# Question about nuclear bombs



## Tinsel (Jul 13, 2010)

I understand that in a chemical reaction, when two or more element's protons and electrons form new bonds that are stable, that there is possibly a change in physical form and that heat is given off during the reaction. The heat given off during the reaction results in a loss of mass, so if you look at it that way, there is heat given off when mass is converted to energy. This is an underlying concept of nuclear reactions, isn't it. That there is a great amount of energy released when a substance is converted into energy. Well how can this be described more accurately. What is this splitting of the atom all about, and how is the nucleus involved here. What is going on exactly.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 13, 2010)

Chemical reactions can be exothermic (they release energy in the form of heat) or they can be endothermic (they require and so absorb energy).



As for nuclear reactions, check out these: 
Nuclear fission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 14, 2010)

So those are the proper terms for describing the process. I did not know about the later type of reaction.

Yes, read, read, and read...more. Where is the laymans description? I might have to read those articles, thanks.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 14, 2010)

I'll give the layman's version a crack.

Fission - the nuclei of a large fissile substance (uranium for example) is bombarded by a neutron which causes it to split into two smaller substances. In the process it releases more neutrons to continue the process and large ammounts of energy.

Fusion - smaller atoms come together under extreem conditions (energy, density, heat) and bind together into larger atoms releasing energy in the process. 

Nuclear weaponry is Fission. Hiroshima was Uranium. Nagasaki was Plutonium.

Suns are Fusion.

How's that?


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 14, 2010)

Doctor Crankenstein said:


> I'll give the layman's version a crack
> /*(see above)*/
> How's that?



*That is more towards what I wanted to hear*, but I can't quite reply in such a way as to further the conversation just yet because my mind is off topic, but that information is something to work with. The basic presumption that I had was that matter is being converted into heat energy and you said that particles are used to split the nuclei of various types of atoms/elements.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 14, 2010)

Forget the mass difference with chemical reactions; even if you could collect all the bits and pieces of your stick of dynamite back together, there is nothing sensitive enough to measure it. It'd be a bit like trying to detect the increase in mass of a car pulling away from traffic lights; the air compressed into its engine would have several orders of magnitude more effect. 
A nucleus of helium is, however, a teetzy weeny bit less massive than two nuclei of deuterium, for the same two protons, two neutrons, and each heavier element continues the trend until iron, after which you're going back uphill – and by the time you get into the transuranics, this has become a serious factor. You can either consider this mass as the binding energy holding the nucleus together, (not particularly well,  in the case of the transuranics) or a fundamental particle; when it is released, the cee squared factor means that very few picograms make lots and lots of ergs. Or joules, or BTU, not to mention a fair amount of destruction.

The instability of the very heavy elements is generally used to trigger this, particularly with Uranium 235 and plutonium 239's inability to hang onto their neutrons, but this doesn't have to be the case. Sufficiently high temperatures and pressures (as in the heart of a star) will do the job quite nicely. Unfortunately, (or perhaps not that unfortunate) the only places we can duplicate these conditions on Earth are very temporarily in particle accelerators like the one down the road in CERN, or in nuclear explosions. 
Research continues, and it is not impossible that we will one day have a bomb the size of a matchbox for annihilating city blocks (although I'm more in favour of antimatter to that end) but, for the time being, if you want a nuclear weapon I'm afraid it will be at least suitcase size, with a kilogram of plutonium and twice that amount of chemical explosive to squeeze it together.

This wasn't very layman, was it?


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 15, 2010)

Instead of a bomb, if they were able to harness the heat energy in the conversion of mass to energy of an atom or a whole element or an object, than that would solve all energy consumption needs around the world. I don't really hear anything about this effort or if it is even on the table. Instead you hear a lot about weapon making which was not meant to happen in the first place.

So if the nucleus is split, than this causes a total mass conversion into heat energy? Is there nothing left over?


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 15, 2010)

If the nucleus splits, or is persuaded to split, a tiny fraction of a percentage of the mass is released as energy. Most goes on as different elements or different elementary particles. Frequently neutrons. But total mass conversion, as with a matter/antimatter interaction, would produce a million times as much energy (figure pulled out of my hat; too lazy to actually calculate it)

Now, atoms are very small, and do not contain much mass, so one atom being converted to energy would not make much difference to the Earth's energy needs, and the energy comes out in the most disorganised fashion possible – heat (well, wide band electromagnetic radiation, generally, but that translates to heat by the time we're trying to use it), and that needs steam turbines or whatever to convert it to something useable. With a bomb, you don't worry about details like that; heat will do just fine.

