- #1
sid_galt
- 502
- 1
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 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?
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
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_galt said:Well, Thank you for the reply.
I just thought it would be nice if something like that could be done.
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 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 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 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
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.
russ_watters said:That also would do nothing to stop the radiated energy: it'd still vaporize anything nearby.
oldunion said: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?
If oxygen was provided to support the blast. The gun and bullet would separate both moving away from the blast location in opposite directions, their relative speeds from that point would depend on their relative mass.oldunion said:Heres another question since we are talking about space. would a gun work if fired in space.
oldunion said:yes, but what if i was not considering the blast wave as the primary means of destruction in a nuclear pulse; in an earthquake i agree, the destruction would be amplified.
In space, a nuke has no air, no magnetism, nothing restrictive that it would have on earth. The cloud of a nuke would just expand as far as it could before it ran out of expansive matter.
Assuming this, would it not be correct to say that a blast would be larger in space?
Heres another question since we are talking about space. would a gun work if fired in space.
oldunion said:according to the 1st link by astronuc, with no atmosphere to ionize there would be no fireball. What we would see with our eyes, is only the visible spectrum of light although other wavelengths could be seen with equipment. With no shockwave lethality has already dropped by 50 percent. although, a network of nuclear bombs place around the globe as satelites could apparently have some serious emp destructive effects.
A nuclear bomb doesn't seem like much of a weapon in space
Astronuc said:The atmosphere is an important component in the destructive force of any explosive, but particularly for nuclear weapons. It is the pressure waves caused by the propogation of the explosion through the atmosphere that causes much of the destruction.
But nuclear blasts also generate a lot of EM radiation. People (e.g. Hiroshima and Nagaskai) suffered radiation burns and tremendous heat near the blast.
Without the atmoshpere, the fireball would be much smaller - constrained by the mass of the CM and surrounding material. The damage would primarily come from the EM radiation.
Gamma radiation and X-radiation are forms of electromagnetic (EM) radiation:oldunion said:Electro Magnetic radiation cause no known side effects, the first link states this. Gamma, Aplpha, X-Ray, is what will cause lethality.Astronuc said:The damage would primarily come from the EM radiation.
Yes, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro power can be used to redirect the energy of a nuclear bomb. This is known as the concept of "energy redirection" and involves harnessing the energy from these sources to counteract the destructive force of the bomb.
The effectiveness of energy redirection in mitigating the effects of a nuclear bomb depends on various factors such as the size and type of the bomb, the distance from the blast, and the availability of renewable energy sources. While it may not completely eliminate the effects, redirecting energy can significantly reduce the impact of a nuclear explosion.
One of the main challenges in implementing energy redirection as a mitigation strategy is the availability and accessibility of renewable energy sources. Another challenge is the technical feasibility of redirecting energy in real-time during a nuclear attack. Additionally, the cost and time required to set up the necessary infrastructure can also be a hindrance.
While energy redirection can help mitigate the effects of a nuclear bomb, it is not a foolproof solution and comes with its own risks and drawbacks. Redirecting energy from renewable sources can potentially lead to power outages and disrupt essential services. There is also a risk of overloading the energy grid and causing damage to the infrastructure.
Yes, there is ongoing research and development in the field of energy redirection for nuclear bomb mitigation. Scientists and engineers are continuously exploring new technologies and methods to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of redirecting energy. This includes advancements in renewable energy sources, energy storage, and real-time monitoring and control systems.