A new article by me and @sovietologist (Ed Geist) on the history of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, out in @PhysicsToday:http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3524#.WOS2INIJ92w.twitter …
-
-
Basic thesis is that their "Sloika" design was less dumb, and less a "step in the wrong direction" than American commentators tend to think.
2 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
So they went directly to a spherical secondary?It would be interesting to know if the US route with cylinderical sec is the exception 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rivet_amber @wellerstein and
Iirc the U.K. Too went for a spherical secondary since the beginning 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Right. (We had some on this in an earlier draft but it was too long.) UK was a more Soviet-like route than a US-like route, in this model.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Do we have any info on why US went with a cylindrical secondary? IIRC the use of a spherical one was considered a successive "breakthrough"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
They loved idea of infinite cylinder of fuel, unlimited bomb yield, from heating alone. Different than a compression-based approach.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
That was my guess too, but reading this interview with Carson Mark it seems that it was a deliberate choice, for the first TN at least.pic.twitter.com/PVferylzv4
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
"After that [Teller-Ulam breakthru] there was no question in my mind how the Super should be made." ...
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.