Layman's terms. We are nowhere near total mass conversion yet. The principal problems with energy are not the quantity, but availability, transport and storage, none of which would be effected by greater generating potential. The only nuclear reactions we have so far succeeded in disciplining are heavy element fission, and when you break up the big atoms some of the small ones you get as waste are pretty nasty. Also, having lots of spare neutrons kicking around tends to modify the matter in the containment vessel.

Everybody and his uncle is cheering for fusion; sticking multiple light nuclei together to get fewer heavier ones. If they can make it work, it could well be the energy source of the future, but until there is a working prototype, it's difficult to guess what the side effects will be.

Since what we are describing here is basically a very small star, or a continuously exploding hydrogen bomb, NIMBY tactics might be wise; but then transporting the power where it's actually needed becomes an issue.

If solar cells were more efficient, we might be able to harness the flash directly, without needing to go through heat and turbines; but is solar cells could be made that efficient, we  would probably have enough energy, anyway. And still the problem of getting it where it's needed (and storing it, yes.)

France, fifty years ago, tried to go all modern, and nuclear. It wasn't a disaster, but it wasn't an outstanding success, either.

And bombs are easy relative to controlled continuous power output; it's always easier to break something than to create.


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 15, 2010)

What exactly does a nuclear power plant work on. Based on the information in your post it seems like they are able to generate power (as a byproduct?) but they are not able to convert atomic mass into pure energy. Are they making weapons down there or are they creating an energy supply, or is energy a byproduct as a result of some other purpose.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 15, 2010)

Your standard fission power station uses enriched uranium (larger percentage than natural of U235, which is the less stable isotope (stop me when I'm not layman enough) When a nucleus of this is hit by a neutron (heavy nuclear particle with no charge) it has a tendency to break into pieces; and some of those pieces tend to be neutrons. When more neutrons are being released than are escaping, we have a chain reaction; we call the mass of metal sufficient for this critical mass. 
When the big atom breaks down into several smaller ones there is a miniscule loss of mass, which turns up as quite a large quantity of energy (megawatts for picograms), and the thing heats up. There are a number of ways to use this heat to produce electrical energy, often involving heat exchangers and liquid sodium and other such esoteric techniques, but the simplest is to consider it as a fire, get it to turn water into steam, and use that to run an ordinary, primitive steam turbine with bearings and bits that wear out, just like a coal fired generator.

A breeder reactor turns some of the poor uranium (almost entirely U238, the most stable, long lived isotope) into Plutonium 239, an even more effective fuel, and the heart of modern atomic bombs. Separating this out from the other radioactive waste products in the spent fuel rods is dangerous, unpleasant and very profitable, because this is the only way this substance can be obtained. It doesn't exist in nature, so is extremely poisonous, as well as being radioactive. I still think the energy is their primary aim; the nuclear weapons are just perks.

But nobody trust Iran when they say they're only in it for the power…

So, a miniscule percentage of the incoming mass ends up as energy, most of it goes out as unchanged, and is recovered from the waste, and some – quite a bit – ends up as different elements, many radioactive in their own right, which are a nuisance to get rid of (especially as you don't want a terrorist either getting his hands on them, or spreading them over the countryside).


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 16, 2010)

That was a good post Chrispenycake. That was nice and clear. I was wondering about the whole nuclear question and I'm sure that it would take a lot of reading to uncover these answers. I just wanted to have some ground in the matter as I have been reading a little bit about Einstein's theory of relativity or modern physics.

Now the radio active byproduct of the synthesis is a potential weapon. We have now learned about this here, not that I was looking for that information, but I should say something about this new fact that has been introduced.

Well I know what it feels like to be poisoned and I'm tired of it. When you work in an industrial area and use equipment there are safety concerns, yet I have seen a number of technological improvements. Now this potential risk is very severe, and you have to wonder if this has lead to certain actions being taken. Such information could reduce the confusion over what position to take on Iran or Korea. It may reduce the concern over other problems that are not as critical in nature.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 16, 2010)

Studying the development of human technology it's clear that just about any new procedure/technique/invention can be used as a weapon. If there's one thing we're good at, it's beating ploughshares into swords (or just hitting our enemies with the plough).

If you want poison, you've got a good one at the enrichment stage; fluorine. This might by now have changed, but at the beginning of separation, the only uranium compound that could be gasified (evaporated?) was uranium hexafluoride; as the lighter isotope would diffuse faster than the more stable heavier one, it could be partially separated, or at least concentrated, by successive passes.

