DOCSLIB.ORG

Our Course Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Nuclear fission Our course review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Nuclear weapons • We have two lectures after today: next Tuesday and Thursday. Manhattan Project 235 U • I promise to return graded papers, homework, and exams next 239 Pu Trinity Tuesday, March 5 (I am finally at home with no work travel this Hiroshima and Nagasaki weekend). Fusion weapons • Reading period begins Tuesday, March 12; exam on Tuesday, Example nuclear weapons March 19 at 7 pm. Exam will be open laptop or tablet, where you email to me your exam answers; otherwise, similar style to midterm exam. If you do not have a laptop or tablet, email me. • Writing assignment due March 11: a briefing paper to the President of the USA on a topic where some physics knowledge is required (see next slide). You are encouraged to email me about your proposed topic; I can give you a few suggestions and ideas. Nuclear fission Final paper due March 11 review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Nuclear weapons 8–12 page briefing paper, double-spaced, with citations. Submit through Manhattan Project 235 U SafeAssign. 239 Pu Trinity • Abstract (roughly half a page, summarizing your paper; use italic Hiroshima and Nagasaki font) Fusion weapons • Statement of problem Example nuclear weapons • Relevant information (the quality of the sources you use will be part of your grade) • Proposed action, including discussion of costs and benefits • Arguments against your proposed action, and your counter-arguments • Conclusion Nuclear fission Curve of binding energy review Here’s the curve of binding energy shown inverted, so that nuclei like to Nuclear fusion roll up the hill. Notice the “bumps” near magic numbers Lasers: NIF/LLNL 2 · [2; 8; 20; 28; 50; 82; 126]; these are analogous to closed electron shells Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project with atoms (i.e., noble gases). 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons This figure from Georgia State’s Hyperphysics web site Nuclear fission Nuclear fission review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons (Wikipedia) Nuclear fission Nuclear waste disposal review • Nuclear waste is hot and Nuclear fusion nasty stuff (the scale at Lasers: NIF/LLNL left tops off at 104 TBq, Nuclear weapons or 104 · 1012 = 1016 Manhattan Project 235 U decays/sec). However, it’s 239 Pu Trinity compact and contained. Hiroshima and 137 Nagasaki Note how Cs with a Fusion weapons half life of 30 years Example nuclear dominates the activity at weapons first. • U.S. does not yet have an agreed-upon, operating permanent repository for high level waste. There are both technical questions (how do you guarantee containment for millions of years?) and political ones. Nuclear fission Passive reactors review Nuclear fusion Most reactors now in operation are based on 40 year old designs. New Lasers: NIF/LLNL designs feature passive (convective) cooling, and built-in backup water Nuclear weapons reservoirs: Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons GE-Hitachi economic simplified boiling water reactor (ESBWR) Westinghouse Advanced Passive 600 MW (AP600) Nuclear fission The Oklo reactor review Nuclear fusion • At a uranium enrichment facility in France, uranium supplies were Lasers: NIF/LLNL found to have not 0.7202% 235U but 0.7171%. How could that be? Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project • Exploration of the site of uranium ore—the Oklo Mine in Gabon, 235 U Central Africa—revealed that some ores from the site had values as 239 Pu 235 Trinity low as 0.440% U! Hiroshima and Nagasaki • Conclusion: some induced fission took place due to high enough Fusion weapons uranium concentrations in the ground, with groundwater as a Example nuclear weapons moderator! Consistent with Nd and Ru isotope distributions. • This all happened about 2 billion years ago, when 235U concentrations were higher planet-wide (t1=2 = 700 million years). • Non-volatile fission products in the deposit have traveled only centimeters over 2 billion years. • See July 1976 and Nov. 2005 issues of Scientific American. Nuclear fission Producing electricity review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project Nuclear 235 U 19.27% 239 Natural gas Pu 2011 Sources of Electrical Power 24.79% Trinity (www.eia.gov) Hiroshima and Hydro Nagasaki 7.93% Fusion weapons Wind 2.92% Wood 0.90% Example nuclear Oil 0.69% weapons Coal 42.29% Geothermal 0.41% Other gases 0.27% Solar 0.04% Waste 0.48% Nuclear fission Electricity alternatives review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu • Trinity Hydroelectric power is great where it’s available::: Hiroshima and Nagasaki • Solar and wind power are both intermittent, and require significant Fusion weapons energy storage, and fossil fuel or nuclear power backup. Example nuclear weapons • Coal is the cheapest fossil fuel, but is the “dirtiest” in terms of CO2 output, production