Hiroshima B0mb had Uranium, Nagasaki B0mb had Plutonium.. Why?

Oops

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Gothmog

Matter vs Antimatter is what I was referring to for destroying matter, or complete conversion to energy.

Theory also allows for the reversal: energy to matter.

The production of antimatter for study and observation of it's total energy conversion has been conducted several times.

That is a correct statement if you use the term "conversion" . Yet , according to some modern theories
Crash a pound of iron into a pound of anti - copper and what do you get for your money - nothing , they would actually pass through each other.
Crash a pound of iron into a pound of anti-iron.....look out star system
And , some string/superstring theories do account for a "reverse" conversion.

From what I've read here, anti-matter and matter annihilate each other at the quark level, so if you combined iron with anti-copper, you would get anti-lithium plus an insane amount of gamma ray radiation and feral neutrons.

a reply to: intrptr

DU is minimally radioactive and persistently misrepresented by a lot of sources. The reason DU is used in weapons and armour is because it's a hard, dense (19.1g/cm^3, compare to lead at 11.34g/cm^3) metal that any nation with a nuclear program has large amounts of. Now, it is a slightly hazardous material with contamination potential, but not from radiation. Rather, it's a heavy metal much like lead or cadmium with many of the same risks and properties.

originally posted by: FamCore
Please excuse my ignorance, but I have a few questions regarding WW2, some anecdotal "laws of science", and history/the future in general:

1. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then what happened to the 2 uranium atoms that came together and converted into "energy" when the US dropped the atomic b0mb ("Little Boy") on Hiroshima?

2. Why did the US use a plutonium bomb ("Fat Man") on Nagasaki? Why not just use the same types of b0mbs for each attack?

3. What other historical events would you consider comparable to the dropping of the atomic bomb (if any)?

4. Do you think we will see use of nuclear weapons in warfare during your lifetime?

I recommend "The Making of the Atom Bomb" by Richard Rhodes.

1 - it took a whole lot more then 2 atoms to create the explosion. Only a very small portion of the fuel is converted to energy - the remaining fuel and gladding is vaporized and dispersed throughout the atmosphere.

2 - Two types of fuel and two types of mechanisms for creating the critical mass. Redundancy - is a key principle in any successful pursuit.

3- IMO there is no comparable event in history.

4 - I don't know.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

I wouldn't class DU as only slightly hazardous. Sure it's primarily a weak alpha emitter so it requires intimate long term contact for it to become hazardous to organisms but using it as high power projectiles spreads it everywhere indiscriminately as dust which contaminates food sources and the air itself.

Ingesting and inhaling it is the problem that will affect generations of populations living in areas where it has been used.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

DU is minimally radioactive and persistently misrepresented by a lot of sources.

Its radioactive, highly dangerous if ingested into the body, which, despite the disinformation about the relative safety of hazardous nuclear waste, will remain toxic to life forms for centuries.

Blowin on the wind, in the dust at your feet, the food and water you drink.

a reply to: intrptr

Once again, no, it's not radioactive in any significant amount. It's a toxic heavy metal, yes, but no more dangerous than any other like lead or mercury. All this anti-nuclear nonsense is directly contributing to the MEASURABLE and proven ongoing environmental damage from heavy fossil fuel use, educate yourself.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Hah! That's all public info scraped off Wikipedia, and that's not even the scary stuff that we officially know about. You want a good scare (and probably a place on a few lists)? Look up "lost" nuclear devices that were never recovered. Hint: there's at least two megaton-class weapons in the wild just from US military accidents, plus parts of several others.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

Once again, no, it's not radioactive in any significant amount.

Radioactivity below safe limits? Theres no such thing.

"Significantly" speaking, once contamination goes inside you it irradiates nearby cells, causing then to mutate, giving rise to cancer.

Eat some DU and get back to me.

a reply to: intrptr

Everything is naturally radioactive to some degree, in the form of radioisotopes either formed by stellar nucleosynthesis/supernova explosion, or by radioactive decay of the first category. If you have granite countertops, you're being exposed to extremely low levels of radiation from naturally-occurring potassium-40 and uranium and thorium ores in the rock.

Depleted uranium is depleted because it's had most of the radioisotope atoms refined out. The remaining minuscule amounts do decay, producing low levels of alpha and beta radiation (neither of which has serious penetrating power, alpha particles can be blocked with a sheet of paper, and beta particles won't go through an aluminum soda can), with a half-life of 24 days. The radiation released by DU has been studied and shown to not cause meaningful damage, and falls to even more negligible levels after a few half-life cycles.

originally posted by: hombero
a reply to: feldercarb

Its actual E = energy. M = mass. C = the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum. Acceleration plays no part in this equation.

Energy equals the mass of an object multiplied by the square of the speed of light in a vacuum

Thanks for catching my error. Should have double checked before posting.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

Everything is naturally radioactive to some degree,

Big difference between stable and unstable atoms.

Yes everything is decaying according to 2nd law of Physics. Its the decay rate that matters.

If we call something 'radioactive', and spread that radioactivity around thats called contamination.

That is dangerous long term, if ingested.

The dust from DU munitions is blown on the wind carried by rain run off, eaten and inhaled by local populations.

Uranium is "pyrophoric": at the point of impact it burns away into vapour, so the projectile stays sharp. When it breaks through, the burning DU turns the inside of a vehicle into an inferno of white-hot gas and sparks.

thrguardian

a reply to: FamCore

1 two atoms did not fuse both bombs were fission devices atoms were split not fused that would be a fusion weapon i.e. an hbomb

2 both weapons were considered experimental and one design used plutonium and one did not.