Are Fusion Weapons Possible

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Does anyone think that fusion weapons such as bombs and missiles are possible. I find it possible do to the energy released. The only problem is the plasma melting the bomb or missile. Any ideas???


This is what we call a "thermonuclear weapon", and they've been around a long, long, long time. 11/1/52, to be exact.




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lukefj
It appears there is a fission-fusion hybrid:


They all are. In fact, most are fission-fusion-fission weapons. Neutron bombs aren't, though.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Lukefj
It appears there is a fission-fusion hybrid:


They all are. In fact, most are fission-fusion-fission weapons. Neutron bombs aren't, though.


Indeed. A neutron bomb is a tactical nuke (they only make sense in tactical mode) with a special non-neutron absorbing case and some tweaks to increase neutron output. In all other respects it is just a tactical nuclear weapon.

In all weapons neutrons are absorbed by the surrounding air at the rate of half the flux for every 162 meters. Obviously this makes the neutrons a short range weapon, regardless of the size. with a nuke 20kT or larger, the blast and thermal destruction quickly outdistances the neutrons, no matter what boost they are given.

They were a tweak designed to be used against massed tanks in a place like the Fulda Gap. When that scenario evaporated, so did the military usefulness of the neutron bomb.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by puncheexWhen that scenario evaporated, so did the military usefulness of the neutron bomb.

Not entirely true. These types of weapons are still maintained for uses primarily consisting of causing a large population to momentarily "black out." The effects of this weapon on the electrical pulses of the brain are able to render foot soldiers null. Designs are for much more compact versions, but again, in response to your comment, they actually are in fact still around.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by puncheexWhen that scenario evaporated, so did the military usefulness of the neutron bomb.

Not entirely true. These types of weapons are still maintained for uses primarily consisting of causing a large population to momentarily "black out." The effects of this weapon on the electrical pulses of the brain are able to render foot soldiers null. Designs are for much more compact versions, but again, in response to your comment, they actually are in fact still around.


How do I say this? Neutrons are the antithesis of electricity. They contain no charge, therefore they do not respond to any electrical or magnetic field. When doused with neutrons, you develop symptoms of ARS, Acute Radiation Sickness. No temporary blackout.

Sorry, got to ask for a source on this one. If foot soldiers are your problem, blast them to oblivion. The neutron was designed to kill tank crews in their tanks.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by cyberdude78
 


Yes when atomic bomb goes off half the engery released in the reaction is fission the other half fusion. If fusion reactors are every created say hello the creation of fusion powered beam weapons.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by joe2548
 

You're wrong.

They can make thermonuclear bombs. They did this in 1952. This greatly increased the yield of the explosion. But the fusion chain reaction required a fission trigger because of the immense energy needed. The major problem with all this is that the fusion chain reaction cannot be confined inside a reactor (and then converted to electricity). The reason, as I understand it, is because the temperatures are too high for materials. This means that the fusion reactions have to be confined by a field or non-material housing. We've not yet achieved something that works well enough to break even. But if they ever do find a cheap method to confine fusion, it's going to be news.

There's the possibility of using fusion as a form of propulsion in spacecraft if the fission trigger can be minimized or even removed altogether to reduce or eliminate fallout. While we can't create effective fusion reactors, that's not the goal with spacecraft anyway. This is because the fusion reaction is used to propel the spacecraft, so thus it's not meant to be confined but to exit the spaceship to act as a propulsive force. But to get there they have to be able to somewhat confine it which is challenging. And I think any plans do include a fission nuclear reactor for energy, but it's used indirectly to power the spacecraft and help trigger the reaction(s).

NASA estimated not long ago that we need 25+ years to have a working fusion propulsion system. This is not impractical since fusion propulsion is not the same thing as a fusion reactor. With fusion reactors they must do better than break even in order to produce cost-effective electricity. But with fusion propulsion it's not required to confine well enough to produce electricity, it's just required to confine it long enough to expel it in order to propel the spacecraft. This is a similar idea to the Orion Program in the 1950's and early 1960's. They couldn't effectively confine the thermonuclear mini-bombs, so instead they ignited them repeatedly to "push" the spacecraft forward.

Just imagine a fusion battery. Since we're unable to house the fusion reaction effectively, the battery leaks at a rapid rate. Soon, the battery is empty. The energy was wasted. Now put that same battery in a spacecraft. Instead of letting the leaking energy go to waste, use it as propulsion. The tricky part is cost-effectively guiding the waste energy so it can "push" the spacecraft forward.

