|
Considering this; components
|
|
Topic Started: Jul 2 2008, 11:25 PM (633 Views)
|
|
mynameis
|
Jul 2 2008, 11:25 PM
Post #1
|
|
Internet Jujitsu
- Posts:
- 1,892
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #50
- Joined:
- 01/15/08
|

What kind of explosion do you get with a neutron generator, chemical explosive, Beryllium and Plutonium (shells), with a Duterium-Tritium catalyst to enhance the explosive reaction without any U238? Fission reaction.
- Quote:
-
Fusion bombs rely on nuclear fusion. Light nuclei such as deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) combine together into heavier elements to release an immense amount of energy. Weapons that have a fusion stage are referred to as hydrogen bombs or H-bombs because of their primary fuel. hydrogen bombs are also called thermonuclear weapons because the fusion reactions within the weapons require extremely high temperatures to occur.
http://www.1913intel.com/2007/07/09/nuclear-weapon-design/
- Quote:
-
Thermonuclear Explosions
Because of the high temperatures required to initiate a nuclear fusion reaction, such devices are often called thermonuclear devices. A thermonuclear explosion can be created only by producing the required temperature, about a hundred-million Kelvins, and by forcing the material together so quickly that it will fuse rapidly. This is typically done with the isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. This led to the term "hydrogen bomb" to describe the deuterium-tritium fusion bomb.
To obtain the two parts of the fuel, pellets were made from lithium hydride, LiD, made with the deuterium isotope. The only way which was found to produce the ignition temperature was to set off a fission bomb such that it would heat and compress the lithium hydride. In the process, the lithium was bombarded with neutrons, breeding tritium. Then the deuterium-tritium fusion reaction could take place.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/bomb.html
- Quote:
-
Although not important for acute radiation effects, the isotopes carbon-14 and tritium are also of interest because of possible genetic injury. These are not direct fission products. They are produced by the interaction of fission and fusion neutrons with the atmosphere and, in the case of tritium, as a direct product of fusion reactions. Most of the tritium generated by fusion is consumed in the explosion but significant amounts survive. Tritium is also formed by the capture of fast neutrons by nitrogen atoms in the air: N-14 + n -> T + C-12. Carbon-14 in also formed by neutron-nitrogen reactions: N-14 + n -> C-14 + p. Tritium is a very weak beta emitter (18.6 KeV, no gamma) with a half-life of 12.3 years (9700 Ci/g).
Carbon-14 is also a weak beta emitter (156 KeV, no gamma), with a half-life of 5730 years (4.46 Ci/g). Atmospheric testing during the fifties and early sixties produced about 3.4 g of C-14 per kiloton (15.2 curies) for a total release of 1.75 tonnes (7.75x10^6 curies). For comparison, only about 1.2 tonnes of C-14 naturally exists, divided between the atmosphere (1 tonne) and living matter (0.2 tonne). Another 50-80 tonnes is dissolved in the oceans. Due to carbon exchange between the atmosphere and oceans, the half-life of C-14 residing in the atmosphere is only about 6 years. By now the atmospheric concentration has returned to within 1% or so of normal. High levels of C-14 remain in organic material formed during the sixties (in wood, say, or DNA).
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/EffectsNucl/WeaponEffects.htm
- Quote:
-
Using the easy to ignite, but very costly, tritium-deuterium fuel it is possible to ignite a reasonably efficient fusion burn in fuel at normal densities using the heat from a fission explosion (50-100 million degrees K). However, it is militarily desirable to use fuels that are cheaper, and more stable than tritium. Deuterium, the sole fuel in reactions 2 and 3 (see Fusion Principles), is relatively cheap (especially considering its enormous energy content) and is completely stable. Pure deuterium has been used in at least one fusion weapon test - Ivy Mike, the first true fusion weapon explosion in history (1 November 1952). Unfortunately since deuterium is hydrogen it is difficult to store. It must either be highly compressed, or liquified at extremely low temperatures. This problem can be overcome by combining the deuterium chemically with lithium to form lithium deuteride, a stable solid. An additional benefit is that through reactions 5 and 6, the lithium can itself participate in the fusion reaction.
To make use of these fuels, the slower reaction rates must be offset by compressing them to densities hundreds or thousands of times greater than those of normal conditions. At any given temperature the reaction rate goes up with the square of the density, a thousand-fold compression gives a million-fold reaction rate increase.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/EffectsNucl/WeaponEffects.htm
- Quote:
-
As soon as the classical thermonuclear bomb was invented, scientists have been searching for a way of circumventing the need for a fission-nuke trigger to the fusion-nuke part of the “hydrogen” bomb. The fissionable material in such bombs is a little bit of Lithium Deuteride and under influence of the neutrons produced by the fission trigger, Tritium is produced. The enormous temperature and pressure caused by the fission explosion then causes that Tritium to fuse with the Deuterium.
