DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2009.05674V4 [Physics.Ed-Ph] 4 Aug 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2009.05674V4 [Physics.Ed-Ph] 4 Aug 2021 Explosion analysis from images: Trinity and Beirut Jorge S. D´ıaz Physics Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, U.S.A. (Dated: August 04, 2021) Images of an explosion can be used to study some of its physical properties. After reviewing the key aspects of the method originally developed to study the first nuclear detonation and analyzing the Trinity blast data, the method is applied to the Beirut explosion of August 2020 by using images from videos posted online. The applicability of the method is discussed and the process of selection, extraction, and analysis of the data is presented. The estimate for the energy yield of the Beirut +1:1 +0:3 explosion is found to be 2:3−1:1 TJ or 0:6−0:3 kt of TNT equivalent. The result is consistent with others recently appeared in the literature using different methods. Notice that this article includes content that some readers may find distressing. I. INTRODUCTION took place in the U.S. by John von Neumann [6] and in the Soviet Union by Leonid Sedov [7]. This article is organized as follows. The general pre- The mathematical description of an explosion size as sentation of the evolution of an explosion is discussed in a function of all the relevant physical quantities has be- Sec. II; the method used by Taylor is presented in Sec. come a classic in undergraduate classrooms over the years III, and the application of the method to the data from as a way of introducing dimensional analysis. The story the Trinity explosion is shown in Sec. IV. The Beirut ex- goes that, only using dimensional analysis, physicist Ge- plosion and the application of the method to this event offrey I. Taylor was able to determine the yield of the are described in Sec. V, including the selection of images, first nuclear explosion (Trinity test). This over-simplified the steps followed for preprocessing, and the estimate of account is usually accompanied by many other inaccura- the energy yield. Comparison and agreement with other cies that have been preserved and exaggerated leading methods recently published are also discussed. to a more dramatic narrative. Some versions incorrectly portrait Taylor as an independent researcher that was not involved in the Manhattan Project; whereas others II. DESCRIPTION OF THE BLAST SIZE even suggest that Taylor revealed to the public a secret number from declassified information. These misleading The popular presentation of Taylor's work follows the versions only add an entertainment aspect to an already description of a spherically symmetric explosion charac- scientifically interesting story that can be used in class- terized by its radius R in terms of the energy of the ex- rooms to show our students that the techniques they plosion E0 released in a fluid of undisturbed density ρ0, learn in their first courses can have real-world applica- at a time t since the detonation. The assumption is that tions and even crucial consequences. Taylor was not an these quantities are related by power laws independent researcher, his first report was the result of a b c a request from the UK Ministry of Home Security in 1941 R = S(γ) E0 ρ0t ; (1) that shared highly classified information about the poten- where a, b, and c are dimensionless constants. The di- tial development of a fission-powered weapon, as narrated mensionless function S(γ) has to be determined from by himself [1]. During the Manhattan Project he was, to- the thermodynamical evolution of the explosion and it gether with Niels Bohr, one of the highly distinguished depends on the adiabatic index of the medium γ. All consultants that were made available under British aus- popular accounts of Taylor's story completely ignore this pices as part of the British mission to Los Alamos [2] observation and simply assume that the dimensionless and one of the selected group of scientists invited to the quantity is a constant. Most versions then assume that Trinity test [3]. Furthermore, his now popular work de- this constant is approximately 1; others go further and termining the yield of the Trinity explosion from declas- arXiv:2009.05674v4 [physics.ed-ph] 4 Aug 2021 describe the tale of Taylor experimenting with small-scale sified images was published in 1950 [1, 4], only after his explosions to determine the constant. This tale probably two technical reports on the blast formation were declas- arose from an addendum that Taylor included at the end sified by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. At this of his first paper at the time of declassification (1949), time the yield of the Trinity test as well as the two bombs in which he briefly compares his theoretical description dropped over Japan were already of public knowledge. with newly available data of pressure measurements from Nonetheless, most of the inaccuracies appear in the the conventional explosion of RDX and TNT [1]. evaluation of a dimensionless factor that cannot be ac- At this point dimensional analysis is introduced. The counted by dimensional analysis. Many of the myths be- radius has units of length [R] = L, whereas the dimen- hind this story have been examined in detail by Deakin sions of the quantities on right-hand side are [S(γ)] = 1, 2 −2 −3 [5], including comparisons between the work of Taylor [E0] = ML T ,[ρ0] = ML , and [t] = T . The consis- [1, 4] with lesser known developments in parallel that tency