![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is an article on the design, i.e. how they work. Let's guard against introducing non-essential content, i.e. the ethnic and or religious leanings of the scientists, whatever pure coincidences these might reflect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Shjacks45 ( talk) 10:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The Primary of the W88 warhead is described as and gives a link). The link does not match the image - the primary is an ovioid (1 axis of symmetry) compare to prolare (2 axes of symmetry). The description suggests the image may be wrong as the description of the math is 1D to to 2D, not to 3D as an ovoid would require, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 ( talk) 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
1.) I am wondering if this weapon is actually real as I have been told plenty of times we only have bombs that work using fission not fusion. Any help would be appreciated 94.11.4.93 ( talk) 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that plenty of people I know are saying we do not have the energy requirements for a fusion bomb. 94.11.4.93 ( talk) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have changed 'the majority of its destructive energy' to 'most of its destructive energy'. 86.184.245.177 ( talk) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Preamble is very confusing. "to compress and ignite a secondary nuclear fusion reaction, from which most of the bomb's explosive yield is derived". However, the same paragraph later says the opposite - "in most applications most of its destructive energy comes from uranium fission rather than fusion". So which one is it? Where is most energy in an H-bomb comes from, fission or fusion? Le Grand Bleu ( talk) 20:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well great. This article goes into explicit detail on how the bomb works but it's very hard to follow for someone like myself with very, very little background in physics etc. Does this bomb cause fallout? If so, how long does it last? What would be the medical/veterinary effects on those living outside the blast radius (assuming everything in the radius is dead)? How big is the blast radius? The blast is, according to this article, 450 times stronger than that which decimated Hiroshima. How big a population would be wiped out by something like this? Someone told me that the H bomb does not harm buildings? Sounds wild, but is it true? C'mon people. It's all very well to talk about how it works, but what the HELL does it do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 ( talk) 08:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Came across this book in PDF format that can be downloaded:
Sounds like interesting reading and likely very useful to anyone editing this and related pages. Ping Georgewilliamherbert, who may be interested 220 of Borg 12:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"... United States government declassified a statement that "The fact that in thermonuclear (TN) weapons, a fission 'primary' is used to trigger a TN reaction in thermonuclear fuel referred to as a 'secondary'". This is grammatically meaningless : "...the fact that..." what about it ? is true ? Rcbutcher ( talk) 06:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Thermonuclear weapon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
"The reentry cones for the two warheads are the same size". ?? No other warhead is mentioned in this section before this point, but it appears to relate to W87 mentioned later. Text needs revision to make sense. Rcbutcher ( talk) 01:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There's an abandoned draft in the draftspace regarding the French H-bomb. If someone would please review it, add any relevant pieces, and merge the history/mark the page for deletion (and note on that page the content has been added to its rightful home). I'm not comfortable doing this.
The piece can be found here.
As a note, it suffers from Neutral POV and encyclopedic language issues. Not sure how much can be added, which is why I appealed here.
Thanks. Hwdirre ( talk) 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thermonuclear weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The entire intro is a mess! Both fission and fusion bombs are thermonuclear, yet the article distinctly says that only fusion bombs are thermonuclear.
Thermonuclear means "relating to or using nuclear reactions that occur only at very high temperatures.", according to me and Wiki. A fission reactions reaches 10^7 degrees kelvin, a fusion reaction reaches 10^8 degrees kelvin, both high temperatures within a factor of ten from each other. So both fission and fusion are using nuclear reactions at high temperatures, they are both thermonuclear by the Wiki definition. That makes the whole introduction invalid and puzzling. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w ( talk) 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Why does the name of the article now have a dash instead of the normal hyphen? If there is a policy mandating this, where is it? Links to this article such as from Nuclear weapon design have been broken. -- JWB ( talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the phrase "Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen" is irrelevant. The problem of hydrogen fusion is that the electrostatic repulsion of the protons, which is overcome by the nuclear "strong" force. To do that more easily terrestrial fusion depends upon having more neutrons in the nuclei to be fused, hence heavy hydrogens. Deuterium has one neutron added to its proton, tritium has two, and the great thing about tritium is quite simply that second neutron. The fact that it is radioactive is just a nuisance ! DaveyHume ( talk) 21:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Thermonuclear weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section "Compression of the Secondary" and subsection "Comparing Implosion Mechanisms," the first item in the table needs its "Radiation Pressure" value centered: "7.3." As it is misaligned with the other values. 2601:206:8201:EC92:E915:F4C:FF4F:AF9E ( talk) 13:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed ( [2]) the claim that The radiation implosion mechanism is a heat engine, since I couldn't see why it is, and there's no source for it. I was added ages ago ( [3]) William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
