View Full Version : The Atomic Bomb Movie
Anyone seen it? I just did, and it's just breathtaking... Man, I'd love to own one of them H-Bombs so I could hold the world hostage... for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!... oh, erm *coughcough* nvm :p (Oh, and the whole movie is narrated by The Great Shatn0r :lol: )
Bugs Gunny
02-03-05, 17:11
"Man with wig talks about outdated device."
Wanna see something realy funny? Try finding the "duck & cover" official us government prevention movie for a nuclear attack.
That one is hilarious :-)
dark_reaper
02-03-05, 21:57
Here is one from ebaums world http://www.ebaumsworld.com/dac.shtml funny as shit, :lol:
here is the origional shit. Also funny as hell. http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=19069
Anyone seen it? I just did, and it's just breathtaking... Man, I'd love to own one of them H-Bombs so I could hold the world hostage... for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!... oh, erm *coughcough* nvm (Oh, and the whole movie is narrated by The Great Shatn0r )
Hmmm, an H Bomb. I dont think those old pieces of junk can even destroy a small redneck town. You should think more of the Nuclear Fission or Nuclear Fusion bombs. They tend to do a bit more damage. A Bright Flash and then a shcokwave/ EMP, then the ring of fire. Then radiation contamination for 10000 years. I think all you need is radiation contamination, look at Chernobyl it is effective and you dont have to rebuild.
Gotterdammerung
02-03-05, 22:12
Hmmm, an H Bomb. I dont think those old pieces of junk can even destroy a small redneck town.
An H bomb is a Hydrogen bomb, the most powerful of all thermonuclear weapons. The highest yield ever was an H-bomb at either bikini or kwajelean atoll, it was the "bravo" test and was the largest man made explosion ever recorded.
p.s. relevent link
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX51.html
that and nulear fusion isnt man-made possible atm i thought....
Mighty Max
02-03-05, 22:22
that and nulear fusion isnt man-made possible atm i thought....
It sure is, preatty easy tho. The H(fusion)-Bomb was just a small step from the A-Bomb.
The fusion itself isnt very difficult to accomplish. The prob is it burns itself out of fuel too fast and the enormous heat would melt any container holding it.
The goal currently in the works at CERN & other scientific institutes is to make a self feeding flame of plasma hold in an electro magnetic field. afaik they only got to milli seconds yet ...
Jesterthegreat
02-03-05, 22:23
that and nulear fusion isnt man-made possible atm i thought....
yeah... some people take neocron too far :p
i thought h bomb was fission...
bah what do i know lol
dark_reaper
02-03-05, 23:20
An H bomb is a Hydrogen bomb, the most powerful of all thermonuclear weapons. The highest yield ever was an H-bomb at either bikini or kwajelean atoll, it was the "bravo" test and was the largest man made explosion ever recorded.
p.s. relevent link
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX51.html
WOW!!! :eek: People actually go to the PBS website. I work for the organization and only been there twice. Studying Quantum physics. Very intresting stuff, and QS does deal with Nuclear Fission and Fusion.
A Nuclear Fusion was supposingly the first bomb constructed. The A-Bomb was the first nuclear fusion ever i think, been a while sence I studied this stuff. But It fused two halfs of U 235. The American Thermo-Nuclear bomb is infact the most powerful weapon with an unlimited explosive power. That Duck and Cover shit wont work for that. Only safe places is either in a Underground Bunker, bomb shelter, or a cave. Radiation cannot travel far underground.
The Thermo Nuke bombs are Fission Bombs.
Suprisingly what you learn in physics :D
H bomb is fission MK. ;)
is it an implosion type of detonation ? -just got very curious.
