The end of the deal, hopes, delusions and treasons

[TheImmortal]

Design and implosion matters more than the mass of U235.

What Kamalvandi said is U235F6 mass not U235 metal mass.

You can get 20 kt from 20 kg of 90 percent U235 metal (not U235F6 mass). Crappy design.

1 kg is U235 90% can give 20 Kt as well with good implosion lenses and some boost.

Thermonuclear two stage can turn 10 kg of U235 90% to 2 Mt!

Can you provide your source?

Lowest I’m seeing is 15kg of uranium at 90%, are you sure you are not confusing it with plutonium based thermonuclear design which requires 8kg or less?

 

[TheImmortal]

Also NK didn’t claim a two stage thermonuclear weapon design and test till 2017. India‘s first 2 stage test was paltry at 45KT. So this thinking you make a two stage thermonuclear bomb and you easily enter MT yield is not realistic.

So expecting Iran’s first nuclear weapons to be two stage AND in MT yield range is highly unrealistic.

It can be done in this day and age with modern supercomputers testing the design without a hot test (hell it could have been done with supercomputers from decades ago let alone today).

however, I just don’t see Iran having reached that point during a breakout attempt compared to nuclear powers before it. Especially since nothing from AMAD docs point to a ground breaking cutting edge design.

Last but not least yes 2 stage thermos are most efficient and cost effective design. But they need a trigger or booster in first stage to trigger 2nd stage. That is usually done with fissile material. So you have to take that into account when calculating “total fissile material” needed for a bomb and not just the 90% uranium to metal components.

 

[Shawnee]

Can you provide your source?

Lowest I’m seeing is 15kg of uranium at 90%, are you sure you are not confusing it with plutonium based thermonuclear design which requires 8kg or less?

Which part do you have question for? We have a Russian three stage design which is 98% fusion and surpasses all my numbers. It needs less fissiles per Kt.

There is no unique source for a Plutonium-less thermonuclear design. You have to make a ball park based on your own analysis.

I can go through it if you are interested at some point.

Also NK didn’t claim a two stage thermonuclear weapon design and test till 2017. India‘s first 2 stage test was paltry at 45KT. So this thinking you make a two stage thermonuclear bomb and you easily enter MT yield is not realistic.

So expecting Iran’s first nuclear weapons to be two stage AND in MT yield range is highly unrealistic.

It can be done in this day and age with modern supercomputers testing the design without a hot test (hell it could have been done with supercomputers from decades ago let alone today).

however, I just don’t see Iran having reached that point during a breakout attempt compared to nuclear powers before it. Especially since nothing from AMAD docs point to a ground breaking cutting edge design.

Last but not least yes 2 stage thermos are most efficient and cost effective design. But they need a trigger or booster in first stage to trigger 2nd stage. That is usually done with fissile material. So you have to take that into account when calculating “total fissile material” needed for a bomb and not just the 90% uranium to metal components.

Dude, Kim stood beside a two stage bomb. Seismology of NK showed about 200 Kt. That is not boost.

Kim tested in 2017 but when did he make it.


NK told Russia in 2000 that they have bombs. Tested in 2006. No prior known tests.

Test date is not make date.

Also China tested thermonuclear three years after tactical. It is a matter of decision.
——-
Regarding Indian test: Seismology analysis were inconsistent based on different sources. It is a long discussion that we can have if you are interested.

Pakistani first test had significant boost and was not far from a two stage design either. No decision was made to test a thermonuclear.

 

[Shawnee]

Good point.
In that case, we will have about 40 kilograms of 90% enriched uranium.
That's still enough for at least 2 nuclear bombs.

ادیت
بازدارندگی کمی داره جلوی خود آمریکا
مگر اسراییل رو گروگان بگیرن

یا همون بحث تمپر ایزوتوپ سدیم یا کبالت

برای بازدارندگی نسبی حداقل چند ده تا گرما هسته ای لازمه

 

[QWECXZ]

Honestly it is not deterrent unless there are secret facilities.

Yes, it is far from deterrent by all means. Honestly, if we want nuclear deterrence against the US in an Armageddon conflict, nothing we can do can guarantee it. They are just way ahead of us and we may never be able to reach nuclear deterrence against them even 50 years later. Maybe even China cannot claim nuclear deterrence against the US today. Only Russia can.

But hey, if we want to remain optimistic, we can do better than that. I mean I said 2 for the gun-type design but as you said, we can remain optimistic that Iran is capable of pulling off implosion devices as well.

