[rerevisionist]

Thread attempting to decide this question with a convincing short argument.

I'll try to list the components of the nuclear bomb concept, with caveats, mainly because nobody else seems willing to do this! ---
[1] e=m c squared. In my view, this formula is a complete mistake, based roughly on misunderstandings of the way small particles are accelerated by magnetic fields, which gave rise to the myth of the speed of light as a limit, combined with Pythagoras. It's also of course virtually untestable, though there are some atomic reactions where its claimed there's a small weight loss combined with some energy output. (Note that the speed of light issue comes into things mainly because human beings are so dependent on vision. A species that evolved in the dark wouldn't be concerned over the time light takes to bring information to the eye. This appears to be another relativity-related mistake).
. . . .However, this doesn't really matter - the point of the formula historically was that it suggested there could be a huge power output from some new type of reaction.
[2] The nuclear atom, mostly empty. This came from several sources and technologies: including (among many other things) the isolation of radium, the invention of high-vacuum equipment, the cloud chamber, the success of Newton's explanation of orbits, mass spectrometers, and electrolysis. The consensus was that the nucleus was a tiny central positively-charged collection of protons and neutrons; and electrons were arranged in some sort of orbit around the nucleus. This explained atomic numbers - all elements can be arranged in sequence of protons, that number equalling the number of electrons. Isotopes were explained by varying numbers of protons. It explained the periodic table - electrons were regarded as orbiting in shells, with the outer orbits holding more electrons than inner orbits, so periodicities occurred. It explained the unreactivity of 'noble gases'. It explained ions and their valencies - shells could be regarded as incomplete, and various electron-sharing devices increased their stability. It explained electrolysis. It also explained co-valence.
. . . .This theory is highly convincing and has great covering-power, but it still has unsolved difficulties. One is that the nucleus holds together, despite the generally accepted idea that like charges repel, and the closer they get, the more repulsion. Another is that some isotopes seem not to exist - there's chlorine 35 and chlorine 37, but not 36. Another is that electron shells can't be analogous to planets, since they would interact in ways which would destroy the structure. Another is the problem of emission of light from atoms, as shown by spectroscopes. There is obviously great predictability in this, and moreover there are mathematical formulas connecting the various spectrum lines. Moreover although protons, electrons and neutrons (etc.) seem to be fairly fundamental, except that one type is more massive than the other, maybe there's some link that's been missed. So it seems possible some other model of atoms will emerge that is better - a 'plum pudding' type with static neutrons and electrons, maybe. However from this site's point of view, it's the scepticism that's important. There are endless people pontificating about nuclear physics, who seem unable to realise that what they've been told may not be correct.
[3] The kinetic theory relating atoms and molecules to temperature. This may have been suggested by Brownian motion - tiny particles under a light microscope jiggle about. An explanation attributed to Einstein - that the motion is caused by impacts of e.g. water molecules - seems almost certainly wrong, since the particles are enormously larger than single molecules. Probably the motion is caused by heating effects. But anyway the theory posits a link between temperature and motion. It's also applied to gases, where the assumption that a gas is made of tiny points seems to be wrong, although it provides an explanation of why hot gas takes up more volume than cool gas. However it doesn't explain very well why an evaporated metal takes up more space than solid metal.
. . . .From the sceptical analysis point of view, bear in mind that the kinetic theory may have problems explaining explosions.
[4] Thermodynamics. The relation between work and heat was (as is well-known) systematically investigated in the industrial revolution, when cannon and steam engine cylinders had to be bored out. Modern thermodynamics is a strangely circular subject; if some amount of heat converts A to C, then if A->B then B->C their total energy conversions add to the same amount. This is complicated by phase changes - e.g. it takes heat to convert ice at zero C to water. Gibbs' phase rule is a good example of applied physics of pre-modern physics type. Very likely it applies to phase changes in metals - such as uranium.
. . . .It's possible scientists have been misled by their senses, in the same way light has been given an irrelevant place in physics. Possibly pressure is more relevant than heat in some cases.
[5] Fission takes place in radioactive elements, leaving simpler elements. And of course particles and/or energy. Again, there's room for scepticism. The process was identified in samples of lead, which had radioactive components mixed with them; given a few million years, a substance, like (say) an isotope of thorium might decay into an isotope of lead. If they're found together, that's indirect evidence of fission having taken place. But under lab conditions the quantities made are tiny. Rutherford supposedly converted nitrogen atoms into oxygen, but one has to wonder, since for example it's unlikely both parts of an N2 molecule would be converted. Forty-ish years later, one has to wonder about some transuranic elements, which supposedly existed for a tiny fraction of a second.
. . . .FirstClassSkeptic on this site pointed out that Einstein's letter, on fusion, and the experiment it referred to, both seem to not bear the usual interpretations loaded onto them. The general idea was that, so far, small nuclei had been changed a small amount. Why not try a large nucleus? Uranium has an atomic number of 92; if the nucleus split, you might expect rhodium (45), palladium (46), silver (47), or thereabouts. In fact barium (56) was claimed, among other elements. For various reasons - length of time taken, problems identifying the tiny amounts of product, difficulty of measuring energy - the whole experiment looks unconvincing.
[6] Metallurgy was revivified by electron microscopy; before about 1940 the structure of alloys, metals, metal crystals as so on was not very advanced.
. . . .It seems to follow that chunks of uranium, plutonium etc cannot be assumed to have known properties or to have been standardised.
[7] Fusion. This is a hypothetical mechanism, deduced from the facts that the sun is hot, and is believed to have been hot for far longer than can possibly be explained by any other known mechanism than fusion, of hydrogen into helium.
. . . .However, the sun is much more mysterious than glib accounts imply, because the size, pressures and temperatures are outside any human intuition or of course access. It could for example be largely solid, or contain some phase of matter never found on earth.