hazards (worker safety), environmental hazards (mountaintop removal, acid rain), health hazards (particulates, radioactivity). Nuclear fission Coal mining safety review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons Nuclear fission Recent history review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons Nuclear fission Mountaintop removal review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/21.html Nuclear fission What to say about nuclear fission review Nuclear fusion power? Lasers: NIF/LLNL • Nuclear power produces electrical energy without significant Nuclear weapons release of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is of increasing Manhattan Project 235 significance in minimizing future global warming. U 239 Pu • Fraction of electricity generated from nuclear power varies from Trinity Hiroshima and country to country. US: 20%. France: 78%. Germany: 28%. Japan Nagasaki (pre-Fukushima): 26%. Fusion weapons • Reactors cannot explode like nuclear bombs. Water reactors shut Example nuclear weapons off with loss of coolant, though with much economic damage (Three Mile Island) and even radionuclide release (Fukushima). Graphite reactors can run away with much greater radiation release and destruction (Chernobyl). • In normal operation, nuclear power plants emit less radiation than coal-burning power plants! See McBride et al., Science 202, 1045 (1978), Table 4. Burning coal releases thorium which can be incorporated by plants (food chain) or inhaled along with coal combustion particulates. Estimated radiation dose from living near a coal plant: 0.32 mSv/year. For comparison, estimated dose from living near a pressurized water nuclear reactor: 0.13 mSv/year. Nuclear fission Nuclear fusion review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL • From the curve of binding energy, if we can cause light nuclei to Nuclear weapons fuse we can release even more energy per nucleon. Manhattan Project • 235 U Requires high density and high kinetic energy(=temperature) to 239 Pu overcome the Coulomb barrier. Trinity Hiroshima and • Nagasaki Fusion products have a short half-life and thus don’t present a Fusion weapons long-term nuclear waste problem. However, all reactor materials Example nuclear get flooded with neutrons so just about everything is made weapons radioactive. • One approach: extreme heating of a fusion pellet using lasers (interial confinement fusion or ICF). • Another approach: magnetically confined plasma (magnetically confined fusion or MCF). • The challenges are daunting! “Fusion is thirty years away”—a statement made beginning in the 1950s. “Fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will be.” Nuclear fission The Lawson criterion review Required temperature/density combination for energy breakeven. See Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL also Serway Fig. 14-13. Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons Nuclear fission TFTR at Princeton review Nuclear fusion Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor. Operated 1982–1997 at Princeton Lasers: NIF/LLNL University. Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons Nuclear fission Joint European Torus review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Oxfordshire, UK, 1983–1999 with some continued operation. An inside Nuclear weapons view when “cold” and when operating: Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons Nuclear fission ITER review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL ITER: International Toka- Nuclear weapons mak Engineering Reactor Manhattan Project (France; $20B with USA 235 U share of $2B). Goal is 239 Pu Trinity to demonstrate methods Hiroshima and Nagasaki to extract energy, and to Fusion weapons perhaps reach momentary Example nuclear weapons “engineering” breakeven. As of 2009, the US had given a total of $27M to- wards ITER, or about 1/3 of the first-weekend ticket sales of the most recent Wolverine movie (NY Times, April 30, 2009). FY 2013: $178M. Nuclear fission Let’s go to Livermore review Nuclear fusion For the biggest, baddest laser around, let’s go to Livermore; it’s one of Lasers: NIF/LLNL the two nuclear weapons physics lab, along with Los Alamos in New Nuclear weapons Mexico. Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons Nuclear fission Livermore lab review Nuclear fusion Lasers: NIF/LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Lab. NIF is at the upper right. Nuclear weapons Manhattan Project 235 U 239 Pu Trinity Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fusion weapons Example nuclear weapons Nuclear fission NIF: National Ignition Facility review Nuclear fusion Recently completed. Cost: $4.2B? Web site: Lasers: NIF/LLNL http://www.llnl.gov/nif/ Nuclear weapons 192 beams (3072 slab amplifiers), total energy of 1.8 MJ, pulse duration 14 Manhattan Project 3–20 nsec.
Recommended publications
  • WINTER 2013 - Volume 60, Number 4 the Air Force Historical Foundation Founded on May 27, 1953 by Gen Carl A