Mighty Max
02-03-05, 23:37
H bomb is fission MK. ;)
Nuclear fission: Splitting big atoms in parts ... resulting mass is lower then the starting mass => Energy
U235/238 are huge atoms ... they are splitted.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fission1.shtml
Nuclear Fusion: Melting small atoms to bigger ... resaulting mass is lower then the starting mass => Energy
H (Tritium,Deutrium) are small atoms (Mass 2 bzw 3 protonmasses) they are melted to He which weights 4 protonmasses
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fusion/Fusion1.shtml
Hope that clears it.
(btw. the fussion in the H bomb is ignited by the fission of a conventinal A-Bomb)
thats the site i was just at reading about it. ;)
technically both.
just thought that a nuclear warhead could be detonated using conventional explosives to create the neccessary pressure and heat to start the fusion. hence the "it is fission" remark 9after reading that site).
Mighty Max
03-03-05, 00:22
Interesting would be the energy that is produceable when the higgs field could be manipulated :D
Waive the field and accelerate anything, and regain the energy out of the movement with the higgs field fully in place again ...
Guess it will need another one or two centuries before that happens ... they yet failed to proove the existance of higgs-bosones.
If atomic bomb testing wasent banned im sure the biggest man made explosion would be much bigger. The hydro bombs are somthing like 100x (i remember hearing 1000x, but that cant be right) as powerfull as the ones were in ww2. Also did you know america is actualy developing a nuclear RPG launcher right now? That and ive heard some story on tv about a nuclear bomb the size of a thermas, but then again that could be BS.
It sure is, preatty easy tho. The H(fusion)-Bomb was just a small step from the A-Bomb.
A hydrogen bomb works much better then a regular nuke. In a regular nuke you have explosives around the uranium that go off at exactly the same time and it causes critical mass and it explodes. A hydrogen bomb is much more powerfull. Basicly the plutonium is set into critical mass by uranium reaching critical mass. Its like a bunch of regular nukes and then some. This is how i understand it, though im not sure if im right. You know i just read about these things. Correct me if im wrong please.
(i may have got the plutonium and uranium backwards.)
Mighty Max
03-03-05, 01:35
Plutonium is basically only Uranium+1. The principle is the same.
The critical mass is only much less, so already a sphere of 8cm (5,4kg) diameter would reach it.
The hydrogen bomb then turns in that energy to split lithium (a metal) into Tritium. Together with supplied Deutrium they melt together to Helium where the main energy comes from.
Its a simply calc. The mol of Plutonium is 239g. Of one atom around 3 neutrons (depending in which parts it falls apart) will be lost and transformed into energy. So the efficiency is 3/239 = 1.3%. The mol of a 50:50mix of Tritium and Deutrium is 2.5g out of two atoms one neutron will be transformed to energy. The efficency therefor is 1/(2.5*2) = 20%.
The D-T-fusion produces therefor around 16 times the power of a plutonium bomb at the same active-mass.
Studying Quantum physics.Sorry to have to say this but going by this thread you would fail spectacularly if you were.
The American Thermo-Nuclear bomb is infact the most powerful weapon with an unlimited explosive power. Nope - as with most Cold War pissing contests the Russians came out miles ahead - link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) link (http://web.archive.org/web/20030803005716/http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Russia/TsarBomba.html). For reference the inner ring on the attached pic is the "Total Destruction Radius" and the outer is the "Heavy Damage Radius". The fireball would have reached pretty much all of the M25.
Its scary to think about nukes the diagram of London and all, it would only take 5 seconds if that to completely remove London off the face of this planet. I mean completey, nothing left just vapourised falling as ash in newcastle, the impact would be felt where I live up north and maybe even the sound lol. Theres 2 stages in a nuclear explosion stage 1 positive wave stage 2 negative wave, the positive wave is intense heat and light. Any people exposed within the lethal zone won't even know what killed them, there is a very high ammount of radiation released that travels at the speed of light. This gamma radiation passes through allmost anything but lead and any people it passes through that are close to the burst it kills fairly quickly.
