Robin primary?
nx1...@hotmail.com
device which was used as a primary in several TN warhead designs. Now
what i'd like to know is where this information came from and if it's
in any way accurate; for instance was this information from the
"Swords of Armageddon" V2.0 CDROM.
Anyway according to this article the "Swift" device which was the
prototype, was a two point initiated, air-lens imploded warhead. Here
is the link to the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_primary
Carey, Allen, George any thoughts or other information concerning this
putated "Robin" primary design?
kiloVolts
If you look at the Wikipedia history page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_primary&action=history
you find the name of George William Herbert.
Carey Sublette
"kiloVolts" <man...@newsporn.com> wrote in message
news:6ueMk.15894$Ai5....@newsfe13.iad...
The use of the Robin primary is various tests and its dimensions are from
Chuck Hansens research, and was first reported by him in a Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists article, and is in the Swords 2 CD.
The diagram was either done by George Herbert or Howard Morland - it looks
essentially identical to one Howard prepared a few years ago from a
description of the two-point air lens design I gave him.
The diagram is a generic schematic of the two-point air lens principal of
operation, incorporating features known to be in the Robin (i.e. plutonium,
boosting).
nx1...@hotmail.com
> "kiloVolts" <mant...@newsporn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6ueMk.15894$Ai5....@newsfe13.iad...
>
>
>
> > <nx1...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>I found this wikipedia entry some months ago concerning to the "Robin"
> >> device which was used as a primary in several TN warhead designs. Now
> >> what i'd like to know is where this information came from and if it's
> >> in any way accurate; for instance was this information from the
> >> "Swords of Armageddon" V2.0 CDROM.
>
> >> Anyway according to this article the "Swift" device which was the
> >> prototype, was a two point initiated, air-lens imploded warhead. Here
> >> is the link to the article:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_primary
>
> >> Carey, Allen, George any thoughts or other information concerning this
> >> putated "Robin" primary design?
>
> > If you look at the Wikipedia history page:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_primary&action=history
> > you find the name of George William Herbert.
>
> The use of the Robin primary is various tests and its dimensions are from
> Chuck Hansens research, and was first reported by him in a Bulletin of the
> Atomic Scientists article, and is in the Swords 2 CD.
>
What does Swords 2 have to say about the Robin primary (I still
haven't got it yet myself), and before I forget what about the Python
and Tsetse primaries? Oh and is any more details given on the Racer
IV, Cobra and Viper primaries too?
> The diagram was either done by George Herbert or Howard Morland - it looks
> essentially identical to one Howard prepared a few years ago from a
> description of the two-point air lens design I gave him.
>
> The diagram is a generic schematic of the two-point air lens principal of
> operation, incorporating features known to be in the Robin (i.e. plutonium,
> boosting).
Are you going to incorporate that diagramme in section 4 of your NWFAQ
when you next update it (it's long over due for an update Carey).
kiloVolts
news:UijMk.4803$I8....@newsfe03.iad...
Tritium-Deuterium gas is not a good choice for a fission-fusion device. It
is impractical to store in a dense form, the heat produced by beta decay is
great. A fully deuterated high density polyethylene is better in a weapon.
If your replace the tritium-deuterium gas with high density nCD2 you have an
integrated thermonuclear device with whatever megatonnage you want. With
better materials, the Joe4 design, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_4 is
very campact.
rav...@hushmail.com
Joe 4 detonated with a force equivalent to 400 kilotons of TNT. It
probably
used tritium-deuterium gas as fusion fuel. It was a demonstration of
principle rather than a deliverable weapon.
The Robin Primary/Swan device:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Swan_Boosted_Fission.gif
appears to be well designed for achieving perfect spherical
implosion.
However, ask yourself, what would you have if you discarded both the
tritium-deuterium gas and the spherical shell of plutonium-239, beefed
up
the mass of the beryllium spherical shell and filled it with
pressurized
helium-3? I would hazard a guess that you have an updated spherical
dispersion neutron bomb.