of (1) implies a system of linear equations relating 2 the three exponents as follows: exponential and other factors is reduced to simply esti- mate the slope and intercept of a straight line from their 0 = a + b; experimental data in log-log space. Taylor followed this 1 = 2a 3b; (2) method to reduce the complexity of the relationship be- − 0 = 2a + c; tween R and t in (3), which can be written as − whose solution a = b = 1=5; c = 2=5 allows writing (1) 5 1 S(γ)5E − log R = log t + log 0 : (5) in the form 2 2 ρ0 1=5 E t2 R = S(γ) 0 : (3) This expression indicates that if instead of the pairs (t; R) ρ0 we use the pairs (x; y) = (log t; 5=2 log R), then the plot will be a straight line of the form y(x) = mx + n, with This is the first equation in Taylor's first paper [1]. It m = 1. Here Taylor makes two clear predictions: should be emphasized that more than simple applica- tion of dimensional analysis, the relationship in (3) was 1. the pairs (log t; 5=2 log R) will follow a straight line formally obtained via a scale-invariance argument that with slope 1; reduced a system of partial differential equations into or- dinary differential equations [8]. The point-source de- 2. the intercept n can be used to determine the energy scription of the blast by Seldov, Taylor, von Neumann using assumes an instantaneous release of high energy from an 1 S(γ)5E infinitesimally localized source, assumptions that are per- n = log 0 : (6) fectly valid for a nuclear explosion. Another critical mis- 2 ρ0 conception of Taylor's work is solving the last equation for the energy in the form Notice that prediction 2 requires all pairs to be along the same line so that there is a unique value for the intercept 5 ρ0R n. The high temperatures involved would lead to changes E0 = ; (4) S(γ)5t2 in the value of γ due to the increase of CV via absorption of energy in the form of molecular vibrations of the gases because this apparently shows that a single measurement in the air as well as the absorption of intense radiation in of the fireball size R at time t after the detonation suffice the outer layers of the blast. This means that the data to determine the energy. This assumes that the func- could satisfy prediction 1 but not necessarily prediction tional relationship between all the quantities involved is 2 due the functional dependence of the factor S(γ) on correct; unfortunately, a single measurement cannot pro- the fluctuating adiabatic index. The validity of the two vide any information about the validity of this assump- predictions implies from (6) that the energy yield of the tion. Several measurements in the form of pairs (t; R) explosion can be written are needed to first verify the validity of (3), and then the 2n energy can be determined. This is exactly what Taylor 10 ρ0 E0 = : (7) did in his second paper [4]. S(γ)5 III. TAYLOR'S METHOD IV. TRINITY EXPLOSION In 1941, G. I. Taylor developed a theoretical descrip- tion of the formation of a blast by a hypothetical nuclear From the technical report declassified by the U.S. explosion [1]. His report remained classified until 1949. Atomic Energy Commission [9] Taylor constructed a ta- The day after the second anniversary of the Trinity test, ble with the (t; R) and (log t; 5=2 log R) pairs [4]. the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission declassified a tech- The result is reproduced in Figure 1, which shows a nical report including 25 images of the Trinity explosion remarkable agreement of the data with the theoretical indicating timestamps and a length scale [9]. This led description in (5). A simple linear fit results in the pa- Taylor to write his now-famous second paper, in which rameters m = 1:0 0:0 and n = 6:9 0:1, with all the he makes use of the 25 available pairs (t; R) to assess his data following a single± line confirming the± two predictions theoretical formulation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Chemical Incidents on First Responders
    2019 The Effect of Chemical Incidents on First Responders: An Interview with Bruce Evans (MPA, NRP, CFOD, SEMSO), Fire Chief, Upper Pine River Fire Protection District A massive leak of liquefied chlorine gas created a dangerous cloud over the city of Henderson, NV, in the early morning hours of May 6, 1991. Over 200 people (including firefighters) were examined at a local hospital for respiratory distress caused by inhalation of the chlorine and approximately 30 were admitted for treatment. Approximately 700 individuals were taken to shelters, and between 2,000 and 7,000 individuals were evacuated from the area. ASPR TRACIE interviewed Chief Bruce Evans (who was a firefighter- paramedic at the time of the incident), asking him to share his my first large-scale incident: the experiences and highlight how the PEPCON explosion. PEPCON was Access these U.S. Fire Administration Technical Reports fire and emergency response to a rocket fuel plant that supplied propellant used for the space for more information on these chemical incidents has changed incidents: over the years. shuttle program. This explosion sent a shock wave over the • Fire and Explosions at Rocket Corina Solé Brito, ASPR TRACIE entire Las Vegas Valley, blew out Fuel Plant (CSB): Can you please share windows that were miles away, • Massive Leak of Liquefied your experience in Henderson and created a small, multicolored Chlorine Gas and other related incidents, how mushroom cloud on the south end you think the field has changed of the valley. The Professional since then, and what you think Golfers’ Association (PGA) was the future holds? also in town, so there were satellite or injuries from flying debris were I am fortunate trucks and news trucks present.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallout Model for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Blake Purnell the Radioactive Cloud Model