Now fluorine is seriously nasty, and chews through just about anything (Teflon, Polytetrafluoroethylene or PTFE because nobody could spell it, was invented at this time to have something to put it in) and the only other place it turns up in quantity (apart from toothpaste) is in aluminium smelting; and there it's supposed to stay as compounds, not go out on its own.

Unfortunately, since it's used at the start of the process and would be the same for civilian or military uses, you can't judge the final use from increase in fluorine poisoning.


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 16, 2010)

Just one post review comment.

This whole concept of converting mass to energy isn't very precise in fact. If only a small amount of energy is created and then the process being unclean. They are shooting the nucleus into parts instead of having a stable chemical reaction take place. Perhaps they need to have these small parts, electrons, protons, neutrons, that get blown apart to take place in an environment which will claim a stable chemical reaction to deal with the mess.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 16, 2010)

Not very precise at all. Blindfold billiards. Mind you, at a molecular level, quite a lot of chemical reactions are like that, too.

But some of the waste products are seriously short lived (hence the radioactivity) and chemical solutions can't do much about that. Nor do we know all the things that are being generated (apart from alpha particles – nude helium. And you won't find anything much more resistant to chemical entrapment than that.)

Don't forget that, in order to achieve critical mass, a large percentage of the matter present has to be uranium, frequently very hot. Not convenient for adding chemical purifiers, even assuming we knew what was wanted, and that the elements involved were not violently modified by the neutron flux. 

The independent particles; they are not chemical. Chemistry is the interaction of atoms and molecules, largely dependent on electron shells, and in nuclear reactions, we ignore electron shells; indeed in fusion, have disposed of them. So chemical solutions are not going to work. Electromagnetic ones might, but not on neutrons. 

Not the same set of problems, and the solutions so far have been a bit crude. However, I'm not clever enough to point out obvious improvements. so I hesitate to go ultra, and rant against a solution which, while not perfect, actually works.


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 18, 2010)

That would be a good book to write, that is, for someone who has first hand knowledge of the process, because it is not covered by theory. It is more of an application area or applied science. Obviously it is important.

How do they develop a technique to deal with nuclear waste, or even how is it handled to this day, keeping in sight mass to energy as a valid energy resource solution.

I'm under the impression that if they have nuclear plants, that they developed weapons or positioned for nuclear development in the days of the nuclear arms race, although the new age has come bringing with it closure in the form of alternatives such as converting the asset into energy production.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 19, 2010)

Have you heard of synrock?

By using synrock you completely avoid  groundwater irradiation problems that arise from normal disposal  methods. Even if the stainless steel disposal container is compromised  the synrock is practically impenetrable. Australia  is essentially completely geologically stable as it sits solidly in the  centre of the Indo-Australian Plate so the likelihood of the containers  being damaged from seismic activity is infinitesimally small, if not  zero.

Synrock is essentially a "Synthetic Rock", comprised of  geo-chemically stable natural titanate minerals that have the ability to  immobilize uranium and thorium for billions of years. These rocks can  incorporate into their crystalline structure nearly all of the elements  present in high-level radioactive waste and completely immobilize them.  Synrock can take various forms depending on its specific use and can be  tailored to immobilize different kinds of radioactive waste from nuclear  power plant by-products to problematic cold war legacy waste.

According  to Melody Carter: (Research Scientist, Institute of Materials &  Engineering Science ANSTO) the synrock advantages were validated by the  selection of synrock by the US Department of Energy for the plutonium  immobilisation program in the late nineties. This program dealt with the  immobilisation of surplus plutonium in the US and Russia (although with  the change in US government this option is in suspension, highlighting  the political nature of the industry).  Currently there is a synroc  plant being designed in Britain to immobilise 5 tonnes of plutonium  residue waste at the British Nuclear Fuels Limited Sellafield Site. This  plant will result in approximately £100 million cost savings from the  current waste liability. 

To safely dispose of radioactive waste  you have to:

1. Immobilize waste in an insoluble matrix of  synrock
2. Seal inside a corrosion-resistant container, e.g.  Stainless steel.
3. In wet rock: surround containers with bentonite  clay to inhibit groundwater movement.
4. Locate deep underground in a  stable rock structure.
5. Site the repository in a remote location.

Australia  has a plethora of suitable disposal sites, most notably the countless  abandoned mines in Western Australia (The same place that the uranium is  mined in the first place... how convenient).

