3 ms·
Please provide even one link to an image or book or anything that proves what you're saying is true. The fact that this is the top comment is troubling, since y
by freestyle24147 2y ago
Please provide even one link to an image or book or anything that proves what you're saying is true. The fact that this is the top comment is troubling, since your question is answered throughout the article. The thing you're claiming (basically that imagery like this can be found all over the place) is so easy to prove, one wonders why you haven't done it here or in any of your other comments.
- gnfargbl 2y agoMy question isn't answered in the article, as I repeatedly explain elsewhere in this thread. As you only require one reference, I will present K.S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, section 14.5 "Thermonuclear Weapons." The relevant schematic is numbered 14.19. I chose this because it's a textbook that I remember using myself; I'm not sure what is usually used these days.
- rpdillon 2y agoI think the interesting thing about this release was mostly that it was released, not necessarily that the information is not obtainable elsewhere. But I dug up the diagram you mentioned just because I was curious. https://archive.org/details/introductory-nuclear-physics/page/554/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/introductory-nuclear-physics/pag... Seems pretty different from the image in the linked post.
- gnfargbl 2y agoYes, that's the schematic. To me the two look essentially identical save for topology and some imagined details. I don't believe either of them are actually representative of a function warhead; see for instance https://images.app.goo.gl/aEBGKmAb8NsoAWe87 https://images.app.goo.gl/aEBGKmAb8NsoAWe87, which suggests that in a real design the primary and secondary are inverted compared to the image shown in the blog post.