If you scaled down a nuke so it had the same blast radius as a grenade (only effecting items within a single room), how would the damage inside the blast radius differ from the grenade?
More or less heat? More or less shockwave? Is shrapnel the deciding factor?
>>29911353
Wouldn't the reaction just consume any shrapnel?
>>29911353
It just make the room radiated for several decades before any troops can move in to clear the area
>>29911368
Would it though? It's such a small amount. Maybe it would be as toxic as breaking a thermometer?
Two words, CRITICAL MASS.
You aren't going to achieve a real (or any kind of significant one for that matter) nuclear reaction with a mass that small.
>>29911449
>What is a half-life?
>>29911465
This
Small scale nuclear arms are either incredibly inefficient or just don't work at all.
nuclear weapons kill with enormous concussive force, radiation, and heat. If you're containing that force and radiation to something so small, it might blow your eardrums and knock you on your butt, but it'd be the heat that kills you.
grenades kill with shrapnel.
>>29911465
>>29911479
Sure you can. The reaction will just be short and small. Hence the grenade sized blast.
You can make a blackhole from an atom, you just need to compress it enough. It'll be a short lasting one though.
>>29912459
a black hole is different from a nuclear reaction
To get criticality and a blast, you either need a lot of nuclear material or you need an incredibly well-timed, focally perfect, and incredibly high pressure compressive explosion.. You can't do that with a hand grenade. the amount of explosive you would need to compress a grenade-sized ball of fissile material sufficient to cause a nuclear explosion would be almost suitcase-sized
>>29912782
mini-nukes when?
>>29911470
We neutron grenade now
>>29912459
Please stop posting.
t. /sci/
>>29912782
this
That is just what I want when clearing buildings, to have to wear MOPP level 4.
>>29911353
Critical mass says no...except pure/clean fusion aka fourth generation nuclear weapons doesn't need it.
Anyway, that means lots of neutrons, which means better energy coupling.
A 1-ton TNT equivalent FGNW will do much more damage than 1 ton of TNT, because it moves energy straight into the target by neutron strikes instead of through blast which suffers lots of reflected energy loss. Unfortunately, a JDAM equivalent FGNW, while roughly egg-sized and superior for killing high-density targets, would suck for CAS and collateral damage. No fallout, and the instant fatality range is only a hundred or so meters, but the death-over-several-months radius is nearly a kilometer.
So nuke grenades are great for miniaturized cruise missiles and such, but no use inside cities, and not fitted in anything with less range than an ATGM.
>>29911465
I feel like you could get a tiny amount of fissile material to go supercritical in a useful way if you used another, small yet full size(~5kt) nuclear weapon to compress it through radiation ablation. In fact, you could use that little ~1kg mass of plutonium as a source of more neutrons for some sort of spherical layer of fusion fuel.
At that rate, you'd need some sort of surrounding layer of highly dense metal to shoulder all of the hard x-rays coming off of the radiation case heated by that 5kt nuke...
since the neutrons coming out of that fusion reaction are at a whopping 14 million electron volts compared to the meager 2 million released in fission, shit's cross sections are gonna change. So better make that surrounding "tamper" layer U-235 to increase yield, and make the case U-238 'cuz shit's expensive.
>what's that you say? The 3 microseconds it takes for the 5kt primary to fully expend its energy and heat the inside of the radiation case is too long you say? You think that the "secondary" fusion assembly will have enough time to unevenly heat and will get fucked by the neutron flux of the secondary?
That's where you're wrong, motherfucker. Add some sort of material to the radiation channel(which is designed to be as small and crevice like as possible, because temp=energy/volume), like aerogel but doped with a material that has a high neutron absorption cross section for 2 MeV... like beryllium! Let's call that shit FOGBANK and keep ot super duper classified so no one can even know what it does.
Now the neutron wave from the primary are stopped and those X-rays which need to compress the secondary will ionize, render transparent to X-rays, and create in the aerogel hydrodynamic shocks which hold the channel open from ablating U-238 casing!
>wait, it's called a thermonuclear bomb you dipshit
>>29913665
More realistic, OC
>>29913665
OC cont.
>>29911465
Technically it is possible, if you use a small amount of antimatter to start the reaction.
>>29911353
Smallest we've managed was the W48 IIRC and that weighed around 100 pounds.
>>29912459
This is wrong, there is a minimum size for a quantity of matter that can be compressed past its schwarzschild radius, it's called the planck mass and it's about 22 micrograms.
>>29913665
That's all very well, doesn't really add to the fact that what OP wants can't be done.
>>29913742
It used linear implosion, which can barely even be called implosion(most of criticality insertion occurs from geonetry change and a shock induced phase change from delta to alpha phase, inferring a 23% in density). That's just a prolate spheroid of a shitton of plutonium(13kgs) and two planewave generators.
>>29913763
yeah OP is a fajjet
