PAGING OPPENHEIMER
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
ATTN: Oppenheimer, or any other anon knowledgeable about this subject.
I was watching this video: https://youtu.be/zVhQOhxb1Mc
This guy repeatedly hints at the existence of implosion-type weapons that do not require complex explosive lenses, but says that the information is classified before going any further. He also makes reference to a design that could be potentially used by terrorists that could be brought into a nuclear material facility, loaded with material in-situ, and detonated while still in the building.
I know that this stuff is probably either classified or beyond the realm of the spookiest spook nonsense, but I was just curious if anyone has any idea what he's talking about here.
Or if anyone has any further reading/listening about weapon designs in general, that would be cool too.
Full disclosure: I am just a nerd who likes nukes and listens to youtube, I am not attempting to build a nuclear weapon.
>>28471031
My personal suspicion is that the thin-shell and slapper plate combination negates the need for lenses. We know haw large a modern nuclear weapon core is with its stainless shell and we know the outside diameter of the weapon. Once you include the airgap there just isn't enough space for proper lenses. Maybe it has a very small amount of lensing but not enough for a true sperical implosion wave.
This matches the only known leaked diagram of a nuclear weapon (pic related, diagram of W80 150kt warhead or possibly a W84).
>>28471077
Cont
His claiming of breaking into a building and building a bomb before detonating it is retarded.
>>28471077
>the thin-shell and slapper plate combination negates the need for lenses
Could you elaborate on these terms:
>thin-shell
>slapper plate
My understanding of this subject is pretty crappy so I don't know all the terms yet.
>>28471121
Slapper plate is where you have the weapon layers go:
>Weapon core shell
>Airgap
>Shell of dense material
>Explosives
This give the outer-shell time to accelerate and make the core accelerate inwards as fast as possible.
A thin shell is where you have sphere of plutonium with very thin walls. Again, this allows the core to accelerate inwards as fast as possible before going supercritical.
Image related is of a thin-shell weapon core along with the storage box used at PANTEX.
>>28471363
An omnidirectional inward shape charge...kinda like the basis of supernovae?
Except, instead of gravity doing the inward work, it's outwardly caused by boom material. Is that right?
>>28471472
Might I suggest you go back to Nuclear Weapons Design 101?
You're not explaining yourself very well.
>>28471031
I hate Nukes, they ruined warfare for everyone.
We should nuke nukes once and for all, be done with this shit, and commission a dozen Iowas, two squadrons of F-22's and whatnot with all the money we saved.
School ships full of lolis for instance.
>>28471696
>I hate Nukes, they ruined warfare for everyone.
suck it nigger, without the same forces you wouldn't be able to shitpost
how do like them apples
>>28471712
Yeah because electricity mastering can only be traced back to nuclear power right?
Are you always that dumb or are you doing it on purpose?
>>28471749
>nuclear force is a complete fiction and has absolutely nothing to do with our day to day functioning as organisms
Are you fucking retarded?
No.
This isn't a troll, or a meme.
Answer me with complete honesty: are you fucking retarded? Do you have a mental handicap?
>>28471749
>nuclear physics
>"electricity mastering"
>>28471749
>electricity mastering can only be traced back to nuclear power
dude
what
>>28471749
>nuclear physics doesn't exist
>>28471363
So basically that big bastard is already falling at terminal velocity, then the outer plate protecting the explosive material slams into the ground, the material continues to go terminal velocity until it slams into the stopped outer shell?
I don't know the first thing about nuclear devices but that's cool if I got it right.
>>28471749
>electricity mastering can only be traced back to nuclear power right
>>28471696
>>28471749
I don't disagree on the schoolships full of lolis but there's a good chance if nukes didn't exist they'd be a sure lot more dead people in the world.
Also, that other anon was talking about nuclear weapons and not nuclear power.
>>28471749
>electricity mastering can only be traced back to nuclear power
>>28471749
>electricity mastering can only be traced back to nuclear power right?
w t f
t
f
>>28471778
He didn't say anything about nuclear power you utter quadraspaz.
Go back and read what he exactly wrote.
>>28471749
>Yeah because electricity mastering can only be traced back to nuclear power right?
>>28471802
>He didn't say anything about nuclear power
>>28471749
>nuclear power
>>28471805
Sorry, quoted wrong person.
>>28471782
Generally nukes detonate above ground level so that the shockwave can travel much farther as opposed to being trapped in a bomb crater.
>does not know about strong and weak nuclear force
THIS ENTIRE THREAD.
YOU MORONS.
>>28472157
>SET DAMAGE CONTROL TO MAX
>>28471031
A bomb requires much higher enrichment than nuclear fuel, so they would have to break into a nuclear weapons facility and I gotta say I don't think that is very likely.