There's plenty more detail. I'm assuming that nuclear bombs would rely on physics up to about 1950 - after all, that's what they claim! I suspect much of post-1945 physics has been a money-making scam, and the reported results have a floridness and arcane evasiveness consistent with that...

Anyway, it would seem from a revisionist point of view that
A. If fission occurs, the amount of energy would need to be measured, not estimated by an absurd formula.
B. All the material relating to the construction of the nucleus and atomic particles has to be viewed sceptically.
C. All the material relating to energy/ heat transformations and phases of matter has to be viewed sceptically.
D. Fission products, and products subjected to irradiation, may be so difficult to identify that it can't be assumed the process is reliably known
E. The detailed fine structure of metals from which bombs are supposedly made can't be assumed to have been known
F. Fusion processes are probably not understood; and indeed there may be some other heat generating process(es) at work.

None of this proves nuclear bombs don't exist, though of course the published evidence shows there are no visual records of them working. However if someone wants to write out a convincing disproof of nuclear bombs, or for that matter proof, I'd suggest they take account of the above vaguenesses and knowledge gaps.

[mooninquirer]

@ revisionist ---- We must distinguish between scientific discovery, the philosophy of science, and lies made in bad faith. From the news media and all of these internet trolls, most of whom have probably been paid to spread disinformation, one might think that science teachers and professors think that man landed on the moon. I can assure you, that this is not the case. Scientific American would not permit them to publish anything. Indeed, this magazine has a regular contributor, the Jew Michael Shermer, who greatly supports that man had landed on the moon, along with supporting the official holocaust story.
I admit that many White nationalists sincerely believe that man landed on the moon, but that just proves my point that rational arguments mean nothing, and emotions mean everything ( I believe this is also true for every person ). Because they believe that the moon landing was a great White achievement, they can never bring themselves to accept the obvious. The same might also apply to William Shakespeare. Saying that he was not the author of those great works of literature removes a man who had previously been regarded as a genius and an example of a the cultural contribution made by White people.

Now, I bring that up, because you cite E = mc^2 as a reason in physics that nuclear bombs would not work. Wanting to destroy "the great" Albert Einstein is very common among the many and growing number of people who are aware of the problem of Zionist Jewish domination. Gentiles are rightfully just so sick and tired of the the way the media, controlled by Zionist Jews keep saying how great Albert Einstein was. This is brought to light very well by the song that can be listened to by typing into youtube: FASCIST PROPAGANDA

Also, Einstein was selected to be the first president of Israel, although this was just a ploy to promote the plight of Jews, because I don't think anyone thought Einstein was cut out to be a politician, and certainly not an administrator. So those of us fighting Zionism, even if not White nationalists, have a reason to want to tear down Einstein. And this brings up the beef with E = mc^2. It is THE very brief statement that is associated with Einstein. Those who can boil down an entire argument, career, or field of study with one brief, easy to remember "soundbite" or meme, if you will, are going to pass on their idea to others much more readily. This is one reason that Herman Cain is, as I write this, at the top of the polls for the Republican nomination for US president ---- his entire campaign is boiled down to this very brief statement : "9-9-9."

The better way to attack the Einstein problem is to point out that he was not responsible for relativity theory, or E = mc^2, and that he probably wasn't much of a Zionist, either. But the Zionist Jews at the top, who controlled the banks and the media needed a MASCOT to sell the greatness of Jewish genius, the suffering of Jews during WW II, and the need for a Jewish state. Einstein really has the look to invoke sympathy for Jews, in my opinion. Einstein, what with his hair and all, makes a better "Emo boy," than even Vanunu or Oppenheimer.

The reason I do not attack nuclear fission is that it seems implausible that the conspiracy reached decades before the supposed development of nuclear bombs. This means that the Nobel Prize Committee that awarded Enrico Fermi the prize was in on the conspiracy, BEFORE it even took place.

