Guess first questions is why are those components different than those on the Fat Man device? Is it some requirement inherent in gun type weapon? The need for steel and hence the alloys vs an implosion weapon? They both have a tampers though..?
-
-
Role of the tamper is the same in both devices: hold the reacting material together longer, reflect neutrons back into the core. Improves efficiency. They used unenriched U metal for the FM tamper.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @Casillic and
I don't recall seeing any explanation of why they used WC in LB instead of U, though they also studied U. My guess (half-memory?) is that they were worried about excess neutrons in the core causing predetonation possibilities. U has a real background neutron rate, WC does not.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @Casillic and
When you are assembling multiple crits in an inefficient way, you want to make sure the thing doesn't really start until it is supposed to start. The U-235's surface was coated with cadmium to absorb stray neutrons as well.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Casillic and
Here's a nice bit from a 1944 report. Same report notes that they wanted to play with the cobalt levels to see how it affected the ductility of the tamper, but that they wanted to be conservative with what was understood. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16135471.pdf …pic.twitter.com/ZTcDbIsRvT
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Casillic and
A slightly later 1944 doc indicates the different levels of Co they experimented with for the gun program (3, 6, 9%). From what I can tell, John thinks it was 6% based on an experimental report, not I think, bc something said the final version was 6%. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16135456.pdf …pic.twitter.com/wLR0cdBXVy
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Casillic and
Unrelated, but interesting: in a report on "tests we should do to make sure LB is safe-ish," one of the fears is that it could go critical from having lots of (water-filled) people near it. How to test the limit? Gather lots of people, see what happens! https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/938436.pdf …pic.twitter.com/AADzL5JM6P
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
I love the next line about “well, water immersion will give an upper limit also”1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I mean it's not like water immersion of fissile material can cause problems...pic.twitter.com/UfoQeooTOY
4 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
“no ill effects were experienced by the men involved, alrhough one lost a little hair on their head”1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
just a LITTLE and let's be honest, he might have just been frustrated from the experience and pulled it out himself (damned anti-nuclear hippies and their irrational fears of radiation)
-
-
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.