What this is all saying is that the awesomness of fusion was realized in bombs, but hasn't yet been realized for electricity or propulsion. This is sad, ain't it? Why should nature be so cruel?

This is an example of a propulsion mechanism that advances us in this direction:
www.popsci.com -
The 123,000 MPH Plasma Engine That Could Finally Take Astronauts To Mars...
edit on 26-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by puncheex
In all other respects it is just a tactical nuclear weapon.


Neutron bombs skip the last fission step. Most of the 'bang' of a thermonuke comes from that. If you just let the neutrons zip away, they expend energy on the air (mostly) and cause some secondary gamma emission from collisions but not a lot of "bang".



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Not entirely true. These types of weapons are still maintained for uses primarily consisting of causing a large population to momentarily "black out."


Nuh uh. Neutron bombs are for making you play dead. Neutron flux causes massive damage to cells.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by puncheex
In all other respects it is just a tactical nuclear weapon.
...............
Neutron bombs skip the last fission step. Most of the 'bang' of a thermonuke comes from that. If you just let the neutrons zip away, they expend energy on the air (mostly) and cause some secondary gamma emission from collisions but not a lot of "bang".

You're right in that. I did not know much too much about fission-fusion bombs. My knowledge of all this mainly stems from a physics class (lol, pathetic, eh?) and some reading over the years.

Basically, there's a fission element in a thermonuclear weapon. Without a fusion element, only about 2% is fissile. So 98% of it is left as fallout. But in a thermo-nuke, the fusion element increases the amount of fissile material to 20%, thus increasing the yield of the explosion two to three times and reducing fallout. This is due to the increased numbers of neutrons that result from the fusion reactions (that were initiated by the fission reactions) reacting with the fissile materials.
edit on 26-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by puncheex
In all other respects it is just a tactical nuclear weapon.


Neutron bombs skip the last fission step. Most of the 'bang' of a thermonuke comes from that. If you just let the neutrons zip away, they expend energy on the air (mostly) and cause some secondary gamma emission from collisions but not a lot of "bang".


If you mean in a pure fission bomb they don't go through the last generation of fission, I would really like to know about the technology that could possibly do this and why stopping the last generation would increase the neutron flux. If rather you are referring to the fission-fusion-fission stages of the large thermonuke you might be right, though I would think having any fusion stage at all would make the bomb too powerful to be useful for neutron bombing, as it pretty much has to reign in the power so the blast damage doesn't extend beyond a kilometer, and probably less.

My reconning is that the ideal neutron bomb was the W54 mounted on the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle. The bomb is so small that the blast effects only extend 30-40 meters or so, while the radiation damage goes out to 4-500 meters. Unfortunately, in that particular case, it was often difficult to avoid the fallout which rose and settled in a few minutes rather than hours, and was pretty nasty.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by puncheex
 


On the road, hate posting from a tablet, will elaborate from the house tonight.
I



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by joe2548
 

You're wrong.

They can make thermonuclear bombs. They did this in 1952. This greatly increased the yield of the explosion. But the fusion chain reaction required a fission trigger because of the immense energy needed. The major problem with all this is that the fusion chain reaction cannot be confined inside a reactor (and then converted to electricity). The reason, as I understand it, is because the temperatures are too high for materials. This means that the fusion reactions have to be confined by a field or non-material housing. We've not yet achieved something that works well enough to break even. But if they ever do find a cheap method to confine fusion, it's going to be news.

There's the possibility of using fusion as a form of propulsion in spacecraft if the fission trigger can be minimized or even removed altogether to reduce or eliminate fallout. While we can't create effective fusion reactors, that's not the goal with spacecraft anyway. This is because the fusion reaction is used to propel the spacecraft, so thus it's not meant to be confined but to exit the spaceship to act as a propulsive force. But to get there they have to be able to somewhat confine it which is challenging. And I think any plans do include a fission nuclear reactor for energy, but it's used indirectly to power the spacecraft and help trigger the reaction(s).

NASA estimated not long ago that we need 25+ years to have a working fusion propulsion system. This is not impractical since fusion propulsion is not the same thing as a fusion reactor. With fusion reactors they must do better than break even in order to produce cost-effective electricity. But with fusion propulsion it's not required to confine well enough to produce electricity, it's just required to confine it long enough to expel it in order to propel the spacecraft. This is a similar idea to the Orion Program in the 1950's and early 1960's. They couldn't effectively confine the thermonuclear mini-bombs, so instead they ignited them repeatedly to "push" the spacecraft forward.