Further, I would hazard a guess that the primary bottleneck in the
design
and engineering of advanced thermonuclear weapons is not mechanical
engineering but the availability if advanced materials.
nx1...@hotmail.com
> tritium-deuterium gas and the spherical shell of plutonium-239, beefed
> up
> the mass of the beryllium spherical shell and filled it with
> pressurized
> helium-3? I would hazard a guess that you have an updated spherical
> dispersion neutron bomb.
>
What you would get is a dud; while He3 can fuse on its own, it how
ever will only do it on its' own at temperatures and densities only
found in a star. Your proposed configuration wouldn't work, since for
one thing the compression and heating supplied by HE driven implosion
is about 4-5 orders of magnitude too low to start a TN reaction, this
can only be achieved in a secondary imploded by a nuclear device aka
the "primary" or "Trigger". Also using beryllium as a tamping material
won't work, as it's a very low Z-material, at the temperatures
required for fusion it's completely and fully ionised. So it would
radiate any heat generated away as fast as it's generated, thereby
quenching the fusion reaction(s). A successful tamper in a secondary
needs to be made from a high-Z material such as lead, bismuth, uranium
or thorium.
kiloVolts
> What you would get is a dud; while He3 can fuse on its own, it how
> ever will only do it on its' own at temperatures and densities only
> found in a star. Your proposed configuration wouldn't work, since for
> one thing the compression and heating supplied by HE driven implosion
> is about 4-5 orders of magnitude too low to start a TN reaction, this
> can only be achieved in a secondary imploded by a nuclear device aka
> the "primary" or "Trigger". Also using beryllium as a tamping material
> won't work, as it's a very low Z-material, at the temperatures
> required for fusion it's completely and fully ionised. So it would
> radiate any heat generated away as fast as it's generated, thereby
> quenching the fusion reaction(s). A successful tamper in a secondary
> needs to be made from a high-Z material such as lead, bismuth, uranium
> or thorium.
>
Research the Taylor reaction. Just quoting doctrine is not research.
Doctrine says nothing about perdeuteropolyethylene
(polytetradeuteroethylene) as thermonuclear fuel, yet in 1984 Los Alamos
National Laboratory did theoretical equation of state research on explosive
compression of nCD2:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00318737.pdf
10/31/1995 5:53:33 AM
LA-1024I-Ms
UC-34
Issued: September 1984
A SIMPLE EOS FOR LINEAR POLYTETRADEUTEROETHYLENE
by F. Dowell
[snippage]
For additional information or comments, contact:
Library Without Walls Project
Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Library
Los Alamos, NM 87544
Phone: (505)667-4448
E-mail: lw...@lanl.gov
///
Why was this study done? Why not a similar study on simple hydrogenated
polyethylene? Because perdeuteropolyethylene (polytetradeuteroethylene) is
an alternative thermonuclear fuel well known in nuclear fusion Z-pinch
studies. Helium-3 is also an alternative thermonuclear fuel:
> From:
> http://www.helium-3.com/general_info.html
>
> "Chemgas began its business with the former USSR and has had considerable
> success in dealing with Eastern Markets in sales of capital equipments and
> special gases."
[snippage]
> As Helium-3 is classified as dual-use material ( military/civil ) any
> quantity of He-3 over 1 gram
> ( 6 liters ) is requesting an export license.
Please react appropriately to the statement that 1 gram of helium-3 is of
military significance.
Alternatives exist. Alternatives stand as counterpoints to doctrine.
rav...@hushmail.com
> What you would get is a dud; while He3 can fuse on its own, it how
> ever will only do it on its' own at temperatures and densities only
> found in a star. Your proposed configuration wouldn't work, since for
> one thing the compression and heating supplied by HE driven implosion
> is about 4-5 orders of magnitude too low to start a TN reaction, this
> can only be achieved in a secondary imploded by a nuclear device aka
> the "primary" or "Trigger". Also using beryllium as a tamping material
> won't work, as it's a very low Z-material, at the temperatures
> required for fusion it's completely and fully ionised. So it would
> radiate any heat generated away as fast as it's generated, thereby
> quenching the fusion reaction(s). A successful tamper in a secondary
> needs to be made from a high-Z material such as lead, bismuth, uranium
> or thorium.
You are correct, a high Z material would be needed for the holraum.