I have recently figured out that critical mass is inversely proportional to density squared. I may at some point simplify it and provide a sketch of proof that I think is really neat. I remember when we were discussing compression, I posted a chart that showed compressing uranium to 2 times its density was not extremely difficult and reasonably doable. If Iran can compress U-235 to 2 times its density, the critical mass will be reduced by a factor of 4 to about 4 kilograms.
I remember the same chart stated that France had successfully compressed uranium to 3 times its density in 1960s. Going beyond 3 times appeared insanely difficult.

Obviously, Iran cannot establish nuclear deterrence against the United States. Not now, not in future (if Iran decides to go nuclear publicly). But if by deterrence we mean the hypothetical (fully theoretical) capability to wipe Israel off the map (I don't mean we should), then we may be able to get there soon.

 

[Shawnee]

Yes, it is far from deterrent by all means. Honestly, if we want nuclear deterrence against the US, nothing we can do can guarantee it. They are just way ahead of us and we may never be able to reach nuclear deterrence against them even 50 years later. Maybe even China cannot claim nuclear deterrence against the US today. Only Russia can.

But hey, if we want to remain optimistic, we can do better than that. I mean I said 2 for the gun-type design but as you said, we can remain optimistic that Iran is capable of pulling off implosion devices as well.

I have recently figured out that critical mass is inversely proportional to density squared. I may at some point simplify it and provide a sketch of proof that I think is really neat. I remember when we were discussing compression, I posted a chart that showed compressing uranium to 2 times its density was not extremely difficult and reasonably doable. If Iran can compress U-235 to 2 times its density, the critical mass will be reduced by a factor of 4 to about 5 kilograms.
I remember the same chart stated that France had successfully compressed uranium to 3 times its density in 1960s. Going beyond 3 times appeared insanely difficult.

Obviously, Iran cannot establish nuclear deterrence against the United States. Not now, not in future (if Iran decides to go nuclear publicly). But if by deterrence we mean the hypothetical (fully theoretical) capability to wipe Israel off the map (I don't mean we should), then we may able to get there soon.

China has likely 1000+ and is improving. Iran is naturally very difficult to be on par with US.
Next generation nuclear weaponry can be antimatter compression and that may change the balance between countries.

 

[QWECXZ]

China has likely 1000+ and is improving. Iran is naturally very difficult to be on par with US.
Next generation nuclear weaponry can be antimatter compression and that may change the balance between countries.

Yes, but the US has over 3,000 active nuclear warheads of which half of them are strategic weapons and probably over 1 mega-tonnes.

Yup, also the US is 6 times larger than Iran in terms of area.

The whole idea of using antimatter bombs against countries sends shivers down my spine.

 

[aryobarzan]

@QWECXZ ,@Shawnee ,@TheImmortal ...Thank you all three..I love the way you three and @yavar have been educating all of us in this matter of Uranium fuel to A-bomb conversion subject..this topic is now so much required because Iran is now in there and most people including myself had a very simplistic view of what it takes to actualy go from Fuel to the Device..

 

[TheImmortal]

One other thing anti matter devices are a pipe dream. For staters just Google how much one nanogram of anti matter cost....number will astound you.

We have produced barely any anti matter (some nanograms)

Not only is it extremely difficult to produce anti matter it is hard to keep it stable without annihilating itself with matter particles. The amount of antimatter produce to date couldn’t even match the destructive power of boiling pot of water let alone explosion.

So for the foreseeable future the next gen of weapons could be fusion related, but anti matter....is Sci Fi at this point and profusely expensive, to the point of negating any benefit to developing it.

 

[Shawnee]

@TheImmortal

Look at W44 here. Replacing plutonium with equal of Uranium will be about 5-6 kg of 235U and leads to 10-20 Kt half a century ago.

New designs and improved implosion change this.

Antimatter is futuristic but based on science.

Manhattan project was so futuristic and distant, that US allowed German jews to work on it. So they will be away from highly valuable radar projects.

 

[TheImmortal]

Antimatter is futuristic but based on science

Thanks for the info on the uranium. It was interesting.

One thing: Comparing development of nuclear fission to development of antimatter is like comparing heart surgery vs raising the dead after 100 years in cryogenics state. Magnitudes higher in complexity.

There is simply no device on the planet or even on the drawing board that could produce the required amount of antimatter and keep it stable to make antimatter weapons cost effective vs fission and eventually fusion weapons. I don’t think that ever happens from a cost standpoint.