Just imagine a fusion battery. Since we're unable to house the fusion reaction effectively, the battery leaks at a rapid rate. Soon, the battery is empty. The energy was wasted. Now put that same battery in a spacecraft. Instead of letting the leaking energy go to waste, use it as propulsion. The tricky part is cost-effectively guiding the waste energy so it can "push" the spacecraft forward.

What this is all saying is that the awesomness of fusion was realized in bombs, but hasn't yet been realized for electricity or propulsion. This is sad, ain't it? Why should nature be so cruel?

This is an example of a propulsion mechanism that advances us in this direction:
www.popsci.com -
The 123,000 MPH Plasma Engine That Could Finally Take Astronauts To Mars...
edit on 26-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)





posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by puncheex

If you mean in a pure fission bomb they don't go through the last generation of fission, I would really like to know about the technology that could possibly do this and why stopping the last generation would increase the neutron flux. If rather you are referring to the fission-fusion-fission stages of the large thermonuke you might be right, though I would think having any fusion stage at all would make the bomb too powerful to be useful for neutron bombing, as it pretty much has to reign in the power so the blast damage doesn't extend beyond a kilometer, and probably less.


All neutron bombs are thermonukes. There's no other way to do it.

D-T fusion really just generates loads of fast neutrons. You get an energetic alpha as well, but most of the energy is in the neutron it kicks out.

In a conventional thermonuke, you have a sequence like a Swiss watch - the primary puts out a lot of x-ray and gamma flux into the secondary, which uses the flux to compress the secondary by plasma (the high density poly that holds the assembly together) and mostly by x-ray ablative compression of the secondary's tamper. Inside the secondary you've got Li6D and a plutonium rod, when you compress it enough the plutonium will fission and supply the heat and neutrons to break down the Li6D, producing deuterium and tritium, then fusing them.

In a normal world, the neutrons leave the holraum at warp speed - and encounter a couple of things. One, they hit the remaining unreacted fissiles and fission them (mostly), which wouldn't have otherwise happened. But an amazing thing also happens - they hit the U238 used in the secondary tamper, and the U238 that's generally used in the bomb casing or tamper. Some weapons add in extra U238 around the secondary just for fissioning. The fast neutrons caused by the fusion can fission the U238, adding in most of the "bang" you get from the secondary.

The fast alphas give you some localized thermal energy, to be sure, but it's about 20% of what you've got in the neutrons.

In a neutron bomb, you scrap all the U238 and use some lead and a tap of beryllium in the right places. Lead's transparent to neutrons. So when the secondary fires, the neutrons just depart. Unfortunately, they carry 80% (more or less) of the fusion energy away from the vicinity of the weapon and spread it in the general vicinity. It doesn't make nearly as big a bang. For a neutron bomb, that's cool, because you generally don't want blast effects.



My reconning is that the ideal neutron bomb was the W54 mounted on the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle. The bomb is so small that the blast effects only extend 30-40 meters or so, while the radiation damage goes out to 4-500 meters. Unfortunately, in that particular case, it was often difficult to avoid the fallout which rose and settled in a few minutes rather than hours, and was pretty nasty.


It was a conventional atomic weapon, no secondary, not a neutron bomb at all. Later, they took those, gutted them to the bare essentials and made them into "backpack" nukes. They fit in a specially reinforced ALICE, and if you were a hoss (generally the Echoes, some Charlies) and up to giving your all for Uncle Sam, you could pick one up from the WSA and catch some transport to the Fulda Gap. Those had a combination lock (all the same) a switch, and a mechanical timer: no PAL at all. Legend had it that arming it for timer mode would just set it off, it was there for your peace of mind.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by puncheex

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by puncheexWhen that scenario evaporated, so did the military usefulness of the neutron bomb.

Not entirely true. These types of weapons are still maintained for uses primarily consisting of causing a large population to momentarily "black out." The effects of this weapon on the electrical pulses of the brain are able to render foot soldiers null. Designs are for much more compact versions, but again, in response to your comment, they actually are in fact still around.