    WINTER 2013 - Volume 60, Number 4 the Air Force Historical Foundation Founded on May 27, 1953 by Gen Carl A

    WINTER 2013 - Volume 60, Number 4 WWW.AFHISTORICALFOUNDATION.ORG The Air Force Historical Foundation Founded on May 27, 1953 by Gen Carl A. “Tooey” Spaatz MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS and other air power pioneers, the Air Force Historical All members receive our exciting and informative Foundation (AFHF) is a nonprofi t tax exempt organization. Air Power History Journal, either electronically or It is dedicated to the preservation, perpetuation and on paper, covering: all aspects of aerospace history appropriate publication of the history and traditions of American aviation, with emphasis on the U.S. Air Force, its • Chronicles the great campaigns and predecessor organizations, and the men and women whose the great leaders lives and dreams were devoted to fl ight. The Foundation • Eyewitness accounts and historical articles serves all components of the United States Air Force— Active, Reserve and Air National Guard. • In depth resources to museums and activities, to keep members connected to the latest and AFHF strives to make available to the public and greatest events. today’s government planners and decision makers information that is relevant and informative about Preserve the legacy, stay connected: all aspects of air and space power. By doing so, the • Membership helps preserve the legacy of current Foundation hopes to assure the nation profi ts from past and future US air force personnel. experiences as it helps keep the U.S. Air Force the most modern and effective military force in the world. • Provides reliable and accurate accounts of historical events. The Foundation’s four primary activities include a quarterly journal Air Power History, a book program, a • Establish connections between generations.
  • The Making of an Atomic Bomb

    The Making of an Atomic Bomb

    (Image: Courtesy of United States Government, public domain.) INTRODUCTORY ESSAY "DESTROYER OF WORLDS": THE MAKING OF AN ATOMIC BOMB At 5:29 a.m. (MST), the world’s first atomic bomb detonated in the New Mexican desert, releasing a level of destructive power unknown in the existence of humanity. Emitting as much energy as 21,000 tons of TNT and creating a fireball that measured roughly 2,000 feet in diameter, the first successful test of an atomic bomb, known as the Trinity Test, forever changed the history of the world. The road to Trinity may have begun before the start of World War II, but the war brought the creation of atomic weaponry to fruition. The harnessing of atomic energy may have come as a result of World War II, but it also helped bring the conflict to an end. How did humanity come to construct and wield such a devastating weapon? 1 | THE MANHATTAN PROJECT Models of Fat Man and Little Boy on display at the Bradbury Science Museum. (Image: Courtesy of Los Alamos National Laboratory.) WE WAITED UNTIL THE BLAST HAD PASSED, WALKED OUT OF THE SHELTER AND THEN IT WAS ENTIRELY SOLEMN. WE KNEW THE WORLD WOULD NOT BE THE SAME. A FEW PEOPLE LAUGHED, A FEW PEOPLE CRIED. MOST PEOPLE WERE SILENT. J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER EARLY NUCLEAR RESEARCH GERMAN DISCOVERY OF FISSION Achieving the monumental goal of splitting the nucleus The 1930s saw further development in the field. Hungarian- of an atom, known as nuclear fission, came through the German physicist Leo Szilard conceived the possibility of self- development of scientific discoveries that stretched over several sustaining nuclear fission reactions, or a nuclear chain reaction, centuries.
  • Trinity Scientific Firsts