Decommissioning can  be solved in much the same way. A large portion of the plants can be  reused in the construction of the nuclear fusion plants he has proposed,  anything else such as the contaminated aluminium rods can be disposed  of with synrock in much the same way as the waste.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 19, 2010)

A lot of the NIMBY panic comes from transport hazards (including Greenpeace extremist trying, for the good of mankind, obviously, to derail trains carrying nuclear waste.

And there's a lot of energy tied up in that waste; probably more than was gained in generating it. Plus chemicals that don't exist anywhere else; with adequate separation, it could turn out to be a gold mine. Seems a pity to bury it in holes down under – or holes here, for that matter.

And if it were possible to transport the power conveniently, we could set our solar generators over the bits of Australia nobody wants, and give the roo fellas some shade. Otherwise, the 'mine it, enrich it, generate with it and then stuff it back into the holes it came out of' philosophy would tide us over for a good long time.

But fission produces very little waste, when compared with say, the ashes from coal-fired generators. It's just very unpleasant waste. And an awful lot of it is generated before the electricity starts flowing (actually, looking at slag mountains, I suppose that's fairly ordinary; but we don't transport that like the U238).  

Obviously, I have a genius level solution to all these problems, but can't patent it as you have to be able to produce a working model. (and I admit there might be one or two tiny drawbacks  ) So perhaps I'll write a science fiction novel about it.

No, that would come out all fifties, yay technology and humans irrelevant. I think I'll just wait for someone cleverer than me to come up with the idea.


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 21, 2010)

Well as long as they stop dumping it in the ocean. Or they could send it all into outer space; there musn't be that much energy being produced.


----------



## PTeppic (Jul 21, 2010)

Tinsel said:


> What exactly does a nuclear power plant work on. Based on the information in your post it seems like they are able to generate power (as a byproduct?) but they are not able to convert atomic mass into pure energy. Are they making weapons down there or are they creating an energy supply, or is energy a byproduct as a result of some other purpose.



In the vast majority of commercial reactors, the purpose is to create energy, in the form of "pure energy" as you term it. However, that energy comes split into two forms, radiation and heat. A big problem is that neither of these is a usable form, e.g. electricity. The "inefficiency" in nuclear power generation (which is not only "on the table" but widely used in many countries) is that there's a huge waste of energy in converting the heat from a reaction into electricity (and the radiation isn't just unusable but dangerous too).

Going back to my first line, the UN keeps track of all those who can create nuclear weapons, and it's very much an old boys club: okay if you're already in but they don't want any new members, thank you.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 21, 2010)

I'm an australian so I was talking from a 'having an australian nuclear power plant' perspective. Never meant to suggest transporting it from other countries to here...

And the 'roo fellas' don't need shade! They are in plague proportions at the moment. 10 000 Grey Roo's were culled last week...


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 21, 2010)

The argument for nuclear power is weak here, so why build more sites? There has not been a nuclear war. There is only a balance of power trade relying upon nuclear stand off. What good is any of it. We should move it all to Australia.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 21, 2010)

We are running out of coal.

That seems like a pretty damn strong argument to me.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 21, 2010)

We're an awfully long way from running out of coal.

Good coal, yes. And bad coal is incredibly polluting (good coal isn't all that clean) And fossile fuels add cee oh two to the atmosphere. While nuclear makes (quantitively) very little waste.

But there isn't that much uranium, either. At least, not the active stuff. A few centuries worth, at the most. 

If there were a revolution in power storage, we could go onto renewable energies, but making everything while the sun shines is just not practical. And waiting for the tide to come in before we can refrigerate the fish, or truck them to market, not acceptable either.

Fission energy is not perfect, but it's an acceptable stopgap.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 21, 2010)

There are other renewable energies that still work at night. Geothermal for example.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 21, 2010)

Switzerland's not too happy with geothermal. They can't prove it triggers earth tremors in Basel, but it's probable enough  that work's stopped in Geneva.

But yes, heating your kettle over a volcano does seem a reasonable way of making steam.

Now, if only we could attach enough pietzo crystals to it to collect the earthquake energy too (like those discos where the floor movements are used to power the amplifiers…)


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 21, 2010)

haha, yes. That would be cool!


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 22, 2010)

Most things run on natural gas or electricity, but there seems like many alternatives even wind energy.

The USA has a huge coal deposit if I remember correctly, very massive. The USA I think has large amounts of natural gas.

