• KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Do you actually need conventional explosives? I had the impression all they do is reliably stick the big hunks of radioactive material together in a big bomb that needs to be delivered at high speeds and detonate automatically. Wouldn’t it be enough to quickly shove a cylinder into a bigger core, perhaps with a motor or even a tensioned spring?

    That of course doesn’t waive the issue of the amount of fissile material, or the fact it needs to be all put together (you can’t spread it around a vest)

    • Paragone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s a difference between meltdown, inefficient/low explosion, & efficient high-explosion.

      The neutron-emission’s cascading only when the critical-mass is in small-enough a volume,

      & the heat it’s producing is making it blow-apart.

      ( I’ve seen video of 1 million watts of heat being produced by a 1-cubic-metre reactor-core, in a water-cooled reactor… the heat the reaction produces makes the fuel-rods incandescent, or at-least that’s the way it looked, in that video: it may have been Cherenkhov-radiation that I was seeing, or from gamma-rays being converted down to light or something… dunno… )

      the more efficient you want the fission-reaction to be, the longer you have to force it together, while it’s blowing-up.

      The explosives are required, for bombs, ttbomk.

      _ /\ _