    Trinity Scientific Firsts

    TRINITY SCIENTIFIC FIRSTS THE TRINITY TEST was perhaps the greatest scientifi c experiment ever. Seventy-fi ve years ago, Los Alamos scientists and engineers from the U.S., Britain, and Canada changed the world. July 16, 1945 marks the entry into the Atomic Age. PLUTONIUM: THE BETHE-FEYNMAN FORMULA: Scientists confi rmed the newly discovered 239Pu has attractive nuclear Nobel Laureates Hans Bethe and Richard Feynman developed the physics fi ssion properties for an atomic weapon. They were able to discern which equation used to estimate the yield of a fi ssion weapon, building on earlier production path would be most effective based on nuclear chemistry, and work by Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls. The equation elegantly encapsulates separated plutonium from Hanford reactor fuel. essential physics involved in the nuclear explosion process. PRECISION HIGH-EXPLOSIVE IMPLOSION FOUNDATIONAL RADIOCHEMICAL TO CREATE A SUPER-CRITICAL ASSEMBLY: YIELD ANALYSIS: Project Y scientists developed simultaneously-exploding bridgewire detonators Wartime radiochemistry techniques developed and used at Trinity with a pioneering high-explosive lens system to create a symmetrically provide the foundation for subsequent analyses of nuclear detonations, convergent detonation wave to compress the core. both foreign and domestic. ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNIQUES: NEW FRONTIERS IN COMPUTING: Complementary diagnostics were developed to optimize the implosion Human computers and IBM punched-card machines together calculated design, including fl ash x-radiography, the RaLa method,
  • NUCLEAR WEAPONS EFFECTS Introduction: the Energy Characteristics and Output from Nuclear Weapons Differ Significantly from Conve

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS EFFECTS Introduction: the Energy Characteristics and Output from Nuclear Weapons Differ Significantly from Conve

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS EFFECTS Introduction: The energy characteristics and output from nuclear weapons differ significantly from conventional weapons. Nuclear detonations exhibit much higher temperature within the fireball and produce peak temperatures of several hundred million degrees and intense x-ray heating that results in air pressure pulses of several million atmospheres. Conventional chemical explosions result in much lower temperatures and release the bulk of their energy as air blast and shock waves. In an atmospheric detonation, such as was deployed in Japan, it is the blast and thermal component of the nuclear explosion that is the major factor in destruction and death, not nuclear radiation, as the public believes. The effective range of immediate harm to humans from nuclear radiation from the atmospheric explosion is much less than the effective range from blast and thermal heating. In order to limit the discussion of weapons effects to elementary terms, this discussion is based upon a single worst-case scenario. Probably the largest weapon that might be employed against a population would have a yield of less than one-megaton (or 1 million tons of TNT equivalent energy or simply 1 MT). However, a crude terrorist nuclear device would probably be in the range of a few thousand tons of TNT equivalent energy or a few KT). The discussion here is based upon a nuclear detonation of 1 MT. Yield: The destructive power of a nuclear weapon, when compared to the same amount of energy produced by TNT is defined as the ‘yield’ of the nuclear weapon. A 20-kiloton (KT) weapon, such as was detonated over Japan in World War II was equivalent in energy yield to 20,000 tons of TNT.
  • Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program

    Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program

    Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program By Robert Alvarez Formed over 6 billion years ago, uranium, a dense, silvery-white metal, was created “during the fiery lifetimes and explosive deaths in stars in the heavens around us,” stated Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias.1 With a radioactive half-life of about 4.5 billion years, uranium-238 is the most dominant of several unstable uranium isotopes in nature and has enabled scientists to understand how our planet was created and formed. For at least the last 2 billion years, uranium shifted from deep in the earth to the rocky shell-like mantle, and then was driven by volcanic processes further up to oceans and to the continental crusts. The Colorado Plateau at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, where some of the nation’s largest uranium deposits exist, began to be formed some 300 million years ago, followed later by melting glaciers, and erosion which left behind exposed layers of sand, silt and mud. One of these was a canary-yellow sediment that would figure prominently in the nuclear age. From 1942 to 1971, the United States nuclear weapons program purchased about 250,000 metric tons of uranium concentrated from more than 100 million tons of ore.2 Although more than half came from other nations, the uranium industry heavily depended on Indian miners in the Colorado Plateau. Until recently,3 their importance remained overlooked by historians of the atomic age. There is little doubt their efforts were essential for the United States to amass one of the most destructive nuclear arsenals in the world.
  • Trinity Site July 16, 1945

    Trinity Site July 16, 1945

    Trinity Site July 16, 1945 "The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beauti­ ful, stupendous, and terrifying. No man-made phenomenon of such tremendous power had ever occurred before. The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun." Brig. Gen. Thomas Farrell A national historic landmark on White Sands Missile Range -- www.wsmr.army.mil Radiation Basics Radiation comes from the nucJeus of the gamma ray. This is a type of electromag­ individual atoms. Simple atoms like oxygen netic radiation like visible light, radio waves are very stable. Its nucleus has eight protons and X-rays. They travel at the speed of light. and eight neutrons and holds together well. It takes at least an inch of lead or eight The nucJeus of a complex atom like inches of concrete to stop them. uranium is not as stable. Uranium has 92 Finally, neutrons are also emitted by protons and 146 neutrons in its core. These some radioactive substances. Neutrons are unstable atoms tend to break down into very penetrating but are not as common in more stable, simpler forms. When this nature. Neutrons have the capability of happens the atom emits subatomic particles striking the nucleus of another atom and and gamma rays. This is where the word changing a stable atom into an unstable, and "radiation" comes from -- the atom radiates therefore, radioactive one. Neutrons emitted particles and rays. in nuc!ear reactors are contained in the Health physicists are concerned with reactor vessel or shielding and cause the four emissions from the nucleus of these vessel walls to become radioactive.
  • Oppenheimer & Groves

    Oppenheimer & Groves

    Oppenheimer & Groves: The Duality That Led To Trinity Theresa G. Connaughton and Sharon E. Smith Presented at the SouthwestiTexas Popular Culture AssociatiordAmerican Culture Association Conference, “ATOMIC CULTURE IN THE NUCLEAR AGE,” Albuquerque, N.M. February 14,2002, Abstract: The alliance of J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientist, and Leslie R. Groves, military leader, is often interpreted as the classic example of the clash between the academic mind and the military style. Evidence suggests, instead, that it was a collaboration that led to the dawn of the nuclear age. Instead of a clash, it was collaboration and an implosion of the diverse talents needed for the success of this project. Discussion of these flawed and fascinating individuals still ignites controversy today. This presentation will explore the backgrounds and personalities of these two men and their work together to accomplish their mission. Was the aftermath inevitable, given a relationship based on respect, but perhaps not trust? The genesis of the modern military-industrial complex rested on the genius of these two men, though they personify two distinct American sub-cultures. What lessons can be drawn from their wartime and post-war relationship? What analogies can be drawn for current American values? Introduction For the past fifty-seven years the myth of the “good” scientist vs. the “evil” military man has been personified by the relationship of J. Robert Oppenheimer and Leslie R. Groves during and after World War 11. This paper attempts to discuss their lives and their relationship and dispel a bit of the myth. New examinations of their relationship and contributions to the development of the atomic bomb are overdue.
  • 1. Energy and Power1