The need for a fission-nuke to fuse Tritium and Deuterium is the sole reason that fusion bombs need to be so big and heavy. Because a mere gram of Tritium-Deuterium can and will, when it fuses, do a hell of a lot more damage as seen on 9/11, if you discount the damage done to the Constitution. The only problem is: How to heat it up high enough and keep it under pressure long enough for a fusion reaction to occur.
The answer to this problem has been found in Russia and it is called Red Mercury, or Mercury-Antimony oxide (HgSbO, sometimes rumored to be Hg2Sb2O7). Red Mercury is the only Mercury compound that is a (thick, purple) liquid at room temperature. It is slightly radioactive and its half time is - according to who you believe - a few days to a year, but it is not a radioactive material unless it has been bombarded with neutrons.
Red Mercury starts out as an ordinary chemical compound. It is listed in the International Chemical Register as number 20720-76-7. When loaded with neutrons inside a nuclear reactor for a while, changes happen in the material. It’s still HgSbO, but its atoms have become unstable isotopes and lots of electrons have been knocked out of their shells. You could say that the substance has become “charged” by the radiation in the reactor. Red Mercury is not an explosive in the traditional sense, but a ballotechnic material. Ballotechnic compounds generate extreme temperatures and as a consequence, extreme pressure. Red Mercury can generate enough to initiate nuclear fusion. Even without the fusion stage, exploding Red Mercury looks the same as a conventional explosion: A handful of the substance can take out an aircraft carrier.
As to the fusion-part: A softball-size sphere of Red Mercury, when properly charged in a nuclear reactor and thereafter symetrically placed around a tiny bead of Tritium-Deuterium, constitutes a full-fledged thermo-nuclear fusion bomb with a destructive force on a par with “conventional” tactical nuclear warheads. The only good thing about it is that due to the half-time of the Red Mercury involved, its shelflife is likely much less than that of a Lebed-alleged suitcase nuke.
For those assuming that this is all conjecture or even fantasy: Samual Cohen, the inventor of the Neutron bomb (the Pope awarded him a medal for this “contribution to peace”) swears Red Mercury is real and that it keeps him awake at night. Senior-level Russian brass corroborate his assertions. Sam Cohen is not a kook. Sam Cohen is a genius and he was one of the boffins of the Manhattan Project. Sam Cohen helped France modernize their nukes. Sam Cohen is just about as far away from being a wacko conspiracy theorist as Paris Hilton is from getting a Nobel prize in Physics.
What is Red Mercury’s place in the “War on Terror”? Think about it. It’s no longer neccessary to have access to highly enriched Uranium or Plutonium to make a bomb. All you need is a chemistry set and a nuclear reactor. The War on Terror has never been about islamic extremists, it’s PNAC’s plan of grabbing the world’s remaining resources to keep the US strong and its potential adversaries weak. An Iraq or Iran with pocket-nukes does not fit in that picture. When the Americans invaded Baghdad, they found boxes full of offers for Red Mercury. The problem is not that you can, with great effort, make nukes from enriched reactor products but that you can, with little effort, make nukes by hanging a simple chemical into a reactor. This implies that no potential enemy of the United States is to be allowed to posess a working nuclear reactor.
Some more rumors & opinions about Red Mercury here.
This article shows pictures of a bottle of alleged Red Mercury found in Iraq. It does not seem likely that this is the “real thing”, because it was found in an abandoned dump, and the bottle doesn’t look like it contains something of enormous value.
This PDF, on page 127, mentions a purchase of Red Mercury by nuclear arms smugglers. Source: The Italian Police.
In Sam Cohen’s book “Shame: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb”, (Xlibris, 2000) he writes about Red Mercury on page 445, in a chapter called “We Should be Terrified!”:
“Specifically, at issue here is an extremely small pure-fusion mini-neutron bomb, roughly the size of a baseball, which in all probability the Soviets designed years ago with the knowledge of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian Mafia and what used to be called the KGB have been smuggling the technology and even the bombs themselves to known terrorist states and others who feel the need for them - at a price, a big one.”
http://www.treason.tv/category/secret-weapons/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-09-04.html (carbon dating)
- Quote:
-
Efforts to Discredit
As stories of black market red mercury trafficking began spreading, Western nations began a broad disinformation campaign to debunk the stories, ridiculing them and their authors. Leading this effort was the United States, via the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory. They put out the word that red mercury was “one half-baked scam.”
