It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harnessing the power of the nuke

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Humans have for decades been able to harness nuclear power. But what im interested is whether or not we will be able to harness the power of a nuclear bomb.
I understand that that sort of power would probably destroy whatever i is doing the harnessing but if it were possible. That would produce a HUGE ammount of power.
Any Ideas?




posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   
We've been using nuclear power plants for decades.... That's the same power as the nuclear bomb..
If you mean using a nuclear bomb and then harvesting energy from that...
well that's pretty much impossible, you'd need an extremely amazing heat exchange system and a few thousand square miles that you dont need for anything else....



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Clansman
Humans have for decades been able to harness nuclear power. But what im interested is whether or not we will be able to harness the power of a nuclear bomb.

The power of a nuclear reactor is the power of a carefully controlled nuclear explosion.


I understand that that sort of power would probably destroy whatever i is doing the harnessing but if it were possible. That would produce a HUGE ammount of power.

...and in a rather wasteful manner. It's like suggesting that we power normal coal-fired power plants by blowing them up... or natural gas power plants by blowing them up. The energy goes *everywhere* (not where you need it) and there's no more energy than you'd get from a sustained and controlled release.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
The power of a nuclear reactor is the power of a carefully controlled nuclear explosion.



Actualy, the power of a nuclear reactor is the power of a carefully controlled nuclear reaction.

The power of an nuclear bomb is the power of an uncontrolled nuclear reaction on material that represents itself as a cascading effect of heat and radiation generation, with the visible effect of a massive explosion. This reaction stops when the force of the explosion blasts away extra fuel for the nuclear explosion.

If the blast itself wouldn't happen, the nuclear reaction from a nuclear bomb could feed on material present in the environment around it to keep going and have an even bigger and devastating effect. This was a major concern when nuclear devices were still theory. This concern was removed when the first nuclear device was detonated.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
In a nuclear bomb, it is a self-sustaining fission chain, where one decay produces 3 neutrons which, for the main part, are all re-absorbed..
In a nuclear reactor, it is just an accelerated nuclear decay process by using particles that decay to give off neutrons to 'stimulate' the uranium/plutonium to decay..
It's not self-sustaining, and it's prettyu much impossible to cause a nuclear explosion with, because the mass is not super-critical, nor is it close enough to each other to produce a self-sustaining chain reaction


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
...you'd need an extremely amazing heat exchange system and a few thousand square miles that you dont need for anything else....

It wouldn't work bigger thermonuclear bombs literally make huge holes to ground with shockwave and vaporising anything in certain radius beside bomb.

Like Castle Bravo which formed crater with nearly two km diameter.
nuclearweaponarchive.org...

This video is from ten megaton Ivy Mike test:
koti.mbnet.fi...


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
If the blast itself wouldn't happen, the nuclear reaction from a nuclear bomb could feed on material present in the environment around it to keep going and have an even bigger and devastating effect.

Even if there wouldn't be shockwave there would still be radiation pressure which for example prevents matter of sun from collapsing to black hole.


nuclearweaponarchive.org...
nuclearweaponarchive.org...
nuclearweaponarchive.org...
This design is most common:
nuclearweaponarchive.org...
Biggest ever exploded bomb had actually third stage, implosion primary was just detonator for second fusion stage which itself was used to ignite third even bigger fusion stage.
Also those neutrons released by fusion can used to cause additional fission in bomb's case if it's made from DU/U238 increasing yield.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...


Originally posted by browha
In a nuclear bomb, it is a self-sustaining fission chain, where one decay produces 3 neutrons which, for the main part, are all re-absorbed..

Applies only for one-stage devices... or "trigger" in thermonuclear bombs in which big part of yield is get from fusion.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Clansman
Humans have for decades been able to harness nuclear power. But what im interested is whether or not we will be able to harness the power of a nuclear bomb.


This was a huge topic of the Plughshare programs back in the 50's. To show that the atom was our friend. Rads were expresed as "sunshine" units and I belive the Corp of engineers explored using nuc's for creating canals tunnels etc. Can you imagine carving the Panana Canal if 3 days or so. No doubt it would work, but you could not use it for quite some time.


Also, see my thread on Project Orion (atomic bomb propulsion for space craft) and Project Pluto (nuclear RamJet propulsion)


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
It's like suggesting that we power normal coal-fired power plants by blowing them up...

Heh, just add little LOX to mix and ignite match.

"Grill ready in couple seconds:"
www.doeblitz.net...
I recommend downloading that video.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I think that one of the original proposed "star wars" weapons was a fission explosion powered x-ray pulse laser, with the energy from the explosion firing an enourmously powerful x-ray laser in the instant before the explosion destroyed the laser platform itself...this is just from memory, so it's definitely an IIRC situation - but that would fit your request, no??



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Clansman
Humans have for decades been able to harness nuclear power. But what im interested is whether or not we will be able to harness the power of a nuclear bomb.
I understand that that sort of power would probably destroy whatever i is doing the harnessing but if it were possible. That would produce a HUGE ammount of power.
Any Ideas?


It does produce a 'HUGE' amount of power and the power in a bomb IS harnessed. It is used to destroy things.

If you are talking about using it to produce electricity, why would anyone want to harness energy from nuclear bombs when fission power stations are much safer and fusion power stations are just around the corner. Your idea is crazy.


I understand that that sort of power would probably destroy whatever i is doing the harnessing but if it were possible. That would produce a HUGE ammount of power.


Why would anyone in their right mind bother to build something to harness the power if it is going to be destroyed? It'd probably take more power to build this energy harnessing device than it would get back.

[edit on 6/7/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Clansman
I understand that that sort of power would probably destroy whatever i is doing the harnessing but if it were possible. That would produce a HUGE ammount of power. Any Ideas?


Well, as you have learned here...you could drink from a firehose (bomb) or you could use your tap (controlled reaction) and get a glass to drink. I think you can understand why the first idea is not very practical.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
ITs called the ITER.

Controlled self sustaining nuclear reactor.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Ummm yeah
but that's fusion....



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Well, as you have learned here...you could drink from a firehose (bomb) or you could use your tap (controlled reaction) and get a glass to drink. I think you can understand why the first idea is not very practical.


Would be quite fun to have a go at though. Imagine if your job description invilved setting off nuclear bombs
Still however wasteful and impractical its better than using coal



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Clansman
Would be quite fun to have a go at though. Imagine if your job description invilved setting off nuclear bombs
Still however wasteful and impractical its better than using coal


Why would it be better than using coal?

Coal, however polluting or inefficient, surely can't be as bad as using the method you suggested



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Possible but impractible.

If a nuclear bomb exploded in space, it would be like a miniature sun, creating an enourmous amount of heat, and electromagnetic radiation, as well as the radioactive decay of the material. Although, it would only last for a very small amount of time. Let's say you build a giant hallow sphere the size of about a dozen miles, and detonate the bomb in the middle, and you could trap the energy inside it...



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
It would be a waste of energy and material even if you were able to tap into it. You would have a tremendous amount of energy from a brief moment, but how would you store such an amount? The most logical way would be with Ultracapacitors and Superconductors, however a similar amount of energy could be tapped over a longer duration via traditional fission reactors. Inaddition, the resulting radioactive material would make cleanup unbearable.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Didn't someone actually come up with a nuclear-powered piston engine? I could've sworn someone actually did this (use the thermal expansion from a nuclear explosion to push the piston instead of using the combustion of gasoline or other volitile liquids). If I'm correct, then that would mean that your concept has actually been done (on a 'micro' level, albeit...).



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join