The issue of abundant enough antimatter production likely won’t get solved (if it ever does) for hundreds of years as the more likely commercial application is in the development of antimatter drives for interstellar travel. Considering we are centuries away from such an endeavor, safe to say antimatter is in the realm of Sci Fi for the foreseeable future.

 

[QWECXZ]

Antimatter is futuristic but based on science.

Manhattan project was so futuristic and distant, that US allowed German jews to work on it. So they will be away from highly valuable radar projects.

Indeed. The initial estimation of the Los Alamos project wrongly concluded that the critical mass of U-235 would be well over 200 kilograms.

The main problem with anti-matter bombs is that we currently lack a fail-safe mechanism unlike nuclear weapons and nobody can take the risk of premature detonation.

That's probably why they are not building them yet. I'm sure it's scientifically possible and soon will be economically feasible to produce anti-matter catalyzed bombs with reasonable prices for global powers (below $10B). Anti-matter occurs naturally in space in abundance (for our applications) and the only issue is collecting them. Positrons are emitted naturally in radioactive materials and we are already using them in medical imaging (PET). And you can store anti-matter using magnetic levitation in a vacuumed tube. They have stored antimatter for well over a year at CERN. Only micrograms of anti-hydrogen would be enough to trigger a fusion reaction.

 

[WudangMaster]

Thanks for the info on the uranium. It was interesting.

One thing: Comparing development of nuclear fission to development of antimatter is like comparing heart surgery vs raising the dead after 100 years in cryogenics state. Magnitudes higher in complexity.

There is simply no device on the planet or even on the drawing board that could produce the required amount of antimatter and keep it stable to make antimatter weapons cost effective vs fission and eventually fusion weapons. I don’t think that ever happens from a cost standpoint.

The issue of abundant enough antimatter production likely won’t get solved (if it ever does) for hundreds of years as the more likely commercial application is in the development of antimatter drives for interstellar travel. Considering we are centuries away from such an endeavor, safe to say antimatter is in the realm of Sci Fi for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, lets first see if we can do fusion right before thinking of doing anything meaningful with antimatter.
I recently learned that most projections for fusion power are deceivingly using thermal output rather than actual electrical output which is a far smaller proportion. Given the amount of power that fusion needs to start itself and sustain itself until there is enough heat generated to take over, ITER will probably not be what I was hoping it would be...

 

[WudangMaster]

 

[TheImmortal]

Indeed, lets first see if we can do fusion right before thinking of doing anything meaningful with antimatter.
I recently learned that most projections for fusion power are deceivingly using thermal output rather than actual electrical output which is a far smaller proportion. Given the amount of power that fusion needs to start itself and sustain itself until there is enough heat generated to take over, ITER will probably not be what I was hoping it would be...

There is actually a start up in US receiving quite a bit of funding to develop cost effective fusion reactors. Basically to oversimplify is their concept relies on extremely (emphasis on extremely) powerful magnets to aid in the fusion process.

I think within next 10-20 years we will have a suitable mass production design.

As for antimatter, it’s a pipe dream. Using anti matter as catalyst for fusion weapon is not the same thing as an anti matter. That’s like saying depleted uranium projectiles is the same thing as firing a nuclear equipped artillery shell.

A true anti matter weapon would combine enough matter and anti matter to sustain a chain reaction on magnitudes (several 100x Tsar bomba). The current nano grams that have been produced couldn’t even boil water.

But let’s just say that one day one does build such a weapons...one has to ask...what would the point of such a weapon be? It would risk totally annihilating the climate on earth for decades (think nuclear winter on steroids). It’s use would basically be the Samson Israeli doctrine to destroy the entire world in case Israel falls military to another country and Western powers don’t aid it.

It could be useful in asteroid mining and defense of comets/asteroids on earth collision trajectories. Also eventually...space ship against ship warfare. But peaceful applications would be anti matter drives. I don’t see anyone thinking anti matter drives are possible before 2100. NASA right now is tinkering around with EM Drives.

Antimatter drives could be useful in eventual warp drives to produce enough of a gravitational field to warp space around the aircraft and create a “bubble” in which time and space are warped around the aircraft at high speeds thus approaching closer to speed of light which would then slow down time for occupants on board by a massive factor (think the movie interstellar black hole gravitational swing to paint a picture).

But with how inept human society is in investing in space exploration (outside of Elon and the snail pace that is NASA) space exploration is basically a bragging rights item in this day and age, rather than a true attempt to move society further along on the Kardashev scale. We aren’t even a type I civilization. Pretty pathetic considering homo sapien and it’s similar lines have been around for at least 125,000 years.