That the red mercury fusion device is not a scam has been confirmed by responsible British investigators. One, Dr. Frank Barnaby, a veteran nuclear weapon designer, secretly interviewed knowledgeable Russian scientists. These scientists confirmed to him the existence of red mercury and its great significance.
The professed Los Alamos skepticism was hardly sincere in view of an intensive investigation of such explosives mounted at Los Alamos during the 1990s. The nature (and very high level of security classification) of the investigation belied claims of its being only a half-baked scam. The subject was so serious at Los Alamos that discussions of ballotechnics were held in their highly secure Aztec SCIF (Special Compartmented Intelligence Facility).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/862344/posts
Edited by mynameis, Jul 4 2008, 08:40 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Q
|
Jul 3 2008, 06:29 AM
Post #2
|
|
A Higher Evolution
- Posts:
- 567
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #12
- Joined:
- 01/13/08
|
The only expierments of which I am aware that aim for successful fusion without using any fission to start the reaction rely on huge banks of power lasers all focused on a single point, and timed to "fire" at the moment a glass pellet containing DT drops through the focus point.
The aims of the experiments were towards the achievement of stable fusion without any fission, so that a stable and clean self-sustaining reaction could be used to convert water to energy. That was back in the 80s. With the advent of semi-conductor lasers (as used in pen-style pointers) that are far more efficient than the earlier versions of gas laser, these experiements MAY prove more sustainable. I recall that at that time the size and power of the equipment involved would have made it impractical for military deployment.
Alternately, as such lasers have become more powerful/efficient that a battery-powered pointer can be modified to cut certain materials, it follows that military use of laser-cutters as "directed energy weapons" may well become a sad eventuality. The first use of such a weapon would be cutting the tracks off tanks, destroying tyres on vehicles.
I'm all for disabling equipment, but I'm a pacifist, and I don't support the use of weapons that kill or maim people. I know it's idealism, but defence and offence are very different actions.
|
|
|
| |
|
mynameis
|
Jul 3 2008, 06:25 PM
Post #3
|
|
Internet Jujitsu
- Posts:
- 1,892
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #50
- Joined:
- 01/15/08
|
- Orac
- Jul 3 2008, 06:29 AM
The only expierments of which I am aware that aim for successful fusion without using any fission to start the reaction rely on huge banks of power lasers all focused on a single point, and timed to "fire" at the moment a glass pellet containing DT drops through the focus point.
The aims of the experiments were towards the achievement of stable fusion without any fission, so that a stable and clean self-sustaining reaction could be used to convert water to energy. That was back in the 80s. With the advent of semi-conductor lasers (as used in pen-style pointers) that are far more efficient than the earlier versions of gas laser, these experiements MAY prove more sustainable. I recall that at that time the size and power of the equipment involved would have made it impractical for military deployment.
Alternately, as such lasers have become more powerful/efficient that a battery-powered pointer can be modified to cut certain materials, it follows that military use of laser-cutters as "directed energy weapons" may well become a sad eventuality. The first use of such a weapon would be cutting the tracks off tanks, destroying tyres on vehicles.
I'm all for disabling equipment, but I'm a pacifist, and I don't support the use of weapons that kill or maim people. I know it's idealism, but defence and offence are very different actions. What do you know about "red mercury?"
|
|
|
| |
|
Q
|
Jul 4 2008, 08:13 AM
Post #4
|
|
A Higher Evolution
- Posts:
- 567
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #12
- Joined:
- 01/13/08
|
- mynameis
- Jul 3 2008, 06:25 PM
What do you know about "red mercury?" SFA. I know that murcuric oxide is reddish in color and highly toxic when ingested (in ionic form).
Given my "narrowband" connection, I didn't exactly do huge amounts of research to answer this question, but noted several links between Red Mercury and Fission/Fusion reactions. Whether the mercury content enhances the explosive force or not, I am in no position to say, but I would certainly tip my hat in the direction that several tons of Mercury Oxide scattered over a large area of geography would make Agent Orange look like a spilled milkshake.
|
|
|
| |
|
mynameis
|
Jul 4 2008, 08:24 AM
Post #5
|
|
Internet Jujitsu
- Posts:
- 1,892
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #50
- Joined:
- 01/15/08
|
- Orac
- Jul 4 2008, 08:13 AM
- mynameis
- Jul 3 2008, 06:25 PM
What do you know about "red mercury?"
SFA. I know that murcuric oxide is reddish in color and highly toxic when ingested (in ionic form). Given my "narrowband" connection, I didn't exactly do huge amounts of research to answer this question, but noted several links between Red Mercury and Fission/Fusion reactions. Whether the mercury content enhances the explosive force or not, I am in no position to say, but I would certainly tip my hat in the direction that several tons of Mercury Oxide scattered over a large area of geography would make Agent Orange look like a spilled milkshake. "Red Mercury," if real, controls fusion reaction. I am not sure what the explosive force would appear either, but the lore is a scaled fusion reaction.
