Stopping a nuclear bomb

  • Thread starter sid_galt
  • Start date
  • #1
501
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Is there any way to mitigate the effects of a nuclear bomb when it bursts such as using the energy from the bomb for an endothermic fission?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
sid_galt said:
Is there any way to mitigate the effects of a nuclear bomb when it bursts such as using the energy from the bomb for an endothermic fission?
sid_galt,

NOPE!!

If the bomb goes off - then it generates a LOT of energy that initially
shows up as heat energy in the bomb material itself - i.e. the bomb is
VERY HOT!!

That hot material is going to expand, generate a shock wave [ i.e a blast
wave]. It will radiate heat and other radiation, and all the other effects
of a nuclear weapon.

Once that amount of heat energy is generated - there's no way to
corral that energy again - thermodynamics takes over.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #3
501
0
Morbius said:
sid_galt,

NOPE!!

If the bomb goes off - then it generates a LOT of energy that initially
shows up as heat energy in the bomb material itself - i.e. the bomb is
VERY HOT!!

That hot material is going to expand, generate a shock wave [ i.e a blast
wave]. It will radiate heat and other radiation, and all the other effects
of a nuclear weapon.

Once that amount of heat energy is generated - there's no way to
corral that energy again - thermodynamics takes over.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Maybe the title was misleading, I was talking about mitigating its effects not ending them.

I know there is no way to bring together again the vast amount of energy generated but is there any way to spread it over a very large area reducing its ill effects?
 
  • #4
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
sid_galt said:
Maybe the title was misleading, I was talking about mitigating its effects not ending them.

I know there is no way to bring together again the vast amount of energy generated but is there any way to spread it over a very large area reducing its ill effects?
sid,

In a word - NO.

There's nothing that will disperse the effects over a greater area.

The bomb disperses itself - with the attendant consequences.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #5
10
0
. Endothermic force is of that which absorbs heat and the nuclear blast is that of exothermic type. Kinetic photons are at energy levels of that over 10^8 K and cannot be negated or even mitigated to abosorb. Further more powerful oxides and ammonium is mostly required in endothermic reactions (at least in science lab experiments). In edothermic reactions, energy is used as a reactant, where exothermic is quiet the opposite.

The nuclear force, especially that derived from a nuclear warhead, is one of the most powerfullest reactions today, except for antimatter-matter anhillation which coverts most of it's mass into energy - but these are both interchangable. Nothing today - except maybe a strong EM force (that artificial) can at least negate this gargantuan energy.
 
  • #6
501
0
Well, Thank you for the reply.

I just thought it would be nice if something like that could be done.
 
  • #7
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
sid_galt said:
Well, Thank you for the reply.

I just thought it would be nice if something like that could be done.
sid,

Yes - you just have to remember that once the nuclear device has operated -
it has generated the energy. The nuclear reactions have stopped. All you
have at that point is a mass of material with tremendous heat energy.

Heat energy is going to do what heat energy does. That heat energy
engenders tremendous pressures - and that pressure is going to make the
mass of material expand. As it tries to rapidly expand, it generates a
shock wave - the colder air around it can't "get out of the way" fast enough.
It "piles up" in the shock front - with tremendous pressure.

That shock is expanding. [ When you see film of one of the nuclear tests
conducted in the Pacific - like the Bikini shots - look at the surface of
the ocean - and you can see the effects of the shock on the water's
surface. When the shock gets to the shore - look at the fronds of the
palm trees. ] The pressure of that shock front [ i.e. a blast wave ] does
the damage. The energy is travelling as fast as it can already - how
would one make it travel faster or disperse faster?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #8
17
0
Hi,

Years ago, I remember there was research on nuclear explosion shielding using electro-dynamic field generators and thermodynamic absorbant materials.
From this perspective, it is possible to mitigate nuclear radiation effects, and
perhaps to contain the nuclear explosions, too.

Anything is possible. What we know (publicly) about physics is still at a very early stages.

FluidSpace
 
  • #9
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
FluidSpace said:
Hi,

Years ago, I remember there was research on nuclear explosion shielding using electro-dynamic field generators and thermodynamic absorbant materials.
From this perspective, it is possible to mitigate nuclear radiation effects, and
perhaps to contain the nuclear explosions, too.

Anything is possible. What we know (publicly) about physics is still at a very early stages.

FluidSpace
FluidSpace,

I'd disagree with the last statement.