An excellent resource to completely DESTROY any notion that Einstein was a creative genius, or a morally great man, is the documentary that can be watched by typing into youtube : E=mc^2 THE BIOGRAPHY OF AN EQUATION

I have no fear that this documentary will be erased, because many, many youtubers have uploaded it. It does use E=mc^2 to describe the energy released in the fissioning a SINGLE nucleus. I believe this is unnecessary. I don't deny that E=mc^2 is true, and the Jews get nothing out of it, apart from trying to sell Einstein as a genius to REPLACE God, Jesus, or Muhammad.
Believing that man and the universe are one in a spiritual sense is very uplifting and inspiring, and brings Gentiles TOGETHER, which is not something that benefits the Jews at the top. Evolution, on the other hand, drives Gentiles away from each other, and promotes a lot of fighting among Gentiles. I believe evolution is true, but it doesn't explain everything.

I am very glad you have cited the extreme spacing between nuclei, and kinetic theory, as reasons to realize nuclear bombs will not explode. We have to distinguish between the fissioning of a single nucleus, and the fissioning of MANY nuclei. The latter will NOT happen, because the extreme heat generated by only a tiny fraction of one percent of the nuclei will melt and / or vaporize the uranium or plutonium, AND IT WILL NO LONGER BE CRITICAL MASS !!! And everyone, including the propagandists for nuclear bombs, admits that the fissile material has to be brought together in a critical mass in the first place.

And the melting and / or vaporization will occur BEFORE enough nuclei get a chance to fission --- that is, enough nuclei fissioning to release the energy that is claimed for the bomb that supposedly destroyed Hiroshima. In the above documentary, it is correctly stated that there is a delay between the absorption of the neutron and splitting of the nucleus. The general public seems to think that the splitting of the nucleus is spontaneous, and that it is analogous to a cue ball striking a racked up triangle of billiard balls. This is most emphatically NOT true, and even physicists who are propagandists for nuclear bombs state this very strongly. A much better analogy is the water drop model of the nucleus. One only needs to go to Wikipedia for a description of this, and the above documentary has a visual image of a water drop splitting.

You see, it is most emphatically NOT the kinetic energy of the neutron that causes the nucleus to split. Rather, the nucleus absorbs a slow neutron of low kinetic energy. The process of absorbing it causes the nucleus to stretch out of shape, and it oscillates outside of a stable spherical shape. This stretching is too much for the STRONG FORCE, which acts over a very short distance, to overcome the ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE, which is not as strong, but acts over a longer distance. Therefore, the nucleus splits apart. And about 15 % of the time, the U 235 nucleus absorbing a neutron does NOT result in enough stretching out of the nucleus, and it does not split, and remains as U 236.

When applied to solids, kinetic theory is most often called statistical mechanics, or quantum statistics mechanics, because of the convention that the assumptions of kinetic theory is that there are no forces interacting between the atoms or molecules, except when they collide. This applies very well for ideal gases, and the best examples of ideal gases are the inert, or the noble gasses, with helium being THE most ideal gas. But the very important thing to keep in mind is that the heat of any amount of a solid is the sum total of the kinetic energy of the vibration of the atoms or molecules composing that amount of solid.

My university physics professor, who was a great researcher in the field of solid state physics and condensed matter physics ( there is a lot of overlap between these two fields --- although condensed matter can refer to liquid helium which as this physics professor said was a liquid at absolute zero ), TWICE doubted that nuclear bombs would explode, and could not explain the theory. He said I had a good point in doubting this, to my great surprise. Admittedly, he was driving a car at the time, but he could have said to ask him later. We were going on a field trip to see the solid state physics laboratories at Bell Labs, and he drove me and a few other students in his car. He ALSO doubted nuclear explosions in the lecture hall when another student asked him a question about the mushroom cloud. I don't remember which picture of a mushroom cloud she was referring to, but every mushroom cloud looks bad. To my great surprise, he admitted he could not explain it, and said that for all he knew to the contrary, it was a hoax or a lie, or propaganda. I don't remember his exact words, and I don't want to lie or exaggerate. He was inclined to doubt the legitimacy of claims, because he repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that the moon landing was a hoax, and he doubted a claim that a scientist had made at Bell Labs, that his apparatus came something like within one millionth of a degree of absolute zero. This was in 1983, and low temperature studies were this physics professor'as forte. so he would know what the state of the art is.