Adding:
- Quote:
-
Red Mercury Fusion Bomb - 2 softballs worth equals a 2 megaton explosion eliminating anything within 13 miles.
- Quote:
-
In most cases, the only practical way to generate enough energy to begin the fusion of heavy hydrogen is fission. This means that the neutron bomb as Dr. Cohen created it generated a small nuclear explosion in the kiloton range, creating significant short-range explosive damage with a "clean kill" radius beyond that from the high energy neutrons produced by fusion. The requirement of Plutonium or Uranium fission to initiate fusion made fission-fusion neutron bombs heavier and thus less versatile. A pure fusion weapon could be lighter and smaller because it does not require either a critical mass or heavy metals, it has a higher kill range per unit of explosive force (ton TNT equivalent),could be constructed from materials not covered by the NPFT, could be tested without detection, and produces no radioactive fallout Ibid.
http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Red_Mercury_Bomb
(Not a valid source)
- Quote:
-
Most frightening for Cohen is the relative ease by which neutron bombs can be created with a substance called red mercury. Red mercury is a compound containing mercury that has undergone irradiation. When exploded, it creates tremendous heat and pressure � the same type needed to trigger a fusion device such as a mini-neutron bomb.
Before, an obstacle to creating a nuclear bomb was the need for plutonium, which when exploded could create a fusion reaction in hydrogen atoms. But red mercury has changed that. The cheap substance has been produced in Russia, Cohen said, and shipped on the black market throughout the world.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread83765/pg1
Exposing The “Red Mercury” Nuclear Scam, & Its Possible Use In Future Bogus Wars, & Other Crucial Matters On Nuclear 911, and About Mercury by The Anonymous Physicist (Not a Valid Source) http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/03/exposing-red-mercury-nuclear-scam-its.html
Edited by mynameis, Jul 4 2008, 09:36 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Q
|
Jul 5 2008, 06:19 AM
Post #6
|
|
A Higher Evolution
- Posts:
- 567
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #12
- Joined:
- 01/13/08
|
Given that my fundamental "understanding" of nuclear physics and quantum mechancis is at complete odds with mainstream science, I am disqualified from further input to discussion of how it all works. I still retain the right to disagree with the use of any such technology whether properly understood or not.
I do agree that a fusion reaction with no fission involved is, by particular standards, going to be clean according to current knowledge. As it is theorized that the Sun is an ongoing stable fusion reaction, consider the unwanted particles that are emitted but from which are protected by the van Allen belts, ozone layer, ionosphere, etc.. Establishing a 'mini-Sun' inside those safety barriers may prove to be fatal.
I find it suspicious that all this "red mercury" has been allegedly manufactured in Russia. Methinks a renewed Reds-under-the-beds campaign may be due.
|
|
|
| |
|
mynameis
|
Jul 5 2008, 09:39 AM
Post #7
|
|
Internet Jujitsu
- Posts:
- 1,892
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #50
- Joined:
- 01/15/08
|
- Orac
- Jul 5 2008, 06:19 AM
Given that my fundamental "understanding" of nuclear physics and quantum mechancis is at complete odds with mainstream science, I am disqualified from further input to discussion of how it all works. I still retain the right to disagree with the use of any such technology whether properly understood or not.
I do agree that a fusion reaction with no fission involved is, by particular standards, going to be clean according to current knowledge. As it is theorized that the Sun is an ongoing stable fusion reaction, consider the unwanted particles that are emitted but from which are protected by the van Allen belts, ozone layer, ionosphere, etc.. Establishing a 'mini-Sun' inside those safety barriers may prove to be fatal.
I find it suspicious that all this "red mercury" has been allegedly manufactured in Russia. Methinks a renewed Reds-under-the-beds campaign may be due. If a weapon component this powerful existed would the persons who developed the component be able to be published in any journals? As of yet, I see no credible proof to deny or refute the existence of the material, but as an expert I would expect Cohen to give us some plausible evidence for his own credibility; thus bypassing Red Scare deux. I was only seeking out opinions. I can envision if this stuff actually exists and the US and Russians have not talked about the existence, which every mad frothing dictator and terrorist would kill to get their hands on for obvious purposes. If it were me and I was running things could I take the chance on the existence of said "Red Mercury?" Even the public is unawares to the possibility of this happening as there are no signatures to indicate the substance exists. Time will tell....
Edited by mynameis, Jul 5 2008, 09:41 AM.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|