We may not have a unified field theory, and know the physics of the
sub-atomic scale; but the more macro-scale physics - like what happens
when a bomb explodes is well understood.

You're reading science fiction.

For the most part - the hot expanding debris is electrically neutral - so
electromagnetic fields won't stop it.

Any material is thermodynamically absorbant - the problem is that the
bomb contains so much energy that any material that seeks to absorb
that much energy will be vaporized.

No matter what you postulate for "field generators" or "absorbant"
materials - there is one hell of a lot of energy released in the bomb -
and you can't make that energy "go away" [ by the fundamental law
of conservation of energy ]. Any attempt to corral that much energy
is basically self-defeating.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #10
391
2
Intresting thought to have, being able to stop the detonation of an atomic bomb. I remember a cartoon that my brothers and sisters were watching had something along these lines. I stopped to listen even though it was one of those cartoon with the big machines that people pilot. The "space race" had been attacked by nuclear arms, so in retaliation they dropped "N-jammers" all over earth which stopped the nuclear reaction. Ironically, there was "anti N-jammer" technology, which could nullify the jammers.

Fantasy of course, but could conditions be made so that it is impossible to create fissile material to make weapons in the first place?
 
  • #11
17
0
Hi,

Please Morbius do not take this personally and do not assume I am only reading "science fiction". I am accomplished engineer and merely sharing my perspective.

Sincerely,

FluidSpace
 
  • #12
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
FluidSpace said:
Hi,

Please Morbius do not take this personally and do not assume I am only reading "science fiction". I am accomplished engineer and merely sharing my perspective.
FluidSpace,

If you are an engineer - then I'd expect you to know that "electro-dynamic
field generators" can't affect neutral particles.

As for absorbant materials - like I said before - most materials DO absorb
the energy from the bomb - and that's the problem - because they vaporize.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #13
17
0
Hi,

The electro-dynamic field generators and thermionic absorbant ceramic-like materials did not work independently, the surrounding atmospheric medium was ionized by some sort of high-energy laser-like device.

Yes, I am an engineer with 3 patents applied for and assisted in over 40 biotech and electrical engineering patents.

Fluidspace
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
FluidSpace said:
Hi,

The electro-dynamic field generators and thermionic absorbant ceramic-like materials did not work independently, the surrounding atmospheric medium was ionized by some sort of high-energy laser-like device.

Yes, I am an engineer with 3 patents applied for and assisted in over 40 biotech and electrical engineering patents.

Fluidspace
FluidSpace,

Go do some calculation!!! Do you realize how much energy it would
take to ionize the atmosphere surrounding a nuclear explosion?

I ask again - where is the energy going to go?

By conservation of energy, the energy produced by the bomb has got to
go somewhere - it can't just disappear. [ The energy normally goes into
breaking the bonds that hold materials together - which is why the
buildings fail - for one instance. ]

So you've ionized the air - now what?

How does the field generator stop the blast wave?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited:
  • #15
17
0
Hi Morbius,

I am sure you know your field very well, since it is your profession and I am not here to judge you as you should me. Just to clarify, I knew of this research originating from Asia -- it may had been classified. I am sure there are a plethora of classified projects (U.S. and abroad) out there that we do not know and not being shared by special interests.

As I recall, the forces and high-energy emanated from the nuclear blast are deflected in such a way that they are automatically converted to other forms of energy that is manageable to absorbed and/or withstand. I do not know exactly how it's done, but that's what I observed it to be (and, I might be wrong!)

There are so much more to learn, and a lot of this is still hidden from our realm of understanding.

FluidSpace
 
  • #16
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
FluidSpace said:
Hi Morbius,

I am sure you know your field very well, since it is your profession and I am not here to judge you as you should me. Just to clarify, I knew of this research originating from Asia -- it may had been classified. I am sure there are a plethora of classified projects (U.S. and abroad) out there that we do not know and not being shared by special interests.

As I recall, the forces and high-energy emanated from the nuclear blast are deflected in such a way that they are automatically converted to other forms of energy that is manageable to absorbed and/or withstand. I do not know exactly how it's done, but that's what I observed it to be (and, I might be wrong!)

There are so much more to learn, and a lot of this is still hidden from our realm of understanding.

FluidSpace
FluidSpace,

To me this sounds akin to all the folderol concerning UFOs - there's
research going on at special classified places like "Area 51". We don't
know how it works - but we know that they are working on
alien-developed technology. We know where they do it - but it's
"off-limits" .....