Anyway the point again is that nuclear energy gained by mass to heat energy seems to have a weak argument for it, and the other issue is after these plants get set up a danger exits. It might be fine for a period of time but if the wind changes than humanity will be running to those things looking to use them as weapons without any restraint. It is not like it is now where people have self control, so those things can be slipped in now quite easily, hey they are really popular, in fact I might go into a private venture to make my own nuclear plant.

Things like wind mills would work okay where I live but the wind mills are fairly expensive because they are not being produced on a large scale. The wind mill supplies power to a large battery, but there is natural gas and electricity available, so why bother with a wind mill. This year it hasn't been that windy. During other years there has been a decent amount of wind. It is not consistent.

There is one thing that I'll agree with. Mankind does need a weapon. That seems true enough. That is why the whole balance of power article becomes the solution. It makes exchange possible as a focus. Those must be the actual debates.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 22, 2010)

> Most things run on natural gas or electricity, but there seems like many  alternatives even wind energy.



Where do you think the electricity comes from? And Natural Gas will run out sooner-or-later as well.

If "the wind changes" as you put it and we fall into nuclear war we will all be long-and-gone before anyone has time to convert nuclear power plants into weapons. How many nuclear warheads do you think the super-powers have in their stockpiles?


----------



## Tinsel (Jul 22, 2010)

I was talking about my own personal situation. There is electricity and natural gas here, but I could get a wind mill which I hear provides enough energy so that it might make sense, and I could also get a large backup power supply, a generator, or even rig up solar panels. There are also small inverters and candle power, as well as natural gas heater/fire places, and a wood burning fireplace, for example. There are all kinds of sources of power around, and I started to think about them when I moved to an acreage a number of years ago.

I'm not sure about weapon stock piles, but they became prolific during the cold war period, and that was when they first came to the conclusion that it was impossible to win.

I think that the case that you have to make should be argued by tying it to economic liberty rather than energy unless you go the route that we are past taking caution, or else than prove the scientific questions or wait and see in which case it is best to keep very, very, quiet.

They always end up giving stuff away. Are you saying that Australia doesn't have nuclear power? I am surprised to hear that.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 22, 2010)

I feel one point missed here is that no matter how long they are going to last fossil fuels will not last forever; we are sure as heck using them faster than gelogical process create them . So is it fair to future generations for us to squander the planet's reserves they way are doing now?

We need a sustainable source of energy for the future and the sooner we have it the better. The technology of most of the alternative sources wind, sun, wave, tide etc. is simply not there yet as a serious replacement for fossil fuels. Fission power is.

Fission power is dangerous and the by product is hell to deal with (maybe in the future we will have to throw it into the sun, who knows) but even fission relies on a finite resource. I have no idea how finite, but certainly finite, and as I said we always have to consider the legacy of depleted resources that we leave to future generations. I truly believe the twentieth and probably the first half of the twenty first century will be viewed in history as criminally wasteful of the planets resources.

Ultimately we have to get Fusion figured; we are possibly close but not there yet. Fusion should be clean and theoretically could burn just about anything.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 23, 2010)

> I feel one point missed here is that no matter how long they are going  to last fossil fuels will not last forever; we are sure as heck using  them faster than gelogical process create them . So is it fair to  future generations for us to squander the planet's reserves they way are  doing now?



That's what I meant when I said they are running out...

Fusion isn't that far off. 50 years at most.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 23, 2010)

Doctor Crankenstein said:


> That's what I meant when I said they are running out...
> 
> Fusion isn't that far off. 50 years at most.


 
Yeah I figured that Dr - just seemed to me the response to you was a bit "sure, but not for a long time". Which is what I feel missed the point - it doesn't matter if it is 10 years or 200 years off, we are still squandering finite resources. Frankly the same argument goes for anything that we mine from the planet; metals, minerals etc. Time will come when we will be "mining" all our old garbage dumps and cursing the wasteful idiots of the twentieth century!

I think you are probably right re-fusion - Brian Cox (no not that Brian Cox ) has an interesting attitude to that; he basically says we've got to get fusion sorted soon as it is our only hope of maintaing our technological civilisation.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 24, 2010)




----------



## Vertigo (Jul 24, 2010)

Love it Dr.

I actually think that quite a lot (though maybe mistake rather than hoax to be kind ). It would be sort of ironic if it did turn out to be a mistake (like the new ice age panic, in the 70's was it?) but we actually learned to clean up the planet through it. I love that kind of thing


----------