AS the cloud expands it forces the air around it outwards the heat off it ignites everything, the air being forced smashes windows rips off roofs blows cars and people 100 foot into the air. That causes a vaccum and as the air rushes back to fill that vaccum you get the negative wave which is much stronger than the positive wave. It basicly sucks everything into the explosion any buildings that are left standing are then totaly destroyed
Sleep well tonight ;)
-=Dredduk=-
03-03-05, 03:06
8| I live just outside london :rolleyes:
Edit:/// actually i live basically in the center of london (look for swanley/thurrock) i live around there 8| :eek:
dark_reaper
03-03-05, 04:46
Sorry to have to say this but going by this thread you would fail spectacularly if you were.
Quantum Physics and Nuclear Physics are almost a completely different type of subject. Quatumn Physics is smaller than atom state, which is called Quatumn.
Nope - as with most Cold War pissing contests the Russians came out miles ahead - link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) link (http://web.archive.org/web/20030803005716/http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Russia/TsarBomba.html). For reference the inner ring on the attached pic is the "Total Destruction Radius" and the outer is the "Heavy Damage Radius". The fireball would have reached pretty much all of the M25.
That is true about the Soviet Nuke. But the problem with Soviet Thermo-Nuclear weapons is that they are limited. The American Thermo-Nuclear Bombs were Unlimited. And that Tsar nuke can put a nice dent in the earth.
Mighty Max
03-03-05, 10:12
Quantum Physics and Nuclear Physics are almost a completely different type of subject. Quatumn Physics is smaller than atom state, which is called Quatumn.
I might err, but arn't coliders a basic tool of quantum physics? I mean i remember some hearings of my physics prof about the method to experimental proove the existance of quarks, gluons and bosones. ... They mostly included high energy fusions in cyclotrons ...
Desy (the german one) is just some miles away from here.
Quantum Physics and Nuclear Physics are almost a completely different type of subject.
No. This is precisely what I was referring to. (Before you reply I'll mention that I read astro-physics at university so I DO know what I'm talking about).
That is true about the Soviet Nuke. But the problem with Soviet Thermo-Nuclear weapons is that they are limited. The American Thermo-Nuclear Bombs were Unlimited. And that Tsar nuke can put a nice dent in the earth.
Please explain how you can make an "unlimited" bomb.....
dark_reaper
03-03-05, 10:46
ah forget it, I studied basic Physica and Aerodynamics part 1 so far. Oh what I mean by Unlimited. A bomb with unlimited capabilities. I have read that somewhere. Lets see....
Hmm cant find it. I know the First peacetime Nuclear accident was the SL-1 reactor. The accident happened in Idaho on Janruary 3, 1961. Apparently 3 guys were triying to restart the SL-1 reactor. SL-1 Stands for Stationary Low-Power Plant no. 1. It is experemental. On jan 3, three men tries to restart the reactor. Apparently A control rod got stuck 4 inches above the safety limit. The Hydrogen gas builds up. BANG! The reactor it self launched 9ft (3m) into the air. The first victim was impailed by an control rod in the ceiling. The other 2 died of radiation exposure. Then a few days later they dismantled everything, now the place is ruins.
Mighty Max
03-03-05, 11:29
A bomb with unlimited capabilities. I have read that somewhere. Lets see....
(edit: maybe i read that "A bomb" false this time, but anyways: )
The A-Bomb is strictly limited due to some very special behaviors:
1. No single active mass in the construction might overgo the critical mass (it would explode right away)
2. The masses when put together must do that simultan. If they would dither by 1/100 of a sec, the mass would be blown out of the explosion and never contribute to the critical mass.
So you have the prob with compining as much mass as you can. The best principle for this is the Big Boy principle where a empty sphere of uranium is centered by a slightly below critical mass plutonium. Put any more mass in the speher => explosion. put any more mass to the plutonium => explosion.
Limit reached.