It's all nonsense!!!

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited:
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
19,028
5,187
FluidSpace, if you have any references to any of this, it would help, but in any case, it really does look like hand-waving nonsense. It may just be a misunderstanding - you can, for example, harden/shield electronics against the EMP from a nuclear blast - just not the blast itself.
 
  • #18
178
0
if you could create a vacuum above a nuclear blast that would travel into space (looks like a cylinder) then perhaps the pressure of the atmosphere on surrounding troposphere (of bomb) would be great enough to force the blast to go into space.

i know little of nuclear bombs but i know how a pipe bomb works. set off a blast within a tube without an end, the blast will be directed. Cap the pipe, set off the blast, and it breaks the pipe in an omni-directional way.
 
  • #19
609
0
if can you spend so much time and effort to create such a huge vaccum space to slightly decrease the demage a nuclear bomb done, why don't you stop it from explode at the very beginning.....
 
  • #20
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
oldunion said:
if you could create a vacuum above a nuclear blast that would travel into space (looks like a cylinder) then perhaps the pressure of the atmosphere on surrounding troposphere (of bomb) would be great enough to force the blast to go into space.

i know little of nuclear bombs but i know how a pipe bomb works. set off a blast within a tube without an end, the blast will be directed. Cap the pipe, set off the blast, and it breaks the pipe in an omni-directional way.
oldunion,

Yes - explosions, like electricity; in a way "seek the path of least resistance".

However, at the same time that the bomb is going off - the air surrounding
the evacuated cylinder will be rushing in to fill that vacuum.

Have you ever seen some of the high speed photography done by people
like MIT's "Doc" Edgerton [ inventer of the stroboscope and co-founder
of EG&G ]. In particular, have you seen the high speed films of a dripping
faucet.

When the drop impacts the water standing in the sink below - it pushes
the water away from the impact area. However, this is soon followed
by a rush of surrounding water trying to fill in the void of the displaced
water. The result is that one get so much water rushing in that it forms
an upward "jet" of water - a little fountain - because the pressure from
so much water rushing in is actually greater than the ambient pressure
of the water.

Courtesy of Andrew Davidhazy of the Rochester Institute of Technology;
check out the first 2 rows of pictures at:

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/exhibit-splashes.html [Broken]

So unless one has some way to keep the air from rushing back into the
evacuated cylinder - the pressure in the cylinder may well be GREATER
than nominal atmospheric pressure a short time after the cylinder is
evacuated - which would be self-defeating.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
19,028
5,187
That also would do nothing to stop the radiated energy: it'd still vaporize anything nearby.
 
  • #22
134
0
like chernobyl accident, dear sid_galt???!!!
 
  • #23
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
russ_watters said:
That also would do nothing to stop the radiated energy: it'd still vaporize anything nearby.
Russ,

Exactly. In addition to the blast wave [ shock wave ] - the hydrodynamic
response of the atmosphere surrounding the bomb - there are two other
energy transport mechanisms to contend with.

Both are radiative - the "thermal" radiation, and the "high energy"
radiation.

If one only dealt with the blast by the postulated methods above - there
still is a LOT of energy in the form of radiation that is unaffected by
"field generators"....

As vincentchan points out, rather than all the exotic attempts at
mitigating the effects of the bomb - one is much better off attempting
to disarm the bomb before it generates all this energy in the first place.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #24
501
0
I was pondering over this and this is what popped into my head

What if we make a big network of two concentric tubes with the outer one hollow and a vacuum existing between the outer and the inner tube. The tubes should be made of very strong material and should be extremely good conductors of heat. The inner tube network should be connected to a massive cooling device.
The cooling device will keep the inner tube at a very low temperature and the vacuum will prevent a major influx of heat energy into the inner tube. WHen the blast occurs, it will blow away the outer tube cover. Since the inner tube will be at a very low energy state, a good amount of energy will be absorbed before the tube vaporizes mitigating atleast the thermal effect of the bomb.

Could such a system work?
 
  • #25
178
0
is it a correct assumption to make that a nuclear detonation in space would have a larger blast radius than that of a terrestrial blast? from what i am mentally deducing, it would be significantly more destructive. and what relation exists between the poles and megnetic properties of a planet and the magnetic properties of a nuclear blast?
 

Related Threads for: Stopping a nuclear bomb

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
29K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
57
Views
16K
Top