[mooninquirer]

@ rerevisionist ---- The reason I posted that LONG reply, even though I realize the need to have a BRIEF explanation of the problem in physics for why nuclear bombs will not explode with anywhere near the force that is claimed --- if they explode at all --- is that I realize the citation of E = mc^2 as the reason is going to be very counterproductive. I hope that this site will be a resource for college, high school, and even grade school students doing there own research for essays or papers. As it stands, this forum comes up on the first page when I type into google : KINETIC THEORY NUCLEAR

Now, I KNOW very damn well that if students ever doubt to their teachers nuclear bombs based on E = mc^2 or relativity, that it will send the teacher into a frenzy to defend relativity theory. They are ALL very evangelical about relativity theory, which is very exciting and promotes a lot of interest in science and physics. THIS was the reason they became science teachers in the first place. Relativity theory or E=mc^2 might NOT be true, but this is an issue for perspectives or the philosophy of science. Nuclear bombs are NOT science, but just government propaganda. They have not been reproduced, EXCEPT in top secret. If something has to a top secret, then it is NOT science. The word "science," refers to knowledge, and if everyone cannot have their own knowledge of something, it cannot be science.

The PROPER way for students to query their science teachers on the implausibility of nuclear bombs exploding, is "kinetic theory," or statistical mechanics ---- the fact that heat of a solid is the sum of the kinetic energy of vibration of the atoms or molecules that make up that solid. I have to put "kinetic theory" in quotes, because this phrase is most often reserved to describe the macroscopic thermodynamic states ( i.e., pressure, volume, temperature, and heat ) of a GAS, and only an IDEAL gas, at that. There is absolutely no doubt that for solids, heat and temperature are explained because of the vibrational kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules of that solid. The critical mass of solid would melt and / or vaporize BEFORE enough nuclei get a chance to fission, in order for the claimed release of energy in a nuclear explosion. Students might also inquire about the sparseness of the nuclei, and the WATER DROP MODEL of the nucleus, which appropriately describes that there is a DELAY between the absorption of the neutron, and the fissioning of the nucleus, and that it is even admitted that not every U 235 nucleus that absorbs a neutron fissions. This last point is further evidence of the delay between neutron absorption and the fissioning of the nucleus.

[rerevisionist]

@mooninquirer--

[1] I agree with much of what you say about Einstein, but it's irrelevant to this issue. The general more or less unconscious view is that the famous equation shows there's a huge amount of energy available. I'm just saying there may be, or may not be, but the equation is bunk and hence irrelevant.

[2] It'a not clear to me whether your comments on the water-drop idea of fission as per (I think) Lise Meitner are intended as a proof that nuclear weapons can't work.

You're assuming the conventional view of the atoms of uranium (or other metal), and you're claiming that fission exists, but fission in a short enough time to explode is impossible. But you don't seem to have proved it. Could you do me a favour and read through the various caveats and uncertainties I've listed - and no doubt add your own? And provide a concise disproof of nuclear explosions.

[3] There's another possibility, which is that, although a high temperature would be reached, it wouldn't cause much of an explosion, heat not being the same thing as an explosion. I don't know if you have something to say on that?

[FirstClassSkeptic]

When I first starting doubting nukes existence, I considered that maybe the rapidly moving electrons, and ions would generate strong magnetic fields, which would interfere with the fission. But since they say it's neutrons doing the fission, they aren't supposed to be much influenced by magnetism. Aren't supposed to be, but I don't know.

Anyway, they claim that a nuke explosion generates a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, the so called EMP. At close proximity to an atom that is fissioning, how strong would these fields be? How intense? Would they interfere somehow with the neutrons and cause a self limiting effect?

[Heiwa]

According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon :

“On May 25, 1953 at 8:30am local time, the Atomic Cannon was tested at Nevada Test Site (specifically Frenchman Flat) as part of the Upshot-Knothole series of nuclear tests. The test--codenamed Grable--was attended by then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Arthur W. Radford and Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson; it resulted in the successful detonation of a 15 kt shell (warhead W9) at a range of 7 miles. This was the first and only nuclear shell to be fired from a cannon.”

If anyone can provide a drawing of the atomic shell or warhead W9 used by this gun on May 25, 1953 at 8:30 am hrs and how, scientifically, it was triggered to ‘explode’ at impact after a flight of 7 miles, then I will believe in nuclear weapons. Or is it after 60 years still a military, national secret?

[mooninquirer]

@ Heiwa ---- thanks for your post, but what we were looking for in this thread is a discussion of the THEORY of physics, and how it does not support nuclear bombs exploding with the claimed energy. I really like what you have written on the nuclear physics on other threads. Let me ask you, do you understand that on your own accord, or were you also reading what I had already written on other threads ?

@ FirstClassSkeptic ---- since the neutron is neutral in charge, it will NOT in the slightest degree be affected by magnetic fields.
It is true that nuclear fissioning releases electromagnetic radiation --- gamma radiation, to be precise. This is just electromagnetic radiation of a higher frequency than X-rays, and it is therefore of higher energy, since E = hf, where E is the energy, f is the frequency, and h is a universal constant, called Plank's constant. Gamma radiation is unique in that is represents a discharge of energy from nuclei. I am not aware that sources other than nuclei emit gamma radiation.

EMP destroying electronics is probably just propaganda to increase the fear of nuclear bombs. It is my contention that because of kinetic theory, the critical mass would heat up and melt and / or vaporize before a sufficient number of nuclei would fission to produce the claimed energy release, so the scare tactic of EMP is not going to work.