Bugs Gunny
03-03-05, 11:31
Funny how you can read this stuff about quarks and atoms in between posts like :"What's a poke?" :-)
:) that picture looks good as a desktop backround
Jesterthegreat
03-03-05, 14:48
never argue with jernau...
on any subject...
ever...
he knows to damn much :p
Please explain how you can make an "unlimited" bomb.....
isnt that just a case of using more of using a bigger core of dueterium(?sp) and tritium to go critical and a larger amount of U235 in the construction to provide more 'fuel' to the fusion process = bigger bang
-just thinking...may not be possible..
-dredd...swanley/thurrock ?? isnt there like 3/4 junctions on the m25 between those?
but yeah..dodgy gravesend (me) is just outside the fireball (area of disintegration) so would be blown over :lol: :(
dont abuse me...electrical/telecoms type not physics type. only rudementary thoughts.
Hell-demon
03-03-05, 17:16
Speaking of radiation can someone explain the Chernobyl incident to me. I know the reactor had a meltdown and the whole area evacuated but someone explain all the little details to me :)
My school doesn't teach this kind of stuff :(
Clicky (http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm) for Tschernobyl-info.
Basically, they were operating a nuclear powerplant that was flawed in it's construction, and they were doing so without proper training...
31 people died in the accident itself, and the deaths accounted to this it since are still in the 10s... (I'd say this incident was greatly exaggerated, but well... :rolleyes: )
//Edit - Posted for convenience:
On 25 April, prior to a routine shut-down, the reactor crew at Chernobyl-4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power following a loss of main electrical power supply. Similar tests had already been carried out at Chernobyl and other plants, despite the fact that these reactors were known to be very unstable at low power settings.
A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. As flow of coolant water diminished, power output increased. When the operator moved to shut down the reactor from its unstable condition arising from previous errors, a peculiarity of the design caused a dramatic power surge.
The fuel elements ruptured and the resultant explosive force of steam lifted off the cover plate of the reactor, releasing fission products to the atmosphere. A second explosion threw out fragments of burning fuel and graphite from the core and allowed air to rush in, causing the graphite moderator to burst into flames.
There is some dispute among experts about the character of this second explosion. The graphite burned for nine days, causing the main release of radioactivity into the environment. A total of about 12 x 1018 Bq of radioactivity was released. See also appended sequence of events.
Some 5000 tonnes of boron, dolomite, sand, clay and lead were dropped on to the burning core by helicopter in an effort to extinguish the blaze and limit the release of radioactive particles.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html
roughly: think that people got careless and turned some saftey messures off or ignored them to run simulations and tests.
you know the it is radioactive material (as formed in rods for easy use and design) are sunk into coolant to generate the power.
instead of shuting down when the rods become exposed (without the correct amount of coolant) the RBMK reactor would actually start to have increased reactions. as in faster and hotter.
allegedly 205 of 280 rods caused the explosion -due to this increase of heat/reaction and lack of coolant in the tubes. damn people shouldn't be so ignorant and admit to not knowing what the hell they're doing. basically
dammit mishkin. ;)
Hell-demon
03-03-05, 17:33
Arent there areas of Chernobyl that have been closed off due to radiation lurking in the area :confused:
Mighty Max
03-03-05, 17:33
My school doesn't teach this kind of stuff
My didnt either, but i can remember when all adults where hysterical about us kids playing in the guarden :p
In 1986 one of reactorswas used for an experiment about the controlable mass of the reaction. While the system was operating at it limits the temperature was that high that the cooling system was not able to do its work anymore.
The meltdown itself is one of the baddest thing a reactor can happen. unfortunally in Tschernobyl there happened some more ... due to a constructing fault that increased the energy produced by the reactor when they tried to turn it down again the water in the cooling mechansim splitted into it parts: Hydrogen and Oxygen ... the following explosion emmitted large amounts of nuclear contamined mass in the air.http://www.reyl.de/tschernobyl/img/offener%20Vulkan/openschlund.jpg
The protecting hull of Tschernobyl wasnt anymore. The nuclear contamined material was collected by unprotected soldiers (which mostly died afterwards) http://www.reyl.de/tschernobyl/img/liquidation/liqsinaction.jpg and the reactor was filled with a PB-cement mix. The area around Tschenobyl is and will for a very long time still be contamined. Even in western europe you can still measure an increased value of radioactive. Which was left by the clouds: http://www.reyl.de/tschernobyl/img/offener%20Vulkan/wolke/3wolken.jpg
Hell-demon
03-03-05, 17:35
FUCK YES!