How do I say this? Neutrons are the antithesis of electricity. They contain no charge, therefore they do not respond to any electrical or magnetic field. When doused with neutrons, you develop symptoms of ARS, Acute Radiation Sickness. No temporary blackout.

Sorry, got to ask for a source on this one. If foot soldiers are your problem, blast them to oblivion. The neutron was designed to kill tank crews in their tanks.


Perhaps I should have been more "succinct." I wasn't speaking of bombs detonated in the past. There have been modified versions in the years past. Documented, even. If I can find these in link form, I will post them here. The cell damage to the brain is massive, and when dispersed in a growing, wide format, it performs the action as I have stated.

Edit: Yes, you're right, there are simpler methods of getting rid of enemy troops. I only wished to point out that this technology was researched to exploit very specific elements of the reaction. What came of this, in complete complete honesty, I really don't know. It was much like the "radiation grenades" that used depleted fuel sources that was meant for troops deployed into the caves. Mentioned briefly in Army research sites, but then lost to time. Whether these devices exist today either, I couldn't say. But they were looked into, the very same, as I am attempting to share here, as the neutron devices in the manner which I have discussed.
edit on 27-12-2012 by SoulVisions because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
On a .gov site discussing neutrons, ionization, as well as protons and their military and medical applications it reads:


Figure 1 shows, for example, that if we want to expose a region located 10cm. below the nearest surface, it will be necessary to have protons of 115 Mev. If a depth of 15 cm. were required, then 140 Mev protons would be needed. The specific ionization curve needs a little interpretation. If we interpret the abscissae as the residual range, then there should be little difficulty in visualizing the specific ionization at various depths within the body. As a particular example, let us consider 140 Mev protons. In Figure 2, the dotted line is a depth-dose curve obtained by plotting the specific ionization taken from curve II of Figure 1 against the depth of proton in the tissue. Thus, at the surface, the residual range is 15 cm., and curve II of Figure 1 shows that the specific ionization for a proton of 15 cm. range is 0.l5 million ion pairs per centimeter. This point has been adjusted to 100 percent in Figure 2. When the proton has proceeded into the tissue 7 cm., its residual range is 8 cm. and the ionization of a proton of 8 cm. range is 0.2 million ion pairs per centimeter or 133 percent of the surface dose. The rest of the curve can be obtained in the same way, and we see that the curve rises sharply in the last few centimeters. The average ionization over the last centimeter is about six times that at the surface. In the final half centimeter of a particular proton track, the average dose is sixteen times the skin dose. The full curve is perhaps more realistic, however, and it will be explained later.

It is well known (2) that the biological damage depends not only on the number of ions produced in a cell, but also upon the density of ionization. Thus the biological effccts near the end of the range will be considerably enhanced due to greater specific ionization, the degree of enhancement depending critically upon the type of cell irradiated.

Again, just to reiterate, some years back this was being looked into for non-lethal methods of immobilizing groups of military troops. It's true that we don't hear about it anymore and certainly, perhaps, it was a failure. I ran into another article that specifically stated that the costs for these neutron based experiments was 3X that of typical projects. It just leads me to wonder whether or not it was stopped short due to budget constraints. Still, it's an interesting notion. I'm all for money being placed into non-lethal forms of combat.

Unfortunately, it seems that just killing the enemy is preferable for a number of reasons and, sadly, more "cost-effective." It raises the question however, just how much is a life worth?

Raid control weapons, like the microwave gun (which I HATE by the way, the men I spoke with that were tested upon described immeasurable pain as the water under their skins literally boiled), are still preferable over just decimating an area using fire, or smaller missiles/munitions of the sort. The DoD has stated time and again that the interest is becoming more and more on the safe-keeping of local resources during war-time efforts, as they are not always easily accessible via support methods, or received on time. This standard remains the same post-conflict when rebuilding and resource gathering becomes necessary.

