3 ms·

> atomic bomb is pure fission, a thermonuclear bomb is Fusion Strictly speaking, the term "atomic bomb" shouldn't even be used for a fission bomb since the rea

by pdonis 6y ago

> atomic bomb is pure fission, a thermonuclear bomb is Fusion Strictly speaking, the term "atomic bomb" shouldn't even be used for a fission bomb since the reactions involved are nuclear reactions, not chemical ("atomic") reactions. However, in non-technical contexts, I have seen "atomic bomb" used for both fission and fusion bombs.

klyrs 6y ago
Do you have a source supporting this distinction?
- nostrademons 6y ago
  It's in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Fission_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Fission_weapons That and high-school chemistry.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > That and high-school chemistry. My 40yo ass would get thrown out of high school before I could ask "where's the chem lab" but thanks
    - nostrademons 6y ago
      Can still buy a textbook. I do that all the time for subjects that my nearly-40-year-old ass didn't bother to learn in college but ended up finding useful.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
philipkglass 6y ago
The people of the Manhattan Project used the term atomic bomb internally and externally for their invention. "Atomic" was widely used as a synonym for "nuclear" in both lay communication and technical literature for at least a generation afterward. The International Atomic Energy Agency is still called such and never felt the need to correct this imagined terminological mistake.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  That's not what he's referring to, though. In chemistry, bonds between "atoms" are ordinary chemical bonds, held together through electromagnetic forces, and yielding typical chemical reactions like explosions and deflagrations. Fission and fusion are "nuclear" processes, operating between protons and neutrons within the nucleus of an atom only, and moderated by the strong nuclear force. The energy released by breaking these bonds is orders of magnitude greater, and what we normally refer to as a "nuclear" explosion. Calling it "nuclear" vs. "atomic" conveys useful information about what's actually going on when it detonates.

by pdonis 6y ago

klyrs 6y ago

Do you have a source supporting this distinction?

nostrademons 6y ago
It's in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Fission_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Fission_weapons That and high-school chemistry.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- klyrs 6y ago
  > That and high-school chemistry. My 40yo ass would get thrown out of high school before I could ask "where's the chem lab" but thanks
  - nostrademons 6y ago
    Can still buy a textbook. I do that all the time for subjects that my nearly-40-year-old ass didn't bother to learn in college but ended up finding useful.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

philipkglass 6y ago

The people of the Manhattan Project used the term atomic bomb internally and externally for their invention. "Atomic" was widely used as a synonym for "nuclear" in both lay communication and technical literature for at least a generation afterward. The International Atomic Energy Agency is still called such and never felt the need to correct this imagined terminological mistake.

nostrademons 6y ago
That's not what he's referring to, though. In chemistry, bonds between "atoms" are ordinary chemical bonds, held together through electromagnetic forces, and yielding typical chemical reactions like explosions and deflagrations. Fission and fusion are "nuclear" processes, operating between protons and neutrons within the nucleus of an atom only, and moderated by the strong nuclear force. The energy released by breaking these bonds is orders of magnitude greater, and what we normally refer to as a "nuclear" explosion. Calling it "nuclear" vs. "atomic" conveys useful information about what's actually going on when it detonates.