    Fallout Model for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Blake Purnell Modeling radioactive fallout from nuclear explosions requires a description of the radioactive cloud and base surge and an atmospheric transport model for the cloud dispersion. The atmospheric transport model is independent of the radioactive nature of the dust and I will stick to a simple model in this study. The Radioactive Cloud Model Radioactive Release The first stage in understanding the fallout from a nuclear explosion is to estimate the amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere. For external exposure to radiation, the main threat is from gamma-rays. The average gamma-ray activity1 produced in a nuclear explosion has been calculated as 530 megacuries per kiloton of fission yield at one hour after the explosion, with an average photon energy of 0.7 MeV. The data available on underground nuclear tests focuses on the fraction of the total activity found in “early” or “close-in” fallout ( Fc ), which measures only those particles that have been deposited in the first 24 2 hours . The fraction of the total activity released into the atmosphere ( f rel ) is greater than what appears in 3 the early fallout ( f rel > Fc ). The fraction Fc is dependant on the scaled depth of burst . A summary of the activity release data available for U.S. and Soviet underground tests are shown in Tables 1, Table 2, and Figure 1. Table 1: Activity Released from U.S. Underground Nuclear Tests. Test Yield Depth of Burst Scaled Depth of Burst Fraction of Total Activity 1/3 (kt) (m) (m/kt ) in Early Fallout (Fc) Jangle Sa 1.2 0 0 0.50 Jangle Ua 1.2 5.18 4.88 0.64 Teapot ESSa 1.2 20.4 19.2 0.46 Schoonerb 30 111 35.8 0.48 Cabrioletb 2.3 51.8 39.3 0.028 Buggyb,c 1.08 41.1 40.1 0.038 Sedanb,d 100 194 41.7 0.18 Danny Boya 0.43 33.5 44.4 0.04 Sulkyb 0.088 27.4 61.6 0.001 Neptunea 0.115 30.5 62.7 0.005 Blancaa 19 255 95.4 0.0005 a) Release fraction from Knox-65, Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Shadow of the Mushroom Cloud: Nuclear Testing, Radioactive Fallout and Damage to U.S. Agriculture
    In the Shadow of the Mushroom Cloud: Nuclear Testing, Radioactive Fallout and Damage to U.S. Agriculture September 1, 2017 Abstract In the 1950s the United States conducted scores of nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Each test created tremendous quantities of harmful radioactive material and much of this material deposited across the country with precipitation. This paper is the first in the economics literature to measure some of the external costs of NTS activities. I find that fallout from nuclear tests adversely affected U.S. agriculture for large areas of the country. These empirical results show that nuclear testing had much broader economic and environmental impact than previously thought. The Cold War saw the rapid development and deployment of nuclear weapons. To expedite its nuclear weapons program, the United States started to conduct atmospheric nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in 1951. This deliberate policy decision created immense quantities of radioactive debris and much of this material rained down across the U.S.. One estimate places the total atmospheric release of radioactive material from the NTS from 1951 to 1963 at 12 billion Curies. In comparison, the partial nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl released approximately 81 million Curies of radioactive material (LeBaron, 1998). Knowledge regarding the impact of this pollution is limited to scientific and health studies conducted in the regions surrounding the NTS. Nuclear testing had large pollution externalities associated with it, but the magnitude and extent of the nationwide harm caused by NTS activities have yet to be measured. This paper quantifies one dimension of the external costs of these activities by studying the adverse effects of radioactive fallout on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxygen Isotope Composition of Trinitite Postdetonation Materials Elizabeth C
    Article pubs.acs.org/ac Oxygen Isotope Composition of Trinitite Postdetonation Materials Elizabeth C. Koeman,* Antonio Simonetti, Wei Chen, and Peter C. Burns Department of Civil Engineering and Environment Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, United States *S Supporting Information ABSTRACT: Trinitite is the melt glass produced subsequent the first nuclear bomb test conducted on July 16, 1945, at White Sands Range (Alamagordo, NM). The geological background of the latter consists of arkosic sand that was fused with radioactive debris and anthropogenic materials at ground zero subsequent detonation of the device. Postdetonation materials from historic nuclear weapon test sites provide ideal samples for development of novel forensic methods for attribution and studying the chemical/isotopic effects of the explosion on the natural geological environment. In particular, the latter effects can be evaluated relative to their spatial distribution from ground zero. We report here δ18O(‰) values for nonmelted, precursor minerals phases (quartz, feldspar, calcite), “feldspathic-rich” glass, “average” melt glass, and bulk (natural) unmelted sand from the Trinity site. Prior to oxygen isotope analysis, grains/crystals were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) to determine their corresponding major element composition. δ18O values for bulk trinitite samples exhibit a large range (11.2−15.5‰) and do not correlate with activity levels for activation product 152Eu; the latter levels are a function of their spatial distribution relative to ground zero. Therefore, the slow neutron flux associated with the nuclear explosion did not perturb the 18O/16O isotope systematics. The oxygen isotope values do correlate with the abundances of major elements derived from precursor minerals present within the arkosic sand.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uncertain Consequences of Nuclear Weapons Use
