Originally posted by fixer1967
reply to post by Bedlam
If you go back to post one and go to the link you will see that the one that BP is thinking on using is in fact nuclear.
And that's the guy I'm calling a 'tard. There's one passing reference to using a nuclear-pumped compression device I've seen, and this guy has a
copy. But it's one of those things you can do simply with Compton effect, or if you rig a superconducting magnet and some other stuff I won't go
into details on, you can make a really dandy "Compton effect in a bottle" gadget. No one uses nuke pumped flux compressors - it's like having a big
diesel engine turning a little friction wheel to light matches on.
I wonder if one of those devices has every been used out side of a lab and if so I bet it was not nuclear.
Oh, hells yeah. The Brits were the king of the vircator - Thorn used to be the biggies in design of flux compression weaponry before the breakup.
We've got 'em, alright, there's a RFQ that just went around for alternate bids for a 155mm howitzer shell flux compression weapon. Being curious,
I'll probably look up who the primary bidder was in a couple of months when the bid concludes. Might be some second or third tier work there.
You seem to know a bit about these so you tell us just how much power could it put out if it did use a nuclear trigger. Could the EMP wave shut down
Florida or anything else on shore.
The issue with cracking off an EMP weapon a mile down in salt water is that it won't do much in the way of EMP. It's sitting in a big short circuit.
The pulse will be absorbed by the water, even if you drive it with a nuke. And if you're going to use a nuke, as I said you can sort of graft an EMP
pulse-making attachment to it without the flux compression part - it's more efficient that way.
However, you've got a lot of issues -
1) the nuke still goes 'boom'. You're going to get a pressure wave from hell, and the seabed will be a big mess. If you're envisioning a little
pop and it all ends up being EMP, you've got the wrong glasses on. On top of which, you're going to make some pretty bad waves, and you're going to
spew activated strontium and iodine everywhere on shore. We used to train with the "drop the portable nuke in the harbor and ruin the port for
years" scenario. Nothing like a green glowing tidal wave of radioactive death washing all over your port facilities, roads, shoreline, river mouth
and truck terminals to ruin your decade. I'm not sure how much of this you'd get from a mile down and a ways out, but wherever you see that oil
going? Yep, you're going to get radioactive crap in those same places.
2) the seabed is already screwed enough, nothing like a nuke to make it worse
3) an EMP isn't going to do much to the well. Whoever said it would melt rocks is wrong.
4) while we haven't ratified the CTBT, we have pretty much not fired a live nuke in any way since 1992. I'm pretty sure the diplomatic ramifications
are not going to make the State Dept guys dance for joy