3 ms·

These problems are discussed in considerable detail in [1], specifically: While reactor grade plutonium would probably be of no interest to a nation w

by yk 13y ago

These problems are discussed in considerable detail in [1], specifically: While reactor grade plutonium would probably be of no interest to a nation with access to better grade material, it could be effectively used by a nation capable of good weapon design, but without access to better fissile material. Even a low technology nation could fashion powerful weapons from it, after all even a 1 kt device greatly exceeds the destruction of any conventional weapon. So yes, recognized nuclear states are using very pure Pu239, but this is done for engineering convenience and not an absolute necessity. And the calculation probably changes for a state with a clandestine nuclear program, since it is much easier to hide the additional computing capacity to make a working reactor grade plutonium design, than it is to hide a breeder reactor. [1] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html (In section 6.2.2.10 Reactor Grade Plutonium)

DennisP 13y ago
From that section of your link: "Using this material in a bomb would be a challenge. Continual active cooling would be needed to prevent deterioration and damage to the core, explosives, and other components. The high rate of neutron emission means that predetonation is inevitable, even with a very efficient implosion system. However, even the relatively primitive Fat Man design would have produced a 0.5 kt or so yield with this material. With optimal implosion design yields in the range of at least several kilotons are possible. If fusion boosting is used, then the adverse effects properties of reactor grade plutonium can be completely overcome" Yield restricted to a couple kilotons is generally considered a fizzle. It's big compared to chemical explosives but only about a tenth as big as Hiroshima. And the experiment in OP's article only talked about making a working bomb, not an optimal one. The point on fusion is interesting, though. It might be worth repeating the experiment for thermonuclear bomb designs.

by yk 13y ago

DennisP 13y ago

From that section of your link: "Using this material in a bomb would be a challenge. Continual active cooling would be needed to prevent deterioration and damage to the core, explosives, and other components. The high rate of neutron emission means that predetonation is inevitable, even with a very efficient implosion system. However, even the relatively primitive Fat Man design would have produced a 0.5 kt or so yield with this material. With optimal implosion design yields in the range of at least several kilotons are possible. If fusion boosting is used, then the adverse effects properties of reactor grade plutonium can be completely overcome" Yield restricted to a couple kilotons is generally considered a fizzle. It's big compared to chemical explosives but only about a tenth as big as Hiroshima. And the experiment in OP's article only talked about making a working bomb, not an optimal one. The point on fusion is interesting, though. It might be worth repeating the experiment for thermonuclear bomb designs.