A fusion bomb is a completely nonsensical concept.
Nukes are devastating because of the chain reaction effect of splitting atoms. One nucleus splits, sending out tough energy particles that hit a new nucleus, causing a new split, and so on.
You don't get a fusion chain reaction. There's plenty of dangers associated with a fusion reactor, namely containing and safely producing the energy required to sustain a fusion reaction, but weaponization would be highly impractical and ineffective compared fission reactions.
The way they work is that within the bomb a fission reaction is detonated providing the energy to start the fustion reaction, which then emits even more energy for a much larger total explosion. Apparently, the largest pure fission bomb ever detonated by the United States was Ivy King, which was a 540 kt explosion. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated, The Tsar Bomba, was about 50-58 Mt, about 100 times stronger than the strongest pure fission bomb.
A pure fusion bomb would be impractical, but using a fission bomb as the "ignition", we have a the modern nuclear weapon and a destructive source of fusion. Doing fusion in a controlled way so that we can harvest the energy is much more difficult.
If I'm reading this correctly, you have different stages, starting with a fission reaction which them creates the energy necessary for a fusion reaction, which in turn triggers another more powerful fission reaction with a fuel source that has a higher energy threshold to initiate a sustained fission chain reaction.
I wouldn't exactly call that a fusion bomb on anything other than a technicality. The destructive power is still coming from the fission reaction.
The destructive power is still coming from the fission reaction.
It says about half of the destructive power comes from the fusion of deuterium and tritium, and the remaining half of the energy released is from the final fission reaction.
These fission events account for about half of the total energy released in typical designs.
The final fission event isn't possible without the fusion event, so I wouldn't call the fusion part a technicality. It's essential for releasing ~99% of the bomb's energy.
Moreover, the final fission event isn't even necessary for a fusion bomb to function, it's just an added boost. The real purpose for adding the U-238 is to to act as a "tamper", an extremely strong cylinder that houses the fusion fuel so that it can be compressed to pressures and temperatures high enough to undergo fusion. You can replace the U-238 with lead and it will still work.
Fission bombs require conventional explosives to create the conditions to start their nuclear reactions. By this logic, there is no such thing as nuclear weapons at all.
If you're trying to make the point that a fusion reactor is safer than a fission reactor I agree. The reason that we had fission power plant designs in the 50's, but are still a ways off from fusion power plants is that it takes a tremendous effort to keep a fusion reaction going. Any failure in a fusion power plant would most likely bring the reaction to an immediate halt. But saying that fusion bombs don't exist is just not accurate.
A fusion bomb is a completely nonsensical concept.
Nukes are devastating because of the chain reaction effect of splitting atoms. One nucleus splits, sending out tough energy particles that hit a new nucleus, causing a new split, and so on.
You don't get a fusion chain reaction. There's plenty of dangers associated with a fusion reactor, namely containing and safely producing the energy required to sustain a fusion reaction, but weaponization would be highly impractical and ineffective compared fission reactions.
We do have fusion bombs though?
Wikipedia article
The way they work is that within the bomb a fission reaction is detonated providing the energy to start the fustion reaction, which then emits even more energy for a much larger total explosion. Apparently, the largest pure fission bomb ever detonated by the United States was Ivy King, which was a 540 kt explosion. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated, The Tsar Bomba, was about 50-58 Mt, about 100 times stronger than the strongest pure fission bomb.
A pure fusion bomb would be impractical, but using a fission bomb as the "ignition", we have a the modern nuclear weapon and a destructive source of fusion. Doing fusion in a controlled way so that we can harvest the energy is much more difficult.
What do you mean? What are thermonuclear weapons then?
If I'm reading this correctly, you have different stages, starting with a fission reaction which them creates the energy necessary for a fusion reaction, which in turn triggers another more powerful fission reaction with a fuel source that has a higher energy threshold to initiate a sustained fission chain reaction.
I wouldn't exactly call that a fusion bomb on anything other than a technicality. The destructive power is still coming from the fission reaction.
It says about half of the destructive power comes from the fusion of deuterium and tritium, and the remaining half of the energy released is from the final fission reaction.
The final fission event isn't possible without the fusion event, so I wouldn't call the fusion part a technicality. It's essential for releasing ~99% of the bomb's energy.
Moreover, the final fission event isn't even necessary for a fusion bomb to function, it's just an added boost. The real purpose for adding the U-238 is to to act as a "tamper", an extremely strong cylinder that houses the fusion fuel so that it can be compressed to pressures and temperatures high enough to undergo fusion. You can replace the U-238 with lead and it will still work.
Fair. I'm just a dummy that can be ignored. Everyone can listen to this guy instead.
Fission bombs require conventional explosives to create the conditions to start their nuclear reactions. By this logic, there is no such thing as nuclear weapons at all.
If you're trying to make the point that a fusion reactor is safer than a fission reactor I agree. The reason that we had fission power plant designs in the 50's, but are still a ways off from fusion power plants is that it takes a tremendous effort to keep a fusion reaction going. Any failure in a fusion power plant would most likely bring the reaction to an immediate halt. But saying that fusion bombs don't exist is just not accurate.