The rapidly moving electrons create magnetic fields, but certainly not stronger than an ordinary piece of iron or steel. There would necessarily be NO ions in the uranium metal. Ions would be present in ionic compounds, like salt, and in solutions. They are common is biochemistry. But in the uranium, it would just be the nuclei surrounded by their electron clouds. The outer electrons are mobile, and form a "sea of electrons" But this is true for ANY metal --- for any metal, there are no ions, unless it becomes dissolved in a solution. Copper wire has no ions, but if it were stuck in a salt water solution with another wire, and hooked up to a battery, then you would see a bluish-green color in the water, because the red copper would turn into copper chloride in the water.

Getting back to the electromagnetic radiation. Gamma radiation is emitted when an uranium nucleus fissions, but I have NEVER read or heard that it would have a limiting effect ---- nor would it have an enhancing effect. I would tend to think that it MIGHT aid in having more nuclei fission, but I just have not heard that. And if it were true, I am SURE they would be saying it. This is because the kinetic theory of heat really is a limiting factor in a chain reaction. I have been saying this from day ONE. I have even said this in my brief introduction on the Welcoming section of this board. Heat is very much a limiting factor in the maintenance of a NUCLEAR chain reaction, because it would melt or vaporize the metal, and then it would no longer be a critical mass. People make the mistake of applying chemical thinking to nuclear phenomenon, and even professors of physics shamelessly do this ! An example is Prof Muller in the lecture UC BERKELEY PHYSICS NUKES. He says that at a certain point, the energy density becomes as great as dynamite, and at that point the critical mass blows apart.
It is VERY good for our purposes that he is saying that it blows apart with ONLY the force of dynamite, and he ADMITS that it is not good, because then it is an explosion only as great as dynamite ( and a small one at that, because it is only 132 pounds ). He claims that a SECONDARY fissioning would occur in mid air. But I say, this is IMPOSSIBLE, because it would no longer be a critical mass ! He contradicts himself, because early on in the lecture, he made such a big point that the critical mass was absolutely essential.

But I would go further. I am not sure it would even explode with the force of dynamite. Prof Muller did NOT explain WHY it would explode at all. A lot of gases would be released when dynamite explodes --- that is what causes the explosion, but the only way the grapefruit sized portion of U 235, the critical mass, would explode, is if the energy were great enough to vaporize the metal. Fine, then. But the same problem arises. The critical mass would be scattered all over the place. VERY, VERY importantly, the energy required to vaporize the ENTIRE grapefruit of U 235 is about one ten thousand times LESS than the claimed energy release for the Hiroshima bomb. This is based on very well established measurements of the molar heat of vaporization for uranium.

@ rerevisionist --- What I just told FirstClassSkeptic is the proof that nuclear bombs will not explode with anywhere near the force that is claimed. You have said : " [3] There's another possibility, which is that, although a high temperature would be reached, it wouldn't cause much of an explosion, heat not being the same thing as an explosion. I don't know if you have something to say on that?" Well yeah, of course ---- I agree with what you said there ! It is basically what I have been saying all along, although I would add that the heat will also HALT the chain reaction, and prevent further fissioning. This would be the case if the uranium melts, and loses its very essential ball shape, or if it vaporizes. And only a very small part has to vaporize at that. This would be the part at the very center. A tiny portion of the uranium metal would vaporize, expand, and blow apart the critical mass, and it would cease. The energy for a mustard seed size portion is certainly less than the energy required to vaporize the entire grapefruit.

Yes, I AM saying that the WATER DROP MODEL of nuclear fission helps to explain why nuclear bombs will not explode, because it points out the time delay between the absorption of the neutron, and the fissioning, and why this is the case --- and what is more, not all of the U 235 nuclei that absorb a neutron will even fission. The general public was sold on the idea that the fissioning is instantaneous --- and that notion supports the quick release of energy essential for an explosion.

As for point 2 in your latest post, I HAVE proved it, because of what Prof Muller has said ---- he SAID that the critical mass would blow apart BEFORE the energy release would be as great as is claimed for a nuclear bomb ---- and it would only be as great as dynamite. The much, much greater claimed energy release is based upon Prof Muller contradicting himself by claiming that a secondary fissioning would occur even though the essential critical mass would be destroyed. It is already very hard for neutrons to hit the nuclei, because they are extremely far apart in even the most compact state of matter, a solid. So how can the neutrons hit the nuclei when they are spread out much farther than the space occupied by Little Boy ?

As for you FIRST post in this thread, I like what you said about fusion. There is an explanation for this. Einstein did not have enough time to write an exhaustive history of nuclear physics in his letter, because he knew FDR wouldn't bother to read it. Enrico Fermi was NOT as well known as the very famous Curie family, so Einstein in cited the work of Irene Joliot Curie, daughter of the famous Madame Curie, who had won TWO Nobel prizes, and was the scientist most associated with radioactivity at that time. So he was appealing to what might have been a household name. Einstein's letter is a very great resource in exposing the nuclear bomb hoax, because it shows that he himself doubted it.