after rereading article, it seems cursory, now it could be classification is reason ironic that north Korea has capability of some sort, the treaty did not do much to stop spead of technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juror1 ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is an article on the design, i.e. how they work. Let's guard against introducing non-essential content, i.e. the ethnic and or religious leanings of the scientists, whatever pure coincidences these might reflect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Shjacks45 ( talk) 10:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The Primary of the W88 warhead is described as and gives a link). The link does not match the image - the primary is an ovioid (1 axis of symmetry) compare to prolare (2 axes of symmetry). The description suggests the image may be wrong as the description of the math is 1D to to 2D, not to 3D as an ovoid would require, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 ( talk) 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
1.) I am wondering if this weapon is actually real as I have been told plenty of times we only have bombs that work using fission not fusion. Any help would be appreciated 94.11.4.93 ( talk) 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that plenty of people I know are saying we do not have the energy requirements for a fusion bomb. 94.11.4.93 ( talk) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have changed 'the majority of its destructive energy' to 'most of its destructive energy'. 86.184.245.177 ( talk) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Preamble is very confusing. "to compress and ignite a secondary nuclear fusion reaction, from which most of the bomb's explosive yield is derived". However, the same paragraph later says the opposite - "in most applications most of its destructive energy comes from uranium fission rather than fusion". So which one is it? Where is most energy in an H-bomb comes from, fission or fusion? Le Grand Bleu ( talk) 20:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well great. This article goes into explicit detail on how the bomb works but it's very hard to follow for someone like myself with very, very little background in physics etc. Does this bomb cause fallout? If so, how long does it last? What would be the medical/veterinary effects on those living outside the blast radius (assuming everything in the radius is dead)? How big is the blast radius? The blast is, according to this article, 450 times stronger than that which decimated Hiroshima. How big a population would be wiped out by something like this? Someone told me that the H bomb does not harm buildings? Sounds wild, but is it true? C'mon people. It's all very well to talk about how it works, but what the HELL does it do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 ( talk) 08:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Came across this book in PDF format that can be downloaded:
Sounds like interesting reading and likely very useful to anyone editing this and related pages. Ping Georgewilliamherbert, who may be interested 220 of Borg 12:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"... United States government declassified a statement that "The fact that in thermonuclear (TN) weapons, a fission 'primary' is used to trigger a TN reaction in thermonuclear fuel referred to as a 'secondary'". This is grammatically meaningless : "...the fact that..." what about it ? is true ? Rcbutcher ( talk) 06:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Thermonuclear weapon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
"The reentry cones for the two warheads are the same size". ?? No other warhead is mentioned in this section before this point, but it appears to relate to W87 mentioned later. Text needs revision to make sense. Rcbutcher ( talk) 01:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There's an abandoned draft in the draftspace regarding the French H-bomb. If someone would please review it, add any relevant pieces, and merge the history/mark the page for deletion (and note on that page the content has been added to its rightful home). I'm not comfortable doing this.
The piece can be found here.
As a note, it suffers from Neutral POV and encyclopedic language issues. Not sure how much can be added, which is why I appealed here.
Thanks. Hwdirre ( talk) 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thermonuclear weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The entire intro is a mess! Both fission and fusion bombs are thermonuclear, yet the article distinctly says that only fusion bombs are thermonuclear.
Thermonuclear means "relating to or using nuclear reactions that occur only at very high temperatures.", according to me and Wiki. A fission reactions reaches 10^7 degrees kelvin, a fusion reaction reaches 10^8 degrees kelvin, both high temperatures within a factor of ten from each other. So both fission and fusion are using nuclear reactions at high temperatures, they are both thermonuclear by the Wiki definition. That makes the whole introduction invalid and puzzling. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w ( talk) 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Why does the name of the article now have a dash instead of the normal hyphen? If there is a policy mandating this, where is it? Links to this article such as from Nuclear weapon design have been broken. -- JWB ( talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the phrase "Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen" is irrelevant. The problem of hydrogen fusion is that the electrostatic repulsion of the protons, which is overcome by the nuclear "strong" force. To do that more easily terrestrial fusion depends upon having more neutrons in the nuclei to be fused, hence heavy hydrogens. Deuterium has one neutron added to its proton, tritium has two, and the great thing about tritium is quite simply that second neutron. The fact that it is radioactive is just a nuisance ! DaveyHume ( talk) 21:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Thermonuclear weapon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section "Compression of the Secondary" and subsection "Comparing Implosion Mechanisms," the first item in the table needs its "Radiation Pressure" value centered: "7.3." As it is misaligned with the other values. 2601:206:8201:EC92:E915:F4C:FF4F:AF9E ( talk) 13:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed ( [2]) the claim that The radiation implosion mechanism is a heat engine, since I couldn't see why it is, and there's no source for it. I was added ages ago ( [3]) William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
after rereading article, it seems cursory, now it could be classification is reason ironic that north Korea has capability of some sort, the treaty did not do much to stop spead of technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juror1 ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)