MC Taylor reported studies at 3-4 MeV bombardment energies of the
following reaction:
He-3 + Be-9 -> 3 He-4 + 19.00421 MeV
in
Study of the Reactions BERYLLIUM-9(HELIUM-3,LITHIUM -6)LITHIUM-6 and
BERYLLIUM-9(HELIUM-3,ALPHA)2 Alpha.
Thesis (PH.D.)--RICE UNIVERSITY, 1968
and
Nucl. Phys. ;A182: No. 3, 558-70(1972).
rav...@hushmail.com
> the compression and heating supplied by HE driven implosion
> is about 4-5 orders of magnitude too low to start a TN reaction,
This is poor rhetoric since it is too general. What specifically do
you define as a thermonuclear reaction? Conceptually, thermonuclear
phenomena are analogous to thermochemical phenomena, subject to
control by energetics, kinetics and the possibility of catalysis.
Would a lithium-6 salt of a fully deuterated high explosive be a
thermochemical explosive or a thermonuclear explosive or both? Unless
you qualify your denial as applicable to known thermonuclear reactions
and known nuclear materials, it is not a testable assertion.
rav...@hushmail.com
> you qualify your denial as applicable to known thermonuclear reactions
> and known nuclear materials, it is not a testable assertion.
Progress in chemical high explosives is ongoing too. From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octanitrocubane
Octanitrocubane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Octanitrocubane (molecular formula: C8(NO2)8) is a powerful high
explosive that, like TNT, is shock-insensitive (not readily detonated
by shock). The octanitrocubane molecule has the same chemical
structure as cubane (C8H8) except that each of the eight hydrogen
atoms are each replaced by a nitro group (NO2).
Octanitrocubane is thought to have 20-25% greater performance than HMX
(octogen), the state-of-the-art military explosive as of year 2000.
This increase in power is due to its highly expansive breakdown into
CO2 and N2, as well as to the presence of strained chemical bonds in
the molecule which have stored potential energy. In addition,
octanitrocubane produces no water vapor making it less visible, and
both the chemical itself and its decomposition products are considered
non-toxic.
Small amounts have been synthesized in the laboratory, but not enough
for performance testing as an explosive.
Octanitrocubane was first synthesized by Philip Eaton (who was also
the first to synthesize cubane in 1964) and Mao-Xi Zhang at the
University of Chicago in 1999, with the structure proven by
crystallographer Richard Gilardi of the US Naval Research Laboratory.
[2][3]
Its R.E. factor is about 2.7.
Properties
Molecular formula C8N8O16
Molar mass 464.13 g/mol
Appearance 2 g/cm3
Explosive data
Shock sensitivity Low
Friction sensitivity Low
Explosive velocity 10,100 m/s
RE factor 2.7
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their
standard state
(at 25 °C, 100 kPa)
References
1. ^ Astakhov AM, Stepanov RS, Babushkin AY (1998). "On the detonation
parameters of octanitrocubane". Combustion Explosion and Shock Waves
34 (1): 85–87.
2. ^ Mao-Xi Zhang, Philip E. Eaton, Richard Gilardi (2000). "Hepta-
and Octanitrocubanes". Angewandte Chemie International Edition 39 (2):
401–404.
3. ^ Philip E. Eaton, Mao-Xi Zhang, Richard Gilardi, Nat Gelber, Sury
Iyer, Rao Surapaneni (2001). "Octanitrocubane: A New Nitrocarbon".
Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 27 (1): 1–6.
Carey Sublette
<rav...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:e705a3da-fdb6-44ae...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
****
nx1972's assertion is unambiguous.
There is no confusion at all between a chemical reaction and a nuclear one,
and one can infer that he is referring to KNOWN (as opposed to unknown?)
nuclear materials and reactions since this is normal practice in human
discourse.
One might take issue about what it means to "start a TN reaction" since
implosion experiments can produce small amounts of fusion, with detectable
neutron emissions, in a similar way as a particle accelerator, or plasma
fusor can produce small amounts of fusion. But "ignition" - a
self-sustaining or a net energy gain is not possible even with the easiest
fusion fuel (D-T).