I really, really do not like you statements about kinetic theory, or thermodynamics. I see no reason to tear down the great J Willard Gibbs. He was not Jewish, and not celebrated by the media or thrown in the face of the general public, but only known to those who have studied physics and chemistry. He was an extremely humble man, and not one to brag, so it seems especially mean to knock him down. And as I have repeatedly stated, his field of statistical mechanics, which includes the kinetic theory of heat is essential to understanding that nuclear bombs will not explode.

Further, kinetic theory and the established atomic theory is essential to understanding that the PLUTONIUM in implosion type bombs is not going to be squished together in a "supercritical" mass. The MOST condensed state of matter is the solid state. Maybe if it were cooled with liquid nitrogen, or liquid helium, but even then, it would not shrink down to a substantially smaller size. Atoms with their electron clouds are not like balloons, and are not going to increase or decrease in size. The SPACE between the atoms may decrease, and in the solid state, it is usually the most condensed state of matter, and this is true for metals. If one wants to reduce the size of a metal, all he can do is cool it down. Beating it might change its shape, but it would not reduce its size. And it is claimed that mere CHEMICAL explosions would have this overwhelming amount of force to squish down the plutonium.



@ rerevionist ---- What I just typed above is a proof that nuclear bombs would not explode with anywhere near the

[Heiwa]

At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEeuzEi9_2c we see a nuclear bomb going off, i.e. something triggers a little 50 kg sphere of uran or plutonium to explode in nanoseconds producing a 100 000°C heat and 100 000 bar pressure wave progressing at Mach 3 in the atmosphere leaving a dirty mushroom cloud behind, etc, etc. However, as is pointed out, the real clouds in the atmosphere are not affected at all!
And look at all the ships around the center of explosion! They are all there after the heat/pressure wave has passed.
Why would US Dept of War produce such obviously faked footage?

[Heiwa]

That a nuclear bomb can detonate is very easy to explain! Just listen to the experts:

When a free neutron, n, hits the nucleus of a fissile atom like uranium-235, U-235, in a nuclear bomb (that consists of a 50 kilogram sphere of U-235), the uranium U-235 splits into two smaller atoms called fission fragments, plus more neutrons. Fission can be self-sustaining because it produces more neutrons of the speed required to cause new fissions, we are told, but the question remains whether the free neutrons will actually hit any uranium-235 nucleus.

The uranium atom nucleus can split in any one of dozens of different ways, as long as the atomic weights add up to 236 (uranium plus the extra neutron). What really happens when a nuclear bomb detonates is not scientifically recorded anywhere.

The following equation shows one possible split, namely into strontium-95, Sr-95, xenon-139, Xe-139, and two neutrons (n), plus energy.

U-235 + n = Sr-95 + Xe-139 + 2n + 180 MeV

The immediate energy release per atom is about 180 million electron volts (MeV), i.e. 74 TJ/kg, it is suggested.

Only 7% of this energy is gamma radiation (the 92 negatively charged electrons around the small uranium nucleus) and kinetic energy of the two fission neutrons.

The two fission neutrons, we are told, then collide with two other U-235 nuclei and the chain reaction is at full speed. After some nanoseconds the nuclear bomb detonates.

The remaining 93% is kinetic energy (or energy of motion) of the positively charged fission fragments, i.e. Sr-95 and Xe-139, flying away from each other mutually repelled by the positive charge of their protons (38 for strontium, 54 for xenon). This initial kinetic energy is 67 TJ/kg, imparting an initial speed of about 12,000 kilometers per second, we are told.
The fission fragments (i.e. Sr-95 and Xe-139) with positive charges cause many inelastic collisions with nearby atom nuclei (??), we are told by the military experts. They produce havoc.

Thus simply speaking, after one U-235 nucleus in an atomic bomb detonation is split, it becomes one Sr-95 nucleus, one Xe-139 nucleus and 2 free neutrons, which all fly away at high speeds (the energy). The Sr-95 nucleus is 95 times bigger than a neutron and the Xe-139 nucleus is 139 times bigger than a neutron and they probably have lower speeds than the neutrons, but who knows? The 92 electrons of the U-235 atom also fly away. The diameter of the nucleus of a U-235 atom may be only 0.01% of the diameter of the atom itself, so the nuclei are hard to find and collide with!

It is then suggested that only the two small free neutrons with no charge collide with other U-235 nuclei in the bomb (so the chain reaction can go on), while the bigger fragments, i.e. the positively charged Sr-95 and Xe-139, only collide with themselves (while the free neutrons split U-235 nuclei) producing heat at 1 000 000 °C (plasma) and later produce a heat/pressure wave = the effects of the bomb + a mushroom cloud. How that is possible, is not scientifically explained anywhere. It is a military secret since 66 years.