    THE UNCERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE Michael J. Frankel James Scouras George W. Ullrich Copyright © 2015 The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory LLC. All Rights Reserved. NSAD-R-15-020 THE UNCERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE iii Contents Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................................ v Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................................vii Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................1 Historical Context .....................................................................................................................................................2 Surprises ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Enduring Uncertainties, Waning Resources ................................................................................................................10 Physical Effects: What We Know, What Is Uncertain, and Tools of the Trade .............................................. 12 Nuclear Weapons Effects Phenomena...........................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • ATOM for PEACE, NOT for WAR Prof
    AUGUST, 2014 ATOM FOR PEACE, NOT FOR WAR Prof. Manashi Goswami ComeAugust,thewhole worldremembers Three otherplanes had left earlierin orderto two frightfuldays ofworld history,August 6th ascertain the weather condition over the and 9th, 1945. The atomic bombings of the possibletargets.On thehookinthe ceiling of cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan the plane hung the ten- foot atomic bomb wereconducted onthesedays by theUnited "Little Boy". On 6th August,1945, the first States during the finalstageofWorld WarII. choice target Hiroshima, was having clear These two bombings werethefirst and remain weather.At 8:15(am) localtime, Enola Gay's theonly useofnuclearweapons in warfare. doorsprangopen and itdroppedthe little boy. By August1945, theallied Manhattan project had successfully tested an atomic deviceand had produced weapons based on two alternate designs.Auranium gun type atomic bomb (Little Boy) was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6,1945, followed by a Plutoniumimplosion-type bomb (Fat Man) onthecity ofNagasakionAugust 9. Within thefirsttwo to fourmonths of thebombing, The Mushroom Cloud acute effect killed 90,000 - 166,000 people Thebomb exploded 1,900feet abovethe in Hiroshima and 60,000 - 80,000 in city.The mushroom cloud itself was a Nagasaki. During the following months large number of people died various radiation spectacularsight.Abubbling mass ofpurple- effects and injuries. gray smoke with a hot red burning core estimated to have reached a height of 40,000 On the Day feet.Such was the description of dreadful At 2.45 amonMonday,August 6,1945a devastation that tookplaceon6th August1945 B-29 bomber plane,the Enola Gay tookoff at Hiroshima city. from Tinian, a north pacific island in the Why Hiroshima Marinianas,1500 miles south of Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Nuclear Weapons Alexander Glaser Wws556d Princeton University February 12, 2007
    Effects of Nuclear Weapons Alexander Glaser WWS556d Princeton University February 12, 2007 S. Glasstone and P. J. Dolan The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Third Edition U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 1977 1 Nuclear Weapon Tests USA Russia U.K. France China Total Atmo- 1945-63 1949-62 1952-58 1960-74 1964-80 528 spheric 215 219 21 50 23 Under- 1951-92 1961-90 1962-91 1961-96 1969-96 1517 ground 815 496 24 160 22 Total 1030 715 45 210 45 2045 India (1974, 1998): 1 + 5 Pakistan (1998): ca. 6 North Korea (2006): 1 2 3 Introduction / Overview 4 Burst Types • Air burst • High-altitude burst (above 100,000 ft) • Underwater burst • Underground burst • Surface burst In the following: primary focus on (medium-altitude) air bursts (fireball above surface, weak coupling into ground) 5 Effects of a Nuclear Explosion Typical distribution of energy released • Thermal radiation (including light) (35%) • Blast (pressure shock wave) (50%) • Nuclear radiation (prompt and delayed) (15%) 6 Effects of a Nuclear Explosion Sequence of events, Part I FIREBALL starts to form in less than a millionth of a second after explosion several tens of million of degrees: transformation of all matter into gas/plasma thermal radiation as x-rays, absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere for 1 Mt explosion : 440 ft in one millisecond, 5,700 ft in 10 seconds after one minute: cooled, no longer visible radiation Formation of the fireball triggers the destructive effects of the nuclear explosion 7 Trinity Test July 16, 1945 Shock front Fireball Mach front Dirt cloud
    [Show full text]