This is interesting and counterintuitive — because of how the energy proportions itself (e.g. visible vs. infrared), kiloton-range nuclear weapons are brighter than megaton-range weapons, apparently.pic.twitter.com/AgRnRpBY8Y
Show this thread
-
Or rather, "energy is proportioned," to be a bit more grammatical. (Monday mornings, am I right?) Same document says that 45% of the fireball energy in kiloton-range shot was in visible spectrum, while it is only 25% in megaton-range shots.
Show this thread
I have looked for a graph or equation that would give peak brightness as a function of yield, but not found anything obvious. Which is itself kind of interesting.
-
-
I did find this interesting article from Nature, 1962, on the brightness of nuclear weapons — has some nice illustrations:pic.twitter.com/3E9BlUfBzV
Show this thread -
It has this graph which seems wrong to me — it assumes that the amount of visible energy is directly proportional to the yield, but that's not right. Article ends with a nice bit about whether aliens in nearby star systems could see nukes going off on Earth (probably not).pic.twitter.com/vnZUAramyr
Show this thread -
Poked around a bit and found these interesting diagrams (which are related to flash blindedness) which seem to indicate that indeed, lower-yield nuclear weapons are indeed brighter than higher-yield ones. Again, kind of an interesting and unintuitive fact.pic.twitter.com/EOBQ5n8xtL
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would expect that to depend a lot on atomospheric composition. Films clearly indicate that bigger yield makes larger vol air opaque w/ some dependency on humidity. Not sure where temp/blackbody/spectrum fits into this.
Thanks. 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.