Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
Nuclear device core detonation speed, etc?
What is the detonation speed in a core of thermonuclear device? The pressures generated cited by Wiki are 64 billion bar. The one of the first nuclear
tests was presumed to have been ejected the steel plate covering the mine shaft beyond escape velocity.
What would be an upper limit to any nuclear reaction mass speed, except for theoretical speed of light? What kind of effects these could exert
compared to conventional explosives? Would the (theoretical) antimatter-matter reaction have even higher reaction speeds than nuclear (fusion)?
If there was a configuration that allowed high explosives to be used as a rocket propellant, couldn't that induce huge acceleration speeds? I have
read somewhere that interceptor missiles used some sort of high energy propellant for faster acceleration?
[Edited on 17-12-2020 by Fyndium]
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1725
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
A thermonuclear device utilizes both fission and fusion, but neither process have much in common with a detonation. Both processes happen all
throughout the fuel assembly at once. Fission is a chain reaction driven by neutrons, and one step (i.e. the time it takes for one neutron to cause a
fission event) is in the order of 10 nanoseconds. The entire reaction will be over in something like 1 microsecond.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Dornier 335A
Hazard to Others
Posts: 231
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: Northern Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The velocity of the fast neutrons driving the chain reaction is close to the speed of light, so that would be the detonation velocity. I doubt the
velocity is related to the pressure like in conventional explosives though. The antimatter-matter annihilation on the other hand is not a chain
reaction so it's hard to define a detonation velocity. The reaction can only proceed in the boundary layer.
Regarding the rocket:
No rocket engine is strong enough to withstand a high explosive. So the propellant has to burn and not detonate. Now, a good rocket contains lots of
stored energy per dry weight which requires high energy density. Conventional bipropellants like liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen easily store twice as
much energy per weight as high explosives. The propellant also needs to have good efficiency, which requires light exhaust gases. Water and hydrogen
are good, nitrogen and carbon dioxide from HEs are bad. Acceleration is just a matter of thrust-to-weight ratio and has little to do with the fuel
used. The interceptor missiles probably used some kind of APCP but had a huge internal surface area to burn it as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1725
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Nah, even with fusion the speed will be less than 20% of c, for fission the average is closer to 5%. And detonation velocity simply doesn't apply,
there is no detonation as understood in the context of conventional explosives.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1346
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
HMX based rocket propellants
https://scitoys.com/he_rocket_fuels.html
In some cases high explosives can be part
of a propellant mix.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
Pyro_cat
Hazard to Others
Posts: 243
Registered: 30-4-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Dornier 335A  | The velocity of the fast neutrons driving the chain reaction is close to the speed of light, so that would be the detonation velocity. I doubt the
velocity is related to the pressure like in conventional explosives though. The antimatter-matter annihilation on the other hand is not a chain
reaction so it's hard to define a detonation velocity. The reaction can only proceed in the boundary layer.
Regarding the rocket:
No rocket engine is strong enough to withstand a high explosive. So the propellant has to burn and not detonate. Now, a good rocket contains lots of
stored energy per dry weight which requires high energy density. Conventional bipropellants like liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen easily store twice as
much energy per weight as high explosives. The propellant also needs to have good efficiency, which requires light exhaust gases. Water and hydrogen
are good, nitrogen and carbon dioxide from HEs are bad. Acceleration is just a matter of thrust-to-weight ratio and has little to do with the fuel
used. The interceptor missiles probably used some kind of APCP but had a huge internal surface area to burn it as quickly as possible.
|
What Is A Rotating Detonation Engine - And Why Are They Better Than Regular Engines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_Eh0J_4_s
|
|
|
Pyro_cat
Hazard to Others
Posts: 243
Registered: 30-4-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Since this is a nuke thread I have to add Going Nuclear a multi part series https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYu7z3I8tdEnTQMXpP6gY...
This was my favorite nuke series.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1725
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Agreed, it's well worth a watch.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2284
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
Matter-Antimatter? How fast? Dunno.
Maybe I'll explore that.
Plenty hot though. In Fission and Fusion, a tiny perectage of Mass is converted to Energy.
With Matter-Antimatter, I would assume complete Annihilation. No residual mass, all energy!
And, that would be quite a bang.
You ah... have some Anti-matter, you are looking to sell?
Used to be a guy floating around, that claimed UFOs were powered by Antimatter. It was a fun story!
I think his name is Lazar, and regardless of his stories, I believe he is a supplier that some of our members make purchases from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar
His original interviews were very entertaining. But, you can't just dial them up anymore. A few decades of me-toos, have buried things.
[Edited on 24-12-2020 by zed]
[Edited on 24-12-2020 by zed]
[Edited on 24-12-2020 by zed]
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1725
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Nuclear reactions occur in the femtosecond-range or faster, so it's getting pretty close to "instantly". The limitations will be the physical
matter/antimatter interaction.
The energy content in matter is in the order of some 20MT per kilo, meaning the Tsar Bomba converted 2.5kg (5lbs) of mass into energy.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Nitrosio
Hazard to Self
Posts: 57
Registered: 31-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Attachment: NFAQ.pdf (2.9MB)
This file has been downloaded 1052 times
atomcentral.com
nuclearweaponarchive.org
yt:thecentralnuclear
Videos:
Castle Bravo
Grable
Hardtack
Ivy Mike
Plumbbob
Redwing
Teapot
Tsar
Speed: 90km/s (Page 99)
[Edited on 5-1-2021 by Nitrosio]
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