    1. Energy and Power1

    1. Energy and Power1 © John Dawson At the end of the Cretaceous period, the golden age of dinosaurs, an asteroid or comet about 10 miles in diameter headed directly towards the Earth with a velocity of about 20 miles per second, over ten times faster than our speediest bullets. Many such large objects may have come close to the Earth, but this was the one that finally hit. It hardly noticed the air as it plunged through the atmosphere in a fraction of a second, momentarily leaving a trail of vacuum behind it. It hit the Earth with such force that it and the rock near it were suddenly heated to a temperature of over a million degrees Centigrade, several hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun. Asteroid, rock, and water (if it hit in the ocean) were instantly vaporized. The energy released in the explosion was greater than that of a hundred million megatons of TNT, 100 teratons, more than ten thousand times greater than the total U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals. Before a minute had passed, the expanding crater was 60 miles across and 20 miles deep. It would soon grow even larger. Hot vaporized material from the impact had already blasted its way out through most of the atmosphere to an altitude of 15 miles. Material that a moment earlier had been glowing plasma was beginning to cool and condense into dust and rock that would be spread worldwide. Few people are surprised by the fact that an asteroid, the size of Mt. Everest, could do a lot of damage when it hits the Earth.
  • Hydronuclear Testing Or a Comprehensive Test Ban?

    Hydronuclear Testing Or a Comprehensive Test Ban?

    Hydronuclear Testing or a Comprehensive Test Ban? Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1350 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tele: (202) 783-7800 Fax: (202) 783-5917 Hydronuclear tests--tests of nuclear weapons at yields less than about two kilograms of TNT equivalent--are useful for the assessment of new designs and the safety of existing designs. Hydronuclear tests can serve a useful role in the development of the full spectrum of unboosted fission weapons, including first generation nuclear weapons of the implosion type with yields in the 10 to 30 kiloton range, more sophisticated designs with yields up to about a megaton, and advanced micro-nuclear weapons with yields of 5 to 500 tons. Since hydronuclear tests do not generate sufficient yield to create the conditions for fusion of deuterium and tritium in the core, such tests do not provide a reliable means if extrapolating the performance of new "boosted" fission weapons and thermonuclear primaries, or advanced thermonuclear secondaries. In negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) the current strategy of the U.S. Government is not to define in the treaty what constitutes a nuclear test. If this strategy is successful and the treaty is ratified, the U.S. Government will interpret the CTBT to permit hydronuclear testing if such a test is conducted by any other country. A program of hydronuclear testing by any of the weapon states will encourage the others to conduct similar tests, with the results of undermining the purpose of the treaty. If hydronuclear tests are permitted under a CTB, the nuclear test sites of declared nuclear powers may be maintained, in part, to facilitate the conduct of hydronuclear tests.
  • THE EFFECTS of NUCLEAR WEAPONS John A

    THE EFFECTS of NUCLEAR WEAPONS John A

    THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS John A. Auxier, PhD. CHP Auxier & Associates, Inc. Knoxville, TN 37932 The vast majority of what is known about the effects of nuclear weapons in an occupied urban environment was learned at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This information has been supplemented by that gathered at numerous nuclear weapons tests. For the purposes at hand, the effects of “nominal” weapons of 20 kilotons of TNT equivalent (KT), or less, will be given, while large “sophisticated” and thermonuclear weapons will be included only briefly. However, many people will want to supplement the materials provided today with a study of Sam Glasstone’s Effects of Nuclear Weapons. The 1962 edition has more materials on the effects of small weapons than most others. For consideration by terrorists we assume that they do not have access to large, high yield devices but may get the materials to assemble a “home made” bomb. However, for any nuclear device, the following materials should be helpful. Table 1 shows the distribution of fission energy for uranium-235, but for our purposes here we can assume that the numbers apply generally to other uranium isotopes and plutonium. Of course, after a very long time, all the fission energy appears as heat. Table 1. Distribution of Fission Energy in units of MeV Kinetic energy of fission fragments 165±5 Instantaneous gamma-ray energy 7±1 Kinetic energy of fission neutrons 5±0.5 Beta particles from fission products 7±1 Gamma rays from fission products 6±1 Neutrinos from fission products 10 Total energy per fission 200±6 Table 2 shows the comparison of fission energy, per mass, with the energy of TNT.
  • The Effects Nuclear Weapons

