throw it --- after bending over, putting your head between your legs, and kissing your ass good-bye. 10-20 ton yield (not kton, ton) --- around half the size of the average mine under the Messines Ridge in WW I --- definitely more than enough to put the Bali club into low Earth orbit.
 
Critical mass of uranium in a sphere is approx. 20kgs I think, fusion doesn't need a specific mass or shape(obviously you want a lot for a large explosion), but it does need 100,000,000°c which is only obtainable by a normal nuclear explosion. So the smallest nuclear bomb would have to contain 20kgs of Uranium in 2 semi-spheres and some explosives as well as some neutron emmiters.

(I'm am in no way an expert on the matter but this is what I understand is required from my high-school knowledge and misc. facts I look up on the net)
 
And yes; there would be radiation. In fact, it is likely that the ratio of radiation to blast size would be much worse for a smaller device, because the higher ratio of surface area to mass within the fissile material would render such a device much less efficient. I think there are other innefficiencyies associated with a smaller device, but this is just speculation on my part (so far).

What I do know for certain is that there is no known way to produce a fission reaction without releasing radiation.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top