I found this looky here! (http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html)
I remember I found this some time ago its amazing this woman travels round Chernobyl and has nifty pics inside the ghost town
ENJOY!
ENJOY!
not the best choice of words.:rolleyes:
but we get what you mean.
Hell-demon
03-03-05, 17:39
Its realy fucking creepy especially in one of the chapters when she finds that kids doll and other deserted creepy houses :eek:
Dribble Joy
03-03-05, 18:40
Please explain how you can make an "unlimited" bomb.....
I believe that there was some 'theory' that a nuke of sufficient power would cause regular matter to fission in the same way as nuclear matterial, causeing a cascade effect throughout all matter the blast encountered, Ie, the entire earth would be consumed.
Man made fusion is possible, but as said, the problem is maintaining it.
In order to keep the reaction going you need to produce a high enough rate of energy released. Supplying the fuel fast enough is tricky.
I believe they have had stable fusion reactions lasting into the single figures of seconds.
Higgs field stuff is very iffy. Using it to give a particle energy and using that for heating/electricity generation is fine, but where are you getting that energy from? The field will not be unchanged if you remove energy from it, this could lead to all sorts of stuff happening.
isnt that just a case of using more of using a bigger core of dueterium(?sp) and tritium to go critical and a larger amount of U235 in the construction to provide more 'fuel' to the fusion process = bigger bang
-just thinking...may not be possible..As Max said above size itself becomes the limiting factor.
Shell elements can only be of a certain size (and shape to some extent) and cannot be too close together in stored positions or during the implosion.
The timing and control systems is where the real complexity comes into the design and where I doubt any of us have any real information to share.
@DJ - There was a lot of wild speculation about all kinds of things in the early days of nuclear experimentation. Time has proved most of the more obvious guesses wrong.
/edit - If you didn't know, she did another trip (link (http://www.theserpentswall.com/)) which is also fascinating if rather morbid.
Dribble Joy
03-03-05, 18:58
@DJ - There was a lot of wild speculation about all kinds of things in the early days of nuclear experimentation. Time has proved most of the more obvious guesses wrong.
I know.
-dredd...swanley/thurrock ?? isnt there like 3/4 junctions on the m25 between those?
but yeah..dodgy gravesend (me) is just outside the fireball (area of disintegration) so would be blown over :lol: :(
romford here... guess id be fucked :D
I know.
I thought you would ;).
I thought you would ;).
Offcourse, he not dumb as you.... :p
dark_reaper
03-03-05, 22:01
Has anyone ever heard of Project Orion? Or even Anti-Matter Propulsion and power?
Oh here are some Chernobyl pics and diagrams.
Hell-demon
03-03-05, 22:02
nope enlighten meh :confused:
Yeah.
I think Gotter mentioned it once before too though I can't recall why.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03h.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion)
dark_reaper
03-03-05, 23:08
I found a few links of Different Propulsion. God I love NASA. Lol I even found the blueprints of the Space Shuttles. But it is on a different site.
Oh here are some links of Different Propulsions.
Antimatter (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/100400main_antimatter_propulsion.pdf)
Fission Propulsion (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/100407main_fission_propulsion.pdf)
Ion Propulsion (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/106171main_ion_propulsion.pdf)
Screw water, if we can find oil in space we will have space travel in notime.
Dribble Joy
04-03-05, 00:40
Problem with most of these systems is the massive forces they produce.
Sitting a person inside a capsule and letting rip a nuke under him will initiate the 'chunky salsa' theory.