Realistically the energy of the early fission fragments should just melt the bomb and stop the chain reaction before it starts seriously. No mushroom cloud! It was just added by Hollywood 1945 to frighten people.

Thus, in order to keep fission going, like inside a friendly atomic power plant, you have to cool the whole thing. Then the energy can be transformed into steam and later electricity.

[blake121666]

Heiwa,

You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of critical mass.

BTW, I strongly suspect nuclear weapons are in fact bogus. But, for crying out loud, you people should at least address the conventional explanations. Gheesh!

Can you refute the critical mass concept, or at least address it with your posts instead of pretending that people that give you the standard models of these things (such as RANB or whatever his name was) are somehow wrong in citing the conventional wisdom and not just shooting from the hip with whatever you think might be the case?

I have to giggle with some of your postings Heiwa, such as where you claimed there are no neutrons involved in beta decay. Shouldn't you at least check before shooting from the hip with ridiculous assertions?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Can you refute the critical mass concept, or at least address it with your posts instead of pretending that people that give you the standard models of these things (such as RANB or whatever his name was) are somehow wrong in citing the conventional wisdom and not just shooting from the hip with whatever you think might be the case?

The critical mass is, by definition, the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction. The critical mass of a fissionable material apparently depends upon its nuclear properties, its density, its shape, its enrichment, its purity, its temperature and its surroundings, we are told. It sounds vague, to say the least.

When a nuclear chain reaction in a mass of fissile material is self-sustaining, the mass is said to be in a critical state in which there is no increase or decrease in power, temperature or neutron population.

A numerical measure of a critical mass is dependent on the effective neutron multiplication factor k, the average number of neutrons released per fission event that go on to cause another fission event rather than being absorbed or leaving the material. When k = 1, the mass is critical, and the chain reaction is barely self-sustaining.

A subcritical mass is a mass of fissile material that does not have the ability to sustain a fission chain reaction. A population of neutrons introduced to a subcritical assembly will exponentially decrease. In this case, k < 1. A steady rate of spontaneous fissions causes a proportionally steady level of neutron activity. The constant of proportionality increases as k increases.

A supercritical mass is one where there is an increasing rate of fission, i.e. an atomic bomb detonation. The material may settle into equilibrium (i.e. become critical again) at an elevated temperature/power level or destroy itself, by which equilibrium is reached. In the case of supercriticality, k > 1.

The supercritical mass of U-235 is said to be between 15 and 50 kg and the chain reaction, the exponential production of neutrons, can be triggered in different ways, we are told. I do not believe it can be triggered at all. Any exponetial production of free neutrons and fission fragments will just melt the U-235 and its enclosure and the reaction is arrested

It is better to have a steady flow of neutrons, like in an atomic power plant, producing steam/electricity while cooling the fissile material. If you for any reason lose control of that steady flow of neutrons, the plant/fissile material just overheats and melts down. No exponential chain reaction. This critical mass business is BS.

[blake121666]

Heiwa,

I've had a few nuclear physics classes and have a physics degree from over 20 years ago. I'm not saying this to sound like some sort of pseudo-authority (pseudo since I've of course never actually done any nuclear experiments, at least not any fission-based ones) but to ask you to address the subject more intelligently. You keep leaving out the most important part of the "critical mass" concept which is capture cross-section. This is ironic since it appears to be the crux of what you are not getting. You can reference any third-year undergraduate text you want to read about cross-sections. From a heuristic perspective though, look at it this way. Say you have a gun inside a rubber ball. What's the probability that you will hit the rubber ball if you fire the gun? In this case it would be 1: any direction you fire will hit the ball (if the projectile is going fast enough to hit the ball - which is a given in this case) since there is no way the projectile could go outside the ball that could possibly not hit the ball since it was surrounded. Now remove pieces of the ball and calculate the odds that your projectile will hit the ball.

Now I've given you the example in the way that I did because it is the polar opposite of the logic you keep giving which is going something like: I have one stinking fissioned atom, how in the heck can its free neutrons hit another puny atom at such a large distance? I reply that the odds are very good if I have a critical mass surrounding it. This is not a complicated concept. You appear to keep misinterpreting the very basis of the subject that is under discussion here by seeming to not see the forest for the trees.

[blake121666]

I might as well post a quick book-schooled physicist's opinion on the original OP.

It's very interesting that rerevisionist presents essentially the reasoning in first year nuclear physics classes with his posts. But he fails to give a fuller picture. His speculations are pretty good ones and ones that were rough and ready models actually used by physicists 100 years ago (and sometimes even today). JJ Thompson's plum pudding model was disfavored after Rutherford's experiments. As he intuits correctly, E=mc^2 is thought by the general public to be some sort of pillar on which nuclear physics was built; but it is (and always was) actually useless and/or impertinent to the subject.