Where the fuck did Oppenheimer even go after they doxxed him
>>28472334
>so they would have to break into a nuclear weapons facility
that is exactly what the lecturer is discussing
>and I gotta say I don't think that is very likely.
well yeah but he's discussing the possibility/practicability of the weapon, not its likelihood.
if you actually listen to the lecture you'll hear him say that there are whole security arrangements devised specifically to prevent his *because* it is possible to fill and detonate a device inside such a facility.
>>28472448
How are they going to make a bomb from fuel rods?
They would need to extract the PU, then make a bomb from that
Aka a ton of equipment & time & experience they won't have.
>>28471031
Oppenheimer can't even confirm what's on the wiki page, He's said so many times.
As for how to assemble a critical mass without a precise detonation sounds like some Fox news bullshit and would probably just be a dirty bomb.
>>28473382
Not saying that there isn't ways to make the implosion process more space-efficient, W88 has a linear implosion primary to fit in the nose section of the warhead IIRC. Your average terrorist joe with a stolen pit probaly wouldn't come up with anything smaller than a pickup truck.
>>28471749
Electricity mastering can only be traced back to nuclear power when going the rifling in place
>>28471785
was there more than one season of GuP? i never saw a shot like that one.
>>28473317
>>28473382
I don't fault you two for not listening to an hour-long lecture, but these assumptions are out of control. it's nothing to do with fuel rods or dirty bombs or whatever you're imagining.
in the lecture he says that it's possible to build a bomb, sans material, then break into a facility full of weapons-grade material, fill the bomb with it, and set it off. you know, exactly how bombs are normally built. except in this case it's being done by a terrorist cell.
his point is that building the bomb itself is relatively easy if you know how to make one, the hard part is manufacturing the material, so obviously stealing it would be easier.
the whole thing about blowing the bomb up inside the materials facility is supported, he says, by the fact that there are security measures taken just to keep people from getting *to* the material, specifically to prevent this kind of scenario. his point with this whole anecdote is to illustrate that smuggling material out of the facility is not the only threat.
>>28472157
This is like one of those cartoons where someone falls from a plane and their chute deploys after they hit the ground
>>28471782
>So basically that big bastard is already falling at terminal velocity,
Terminal velocity is very, very, VERY much slower than the wavefront of the HE shock wave needed to implode a nuke pit.
>>28473562
>2016
>not going the rifling in place
I seriously hope you guys don't ever be far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
>>28471031
>This guy repeatedly hints at the existence of implosion-type weapons that do not require complex explosive lenses
What an implosion device needs is a spherical shock wave. Precicesly timed shaped charges (lenses) are one way of doing this. To simplifiy the timing problem, you would generate a planar shock wave and then 'focus' it on the warhead pit. Think mirrors and lenses but for shock waves instead of light.
>>28471696
Are these from The Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson?
>>28478574
>you would generate a planar shock wave and then 'focus' it on the warhead pit. Think mirrors and lenses but for shock waves instead of light.
So how is that actually done?
>>28481141
Mah nigga.
And I never made that connection before, but that actually explains how they could have made those fuck huge ships. And everything else really. Fucking nano machines.
>>28478574
I think we harp on far to much about the compressed core being a perfect sphere. It just needs to be super critical.
>>28482641
Yeah, but a sphere is the best way of achieving that. The amount of material you need if it's spherical is significantly less than if it were some other shape.
>>28482551
Stop achmet.
>>28482792
The difference between a perfect sphere and a golfball-shape is nothing if it means your weapons is far more compact.
>>28482902
>The difference between a perfect sphere and a golfball-shape
But both of those things are spheres.
What are you babbling about?
>>28483303
>perfect sphere and a golfball-shape
How do you not understand, is english not your first language? If so, ok. If not, what the fuck anon go back to scool.
>>28483358
A golf ball is a sphere, anon.
>>28483379
This is some really poor trolling.
>>28483369
But it is far from a perfect sphere. READING IS HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHD.
>>28483392
I'm trying to decide if you're just trolling really, really poorly or you genuinely do not understand how nuclear weapons work.
>>28482902
>The difference between a perfect sphere and a golfball-shape is nothing if it means your weapons is far more compact.
what did he mean by this?
>>28482551
>So how is that actually done?
Lots and lots of HE R&D and testing with various materials and configurations.
>>28482792
>significantly less
Define 'significantly'. And keep in mind that, for a 'perfect' sphere, a small error in HE detonation timing will also introduce some inefficiencies in the reaction. You can spend all your money machining a ball. But if your triggers are off by a few nanoseconds, you still lose perfection.
But like horseshoes, with nuclear weapons, close enough works too.
>>28483701
>'perfect' sphere
I never said anything about a perfect sphere. I simply said it was better for it to be spherical than some other shape, for example a cube, or a pancake, or whatever.
sphere is best because it maximizes fission.
>>28471802
You must be really ashamed now.