Astronauts allready encounter up to 4g on take off with convensional rockets.
Untill we can find a way of distributing the force on an object or volume evenly (inertial dampening), then most of these ideas will probably remain that.
Where we should focus now is more efficient ways of doing things.
Lighting a roman candle of liquid oxygen and hydrgen as we do now is incredibly wastefull.
I could be talking out my arse of course. I'm an engineering student.
A lot of that can be negated if a way were found around the initial gravity-well problem - that is getting from the surface of the earth into orbit. Once there things get a lot easier and literally hundreds of options open up to us. Relatively leisurely accelerations applied constantly for a period of days would be enough to open up the Solar System to regular traffic. Hell, even our current chemical rockets and thrusters could be given a new lease of life if they didn't have to burn most of their mass just the reach the starting line.
What we need is a space elevator (http://www.liftport.com/).
dark_reaper
04-03-05, 01:04
I was an Aerospace Engineering student for like a semester. But I got a offer that I could not refuse. Now I am in Film/ Broadcast working as a Cinematographer/ Director or Technical Director.
All of those Engines work. They are on test stands in alabama or at JPL working, producing the exhaust for propulsion. Antimatter is another story. Antimatter does exist and being developed in several Universities. Also very expensive to develope. That would be asome to travel to the moon in 7.5 min.
The problem with Antimatter is that it is very unstable. In a large enough quantity it would make a nuke look like TNT.
Amazing what you can find on NASA.
Dribble Joy
04-03-05, 06:27
Space elevators still require you to expend the energy needed to raise the payload out of the gravity well, but as I said, a more efficient way of doing it than rockets.
The propulsion methods given may well work but getting to the moon in 7.5 mins would liquify any human on board if not crush the entire craft to pieces.
Space elevators still require you to expend the energy needed to raise the payload out of the gravity well, but as I said, a more efficient way of doing it than rockets.Actually it wouldn't be hard to get more energy out of an elevator than you put in. For starters it would open up the possibility of commercial asteroid mining (EVE players rejoice :lol: ) and the energy from dropping a few tons of rock through the atmosphere is massive. Then there's a variety of thermal, physical and electrical effects we could harness along it's length. If done right it would be a case of what to do with all the extra energy production not the other way round.
The propulsion methods given may well work but getting to the moon in 7.5 mins would liquify any human on board if not crush the entire craft to pieces.Aye, 7.5 mins is daft. A couple of days though is quick enough for most people for now though I'd expect.
The problem with Antimatter is that it is very unstable. In a large enough quantity it would make a nuke look like TNT.
:wtf: What?
By definition it is EXACTLY as "stable" as the normal matter it is the anti- of.
What we need is a space elevator (http://www.liftport.com/).
goddammit..
i was sure my idea of a magnetic lift into the reaches of space was original.
theres no such thing as an original idea anymore, damn internet lets everyone show ideas, theories and information too well. stupid wright brothers and mr bell wouldnt have credit on their plane/phone.
internet stopping me being brilliant :lol: everyones fault but mine.
EDIT: technically, if a materials organisation can find a way of making a reflective material that wont burn through to easily - lasers would make a very effective method to get things into the upper atmosphere (dont know how you could apply the technology in space due to forces in space.)
just out of interest:
does antimatter only react with its 'normal' counterpart.
if as theorised, hydrogen and 'anti'hydrogen are used to make antimatter propulsion, will the antimatter only react when charged to matter ?
would make harvesting the 'anti' elements to produce reactions just a little bit hazardous, so i presume they do.
also, ist it just a little bit hard to find the anitmatter in the 1st place..didnt think you could see it without some sort of background illumination (gaseous clusters etc.)
-again, not science buff be nice ;)
goddammit..
i was sure my idea of a magnetic lift into the reaches of space was original.
theres no such thing as an original idea anymore, damn internet lets everyone show ideas, theories and information too well. stupid wright brothers and mr bell wouldnt have credit on their plane/phone.
internet stopping me being brilliant :lol: everyones fault but mine.