I hope this cleared up my comments a bit better.
edit on 27-12-2012 by SoulVisions because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
You need to be registered and trained to use this kind of technology its real complicated.
I don't think the new fusion devices are any different from the ones they made in 1952 with the wire length timing?





posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by cyberdude78
 


This has been a great interest of mine for over 13 years now. I had a web-sight called how to make a home-made nuclear reactor. it was up for twelve years im working on another. So, I have done a lot of research into this. First of all a hydrogen bomb is a fusion weapon but it requires fission to get it started. Purely fusion weapons of mass destruction (requiring no fission at all to get it started) do exist but it is classified. What is even more classified is that a purely fusion weapons of mass destruction is theoretically possible to build and that the means to make them would be insanely more simple to make them than a fission weapon putting it in the realm for everyday people on the street to make them including terrorist. What is missing from the equation is the energy to get a purely fusion weapon of mass destruction started. As soon as energy technology advances to the public realm and two plus two is added together purely fusion weapons will come to the public domain. As for putting them on a missile or bomb that is just a simple matter of engineering. For the layman a flux compression generator (a charged magnetic coil with a bomb in the middle and the - and + wires going to an antenna) currently would be needed to get a purely fusion weapon built and set off that is if the energy is being released all at once. Fusion can be release slowly with just a simple everyday table top power supply built by kids in school which as been done. So, Fusion can be release slowly just like fission in nuclear reactors or fusion can be released fast just like in fission bombs releasing the energy all at once. Fusion weapons require greats amount of energy to get started while fusion reactors require smaller amounts of energy. It just depends on how much energy you want to release at a time. Fusion is far more better and greater for energy and weapons than fission. Anyway there you go. All I left out was the design to make one but I am only here to give out simple information out nothing more.

I forgot one thing. Besides using electrical energy to get fusion started there is one other method that public science does not know about yet. It requires using the Hutchinson effect to get fusion started for that matter it would get fission started equally well too. I talked about this method in another post I made here at ATS. Besides the Hutchinson effect I also called it Bob Lazar's field propulsion. It is a way to move matter by way of energy fields. And yes it could be used to make nuclear weapons fusion or fission all that is needed is to use a round chamber and compress the matter to the very center like when a star is born. This too could be used to make fusion weapons possible. In my other post I explained how this works. I wont explain it again here because it would be redundant I just will give my link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 30-12-2012 by Reactor because: spelling correction
edit on 30-12-2012 by Reactor because: sentence correction
edit on 30-12-2012 by Reactor because: sentence corrections
edit on 30-12-2012 by Reactor because: Adding material and references.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
All neutron bombs are thermonukes. There's no other way to do it.

D-T fusion really just generates loads of fast neutrons. You get an energetic alpha as well, but most of the energy is in the neutron it kicks out.

In a conventional thermonuke, you have a sequence like a Swiss watch - the primary puts out a lot of x-ray and gamma flux into the secondary, which uses the flux to compress the secondary by plasma (the high density poly that holds the assembly together) and mostly by x-ray ablative compression of the secondary's tamper. Inside the secondary you've got Li6D and a plutonium rod, when you compress it enough the plutonium will fission and supply the heat and neutrons to break down the Li6D, producing deuterium and tritium, then fusing them.

In a normal world, the neutrons leave the holraum at warp speed - and encounter a couple of things. One, they hit the remaining unreacted fissiles and fission them (mostly), which wouldn't have otherwise happened. But an amazing thing also happens - they hit the U238 used in the secondary tamper, and the U238 that's generally used in the bomb casing or tamper. Some weapons add in extra U238 around the secondary just for fissioning. The fast neutrons caused by the fusion can fission the U238, adding in most of the "bang" you get from the secondary.

The fast alphas give you some localized thermal energy, to be sure, but it's about 20% of what you've got in the neutrons.

In a neutron bomb, you scrap all the U238 and use some lead and a tap of beryllium in the right places. Lead's transparent to neutrons. So when the secondary fires, the neutrons just depart. Unfortunately, they carry 80% (more or less) of the fusion energy away from the vicinity of the weapon and spread it in the general vicinity. It doesn't make nearly as big a bang. For a neutron bomb, that's cool, because you generally don't want blast effects.


I went back to my sources, did the research, and guess what ... you are absolutely right. Thanks for straightening me out on neutron bombs. I'll try to do better next time.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauliflower
You need to be registered and trained to use this kind of technology its real complicated.
I don't think the new fusion devices are any different from the ones they made in 1952 with the wire length timing?




Ummm, training for using a Monroe calculator (a lost art, I understand) is about the same as learning a ten-key, just more of the same. Registered? I don't think so.

The wire length timing was done on the Trinity bomb (see pics of it festooned with loose wiring); it is part of getting all the explosive to fire at the same time to implode the fission core. It doesn't have anything to do with fusion, except as the fellow above said, to get it started. Cutting the lengths only requires the ability to use a ruler and diagonal cutters.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join