On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/9/10 George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/9/9 <wjhonson(a)aol.com>om>:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue
with H bombs is their
"plans".
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it.
No thats the A-bomb (and even then explosive lenses are
problematical). H-Bomb plane still contain significant elements of
speculation. The various failed attempts to construct them suggest
it's not that easy.
This is wishful thinking, Geni.
Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
sized ones (1 ton) is not.
And the explosive lenses get easier the more you know about how to
make them. The 1945 vintage ones we show for [[Fat Man]] are far
harder to design and make than the ones used just 10 years later for a
Brok / [[Mark 12 nuclear bomb]].
You have completely missed Geni's point. Fat Man was an A-bomb, not an
H-bomb. Please read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
Geni's points were that A-bombs are not H-bombs (which I did not
address, and is correct), that A-bomb explosive lenses are somewhat
problematical (which I disagree with), and that H-bomb design contains
significant elements of speculation (which I disagree with generally -
specifically to large and mid-sized H-bombs, which are not that
complicated - but I do not disagree so much about very compact H-bomb
design, as the specific geometry of the use of Foglight in the last
generation of designs is still somewhat opaque in public knowledge).
I don't need to reread the article; I've written large parts of it,
and could write a book sized version with all the ugly math and
specific examples.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com