EDIT: technically, if a materials organisation can find a way of making a reflective material that wont burn through to easily - lasers would make a very effective method to get things into the upper atmosphere (dont know how you could apply the technology in space due to forces in space.)LOL :D
The idea of space tethers, skyhooks, etc are over a century old now I'm afraid. There are some really fascinating and brilliant ideas out there on how to make them work. I wouldn't be surprised to see one working in my lifetime anymore which is pretty amazing considering that when I was at school they were treated as pure sci-fi.
/edit - EM propulsion is another classic (also made famous by Arthur C Clarke). It's no use for getting out the atmosphere but would be feasible once you were in space.
/edit 2 (anitmatter) - It's at the particle level - for example an anti-proton will exactly neutralise a proton. It would be very hard to artificially create whole atoms from antimatter (at least with our current knowledge it is). Individual anti-matter particles can occur naturally (for instance anti-neutrinos in Beta Decay) but the more massive ones like anti-neutrons and anti-protons require VAST amounts of energy to produce so we make (and destroy) them artificially in supercolliders.
The unseen mass you are referring to is "dark matter" - a theoretical form of matter proposed to explain the fact that galaxies seem to have more about seven times as much mass than we can actually observe.
Mighty Max
04-03-05, 13:42
EDIT: technically, if a materials organisation can find a way of making a reflective material that wont burn through to easily - lasers would make a very effective method to get things into the upper atmosphere (dont know how you could apply the technology in space due to forces in space.)
I think you are refering the tests with a cone lifted by pulsed laser?
Unfortunally this doesnt work in space. The effect is generated by the strong expansion of the heated air below the cone which focusses the beam.
A much more interesting thought comes (again) from colliders. If you shot real short bursts of light onto a thin metal foil, you can accelerate electrons in the foil out of it. That was first accomplished by APM lasers which combine multi mode-light that way that the peaks of each mode is within pico seconds.
If someone finds away to adjust the power to a level where the electrons are only slightly accelerated outside the foil and make it a bit more continous (not only) a pico second every x seconds. it would accelerate the foil as the left ions and lifted electrons need to combine again.
The thing in this theory tho i dont really understand is, that this would break Newtons 3rd law and afaik ... that shouldnt be the case. But what would be the reactio? it would have to build up in the laser itself, but then again if you direct the laser to a direction with no matter ... you'd only get the lasers force but no reactio at the target ... hence there is no target.... oO
as you can tell i know enough to question, but not enough to converse :p
tune in next week, on neocrons science journal for:
"Light: wave or particle?" and "String theory: more unsubstansive egg head theory?"
:D
Learn to use " Dirty Bombs ", They are ment to spreed Radioactive waste over a special area. I dont remeber how much its radie of Radioactive waste was... Dirty Bomb is a kinda nuke lol just that it drop Radioactive waste :p But its hard to take cover from one...from nuke you can hide in a good bunker an survive but if it drops a Dirty Bomb close the bunker you locked up! You can go out because you would die of the radioation...So Dirty Bombs are Effective to.
Kinda.
There are two types - the older but less used one is a normal nuke with too much or too little reactive material which means when it detonates a lot of radioactive material is ejected and makes a large land area very dangerous to deal with. Most early nuclear weapons (including those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) fall into this category.
The more normal usage now is to describe a conventional high-explosive device with a payload of non-reactive nuclear material. It's not a nuclear bomb at all really it's more like a nail-bomb except instead of throwing nails everywhere it throws radioactive dust.
Mighty Max
04-03-05, 16:06
Uhm Skusty, Dirty Bombs are conventional Bombs (explosives) which are used to spread dirty (contamined) mass around.
They are espacially a pain because they can be easily produced (as they are conventional) and cause an unknown amount of damage over an unknown amount of time. There are 2 means of dirty bombs: radioactive and biological contamined
It is espacially harmfull to civilians, cuz of its psychological results. The plain damage is limited.
