5 ms·

Interesting how one can write an article about thermonuclear bombs and calls them hydrogen bombs all along.

by peletiah 11y ago

spuz 11y ago
Aren't they the same thing?
- peletiah 11y ago
  Not precisely. Most of the energy of a thermonuclear bomb comes from fission, the fusion reaction mostly serves as a booster for neutron flux, escalating the fission reaction further than in a pure fission weapon. Even more so when the enclosing capsule (The tamper) is made of U238 instead of lead, as the high neutron flux leads to fission in the tamper (The Tsar Bomb would have had a yield of 100MT instead of 50MT had it's tamper not been replaced by lead, an intentional restriction). A proper hydrogen bomb would be purely fusion.
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    > A proper hydrogen bomb would be purely fusion. But a fission device is used to get the fusion reaction going in all practical designs, I think. The fine article describes the design of the US's actual hydrogen bombs as follows - I don't know if you'd count them as 'proper': > So there are really three stages of nuclear reaction in such a bomb: the primary (fission), the secondary’s internal fuel (fusion), and the secondary’s casing (more fission).
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The term "hydrogen bomb" has been used to describe thermonuclear bombs more or less since they were invented. Given that background, it makes no sense to me to insist that a "proper hydrogen bomb" would refer to a pure fusion design, especially since nobody has ever come anywhere close to figuring out how to build such a thing.
Symmetry 11y ago
You can't really complain when a article in the non-specialist press uses popular rather than specialist terminology. "Hydrogen bomb" is a term that's been bandied about for about as long as nuclear bombs have existed and the article properly points out that there isn't actually any clear definition of the term so I don't think we have anything to complain about.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  The New Yorker has many luxuries, but not that which lets them be ignorant. There's an old saying about the New Yorker's fact checking, that if they were to do a story about the Empire State Building, the first thing they would do is dispatch someone to see if it were still standing. All it takes is just enough ignorant simplicity and a dash of sensationalism to go from New Yorker to New York Post.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    There's nothing ignorant about using the term "hydrogen bomb." It's a perfectly acceptable and relatively common term used to describe what they're using it to describe. The only thing that's ignorant here is commenters insisting that "hydrogen bomb" is somehow wrong.
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      I understand that, I merely intended to demonstrate that ignorant simplicity is not a preferred quality of the New Yorker among its readers.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Why is that a point worth making in reply to a comment that is merely defending simplicity, not ignorant simplicity?
        rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

Interesting how one can write an article about thermonuclear bombs and calls them hydrogen bombs all along.

spuz 11y ago

Aren't they the same thing?

peletiah 11y ago
Not precisely. Most of the energy of a thermonuclear bomb comes from fission, the fusion reaction mostly serves as a booster for neutron flux, escalating the fission reaction further than in a pure fission weapon. Even more so when the enclosing capsule (The tamper) is made of U238 instead of lead, as the high neutron flux leads to fission in the tamper (The Tsar Bomb would have had a yield of 100MT instead of 50MT had it's tamper not been replaced by lead, an intentional restriction). A proper hydrogen bomb would be purely fusion.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  > A proper hydrogen bomb would be purely fusion. But a fission device is used to get the fusion reaction going in all practical designs, I think. The fine article describes the design of the US's actual hydrogen bombs as follows - I don't know if you'd count them as 'proper': > So there are really three stages of nuclear reaction in such a bomb: the primary (fission), the secondary’s internal fuel (fusion), and the secondary’s casing (more fission).
- mikeash 11y ago
  The term "hydrogen bomb" has been used to describe thermonuclear bombs more or less since they were invented. Given that background, it makes no sense to me to insist that a "proper hydrogen bomb" would refer to a pure fusion design, especially since nobody has ever come anywhere close to figuring out how to build such a thing.

Symmetry 11y ago

You can't really complain when a article in the non-specialist press uses popular rather than specialist terminology. "Hydrogen bomb" is a term that's been bandied about for about as long as nuclear bombs have existed and the article properly points out that there isn't actually any clear definition of the term so I don't think we have anything to complain about.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
The New Yorker has many luxuries, but not that which lets them be ignorant. There's an old saying about the New Yorker's fact checking, that if they were to do a story about the Empire State Building, the first thing they would do is dispatch someone to see if it were still standing. All it takes is just enough ignorant simplicity and a dash of sensationalism to go from New Yorker to New York Post.
- mikeash 11y ago
  There's nothing ignorant about using the term "hydrogen bomb." It's a perfectly acceptable and relatively common term used to describe what they're using it to describe. The only thing that's ignorant here is commenters insisting that "hydrogen bomb" is somehow wrong.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    I understand that, I merely intended to demonstrate that ignorant simplicity is not a preferred quality of the New Yorker among its readers.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Why is that a point worth making in reply to a comment that is merely defending simplicity, not ignorant simplicity?
      - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago