From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Jun 17 2000 - 10:32:00 MDT
Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net> Wrote:
>John the problem with this is that using plutonium and the tools he
>suggested, the critical mass would not be assembled quickly enough.
Ted Taylor disagrees with you and nobody on planet Earth knows more
about the proper way to bring about critical mass than Ted Taylor.
Remember, the shaped chemical charges needed to bring about implosion
of the Plutonium sphere may have been very exotic in 1945 but it's
routine today. You can buy shaped charges off the shelf or read in a book
how to make your own.
In a recent interview Taylor pointed out that of the 10 or so (I've lost count)
nations that have the bomb every one of them has been successful on the
first shot. He also said that of the thousand or so nuclear tests the USA
has conducted only one (one of the few not made by Taylor) is classified as
a complete dud. Taylor's bosses didn't forbid him from making his bomb
because they thought it wouldn't work but because they thought it would.
>Uranium is more forgiving than plutonium
True, with U235 pre detonation is less of a problem than with Plutonium but
it's also more expensive and you need more of it, with 80% pure U235
(about the purest made) you'd need 44 pounds.
>so they were able to make Little Boy with uranium: two cannons
>firing plugs of U235 at each other.
Little Boy only had one cannon, it fired a U235 slug into a U235 sphere
welded on the muzzle. The cannon method was never used again.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:15 MST