He should keep in mind that no model gives a full picture that one can visualize. For instance, for the atom, while the terminology used appears to imply that nuclear physicists envision a Bohr-type planetary model with electrons "orbiting" a nucleus, this is known to not be the case. The other model people like to visualize is electrons as harmonic oscillators outside the nucleus; which is also known to not be the case. Unfortunately there are no simple visualizable models and physicists use sundry (many times incompatible) models even for just the atom. And there are more nuclear models than there are atomic models (tear-drop, onion, etc). In nuclear physics classes the student uses and applies all of these models and learns where they apply and where they don't. And even where they apply they don't always correspond with experiments in any way a sane person could say "cleanly". Nuclear physics in the late 80s when I took the classes was anything but a clean subject such as Newtonian gravity or mechanics. I quite doubt it has all of a sudden become that kind of a subject.

Rerevisionist will probably call me a troll; but he should keep in mind that the subject he is dealing with is not as analytically solid as he assumes and is still a very empirically based one. Since no one can easily get his hands on a chunk of nuke bomb material, it's somewhat difficult to refute suspect claims with hard data. Of course we're typically deluged in the popular press with flat out BS on the subject (dirty bombs!). And this type of press and propaganda crapola they keep tossing against the wall to see if it sticks should have everyone doubting the veracity of these jokers.

[rerevisionist]

A. If fission occurs, the amount of energy would need to be measured, not estimated by an absurd formula.
B. All the material relating to the construction of the nucleus and atomic particles has to be viewed sceptically.
C. All the material relating to energy/ heat transformations and phases of matter has to be viewed sceptically.
D. Fission products, and products subjected to irradiation, may be so difficult to identify that it can't be assumed the process is reliably known
E. The detailed fine structure of metals from which bombs are supposedly made can't be assumed to have been known
F. Fusion processes are probably not understood; and indeed there may be some other heat generating process(es) at work.

Hello Blake12166! It doesn't seem likely you're a troll, for several reasons, which I won't go into. I suppose you could be a trainee.

You're wrong in saying I'm assuming physics/technology is 'analytically solid'. That quote bubble gives at least half a dozen topics (not even including 'e=mc^2') where scepticism seems in order. That's just the physics - not the history. And I agree entirely that empricism is important - if something doesn't work, there's something wrong with the theory, even if it's hard to identify. This of course is why things are tested (except if you're NASA). There's another thread on the kinetic theory in which I try to explain why it's mistaken applied to gases, which may be why there was [allegedly] an explosion in Sellafield when a mass went 'critical'. Also I'm a bit mystified why you should criticise me for 100-year old comments - this was the physics relied on by Oppenheimer and the rest.

Your comment on cross-sectional area is puzzling too; obviously a critical mass depends on shape - if a mass supposedly critical for a sphere is M, you could have a mass 1000M which would be safe, i.e. not critical, if it was arranged as a long rod.

However the point here is to try to see if there's a simple disproof of criticality, if it exists, causing an explosion. I have to agree the posts don't impress me too much, either.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

... You keep leaving out the most important part of the "critical mass" concept which is capture cross-section. This is ironic since it appears to be the crux of what you are not getting. You can reference any third-year undergraduate text you want to read about cross-sections. From a heuristic perspective though, look at it this way. Say you have a gun inside a rubber ball. What's the probability that you will hit the rubber ball if you fire the gun? In this case it would be 1: any direction you fire will hit the ball (if the projectile is going fast enough to hit the ball - which is a given in this case) since there is no way the projectile could go outside the ball that could possibly not hit the ball since it was surrounded. Now remove pieces of the ball and calculate the odds that your projectile will hit the ball.

Now I've given you the example in the way that I did because it is the polar opposite of the logic you keep giving which is going something like: I have one stinking fissioned atom, how in the heck can its free neutrons hit another puny atom at such a large distance? I reply that the odds are very good if I have a critical mass surrounding it. This is not a complicated concept. You appear to keep misinterpreting the very basis of the subject that is under discussion here by seeming to not see the forest for the trees.

Good that we agree that a free neutron is not splitting a nucleus from inside but from the outside and that then the probability of such a collision is much reduced. But I agree, it takes place (in an atomic power plant - from outside) and the nucleus is split and the result is TWO free neutrons AND TWO pieces of FISSION FRAGMENTS (at high speeds = energy).

What happens to the critical mass after one split? It is changed - modified, don't you agree? It is not the same as before. THat's why I suggest that the critical mass, regardless of capture cross-sections, just melts (unless you cool it down) and that the process (exponential chain reaction) is arrested (unless you cool it down).

That all atom nuclei in a critical mass of U-235 can be split in say 10 nanoseconds by tiny neutrons and produce enormous amount of energy + mushroom cloud is simply BS. Reason is that after only 1 nanosecond the critical mass of U-235 has melted like a snowman in spring.