Well this is the type i learned about :rolleyes:
lol can't belive you guys talkin about H bombs and stuff kos there fucking AMAZING love to know more than what they just do :/ anyway hope i'm not in one don't wanna die out of breath horible..:(
Dribble Joy
04-03-05, 18:41
Dirty bombs don't even have to be dangerous besides the initial blast from the convensional explosives.
If a bomb goes off one of the first thing that happens is that the area is sealed and checked for contaminants, if they pick up higher than background readings then there is nuclear material present.
The dose to people nearby and to anyone subsequently is little more than getting an x-ray done.
The key to these types of attacks is the psycological aspect, nothing to do with the actual harm they do.
And they can be made using household appliances (no I am not telling you how).
"Light: wave or particle?"
Both, neither and depends which way you want them to be.
Anti-matter anhialates matter. When the two fuse/collide both are destroyed and energy is released via the mass loss. Same way as nukes use the mass defect to create energy.
Dark matter may not even exist.
The problem scientists found was that according to the laws of gravitation and motion, there was not enough mass in the universe to keep it moving as it was.
It appeared that at long range, the force of gravity was stronger than it should, or that there was matter 'missing'.
So there was either something out there that we couldn't see, or there was something wrong with Newton's theorys.
The problem is Newton didn't get it wrong, in theory and practice it works. Or at least it works within the known and measurable limits that we can observe.
What many now surmise is that at extreme ranges (both long and short), that Newton's theory doesn't act quite as it should.
The law of gravitation is simple, very simple. A combination of product and inverse square. F=(GMm)/r^2. Which works very well for all current applications and the vast majority of theory.
The likelyhood that this is true for all values, especially extreme ones, where we are unsure of the real laws of physics, is probably quite high.
Again - kinda ;).
(I'll clarify because I'm a pedant, not because I'm getting at you DJ :)).
Dark matter was coined as a phrase to describe a problem rather than any one theory that answered the problem.
The problem is that measurements of galactic masses based on their gravitational effects (in GRT terms, not Newtonian) on their neighbours don't match those from direct observation of the galactic mass itself.
Whether the Dark Matter problem is solved by finding actual matter or by changing our understanding of how things work remains to be seen but it's looking more and more likely it really is matter that we just can't see.
The main reason it's important is that the amount of matter in the universe tells us a lot about how things started and how they will end. Of particular interest is whether the universe will eventually fall in on itself, stretch thinner and thinner forever (cold death) or reach a thermal equilibrium (very like cold death but confusingly called heat death).
Dribble Joy
04-03-05, 19:35
They have allready shown that the universe is actually accellerating in it's expansion, rather than slowing down or remaining constant.
Whether this will remain so is unknown (but it has allways been according to all observations).
They have allready shown that the universe is actually accellerating in it's expansion, rather than slowing down or remaining constant.
Whether this will remain so is unknown (but it has allways been according to all observations).
Well....
It depends on what values you assume for things like the cosmological constant.
Therein lies the big problem atm - the margin for error is still greater than the actual result so we just don't know for certain. We are pretty sure most things are better explained if certain others are true but until it can all be proven it's just a lot of pretty pictures and terrifying maths.
It sure is, preatty easy tho. The H(fusion)-Bomb was just a small step from the A-Bomb.
The fusion itself isnt very difficult to accomplish. The prob is it burns itself out of fuel too fast and the enormous heat would melt any container holding it.
The goal currently in the works at CERN & other scientific institutes is to make a self feeding flame of plasma hold in an electro magnetic field. afaik they only got to milli seconds yet ...
The problem isn't making a container to hold the plasma, nor is it a problem of fuel consumption. The problem with fusion is making it generate more energy than it takes to sustain the reaction. Currently they're close to breakeven (where energy consumed equals energy produced), but not quite there yet.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.