    The Effects Nuclear Weapons

    The Effects of Nuclear Weapons Compiled and edited by Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan Third Edition Prepared and published by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and the ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION .~~ -'!l -:8 ~ ~ ~" ,,-" .,,~ ..0 1977 ,-..,." . J!'or sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OlBce Washln~ton. D.C. 20402 '" ; I ib',c I PREFACE When "The Effects of Atomic Weapons" was published in 1950, the explosive energy yields of the fission bombs available at that time were equivalent to some thousands of tons (i.e., kilotons) of TNT. With the development of thermonuclear (fusion) weapons, having energy yields in the range of millions of tons (i.e., megatons) of TNT, a new presentation, entitled "The Effects of Nuclear Weap- ons," was issued in 1957. A completely revised edition was published in 1962 and this was reprinted with a few changes early in 1964. Since the last version of "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" was prepared, much new information has become available concerning nuclear weapons effects. This has come in part from the series of atmospheric tests, including several at very high altitudes, conducted in the Pacific Ocean area in 1962. In addition, laboratory studies, theoretical calculations, and computer simulations have provided a better understanding of the various effects. Within the limits imposed by security re- quirements, the new information has been incorporated in the present edition. In particular, attention may be called to a new chapter on the electromagnetic pulse. We should emphasize, as has been done in the earlier editions, that numerical values given in this book are not-and cannot be-exact.
  • Reflections of War Culture in Silverplate B-29 Nose Art from the 509Th Composite Group by Terri D. Wesemann, Master of Arts Utah State University, 2019

    Reflections of War Culture in Silverplate B-29 Nose Art from the 509Th Composite Group by Terri D. Wesemann, Master of Arts Utah State University, 2019

    METAL STORYTELLERS: REFLECTIONS OF WAR CULTURE IN SILVERPLATE B-29 NOSE ART FROM THE 509TH COMPOSITE GROUP by Terri D. Wesemann A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in American Studies Specialization Folklore Approved: ______________________ ____________________ Randy Williams, MS Jeannie Thomas, Ph.D. Committee Chair Committee Member ______________________ ____________________ Susan Grayzel, Ph.D. Richard S. Inouye, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice Provost for Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2019 Copyright © Terri Wesemann 2019 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Metal Storytellers: Reflections of War Culture in Silverplate B-29 Nose Art From the 509th Composite Group by Terri D. Wesemann, Master of Arts Utah State University, 2019 Committee Chair: Randy Williams, MS Department: English Most people are familiar with the Enola Gay—the B-29 that dropped Little Boy, the first atomic bomb, over the city of Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. Less known are the fifteen Silverplate B-29 airplanes that trained for the mission, that were named and later adorned with nose art. However, in recorded history, the atomic mission overshadowed the occupational folklore of this group. Because the abundance of planes were scrapped in the decade after World War II and most WWII veterans have passed on, all that remains of their occupational folklore are photographs, oral and written histories, some books, and two iconic airplanes in museum exhibits. Yet, the public’s infatuation and curiosity with nose art keeps the tradition alive. The purpose of my graduate project and internship with the Hill Aerospace Museum was to collaborate on a 60-foot exhibit that analyzes the humanizing aspects of the Silverplate B-29 nose art from the 509th Composite Group and show how nose art functioned in three ways.