Re: Nuclear what-ifs - Thorium Thin-man, no NPT. (whatif?)

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]

Re: Nuclear what-ifs - Thorium Thin-man, no NPT.

Posted on: Wed, 24 May 2006 01:05:39 +0000 (UTC)

mike wrote:

> dezakin@usa.net wrote:

>> Its nuclear properties are quite similar to plutonium,
>> so you might as well just build a Pu implosion bomb.

> This was the 2nd point I left alone, that the Nazis never thought
> of implosion. In past posts with Freck, I brought up that they would
> try to use Gunembly to get Critical Mass, not realizing
> that as Pu 240 rules out any 'Thin Man' or 'Little Boy'
> device, same for the impurities produced with thier Heavy Water Reactor
> U-233. All that other short term stuff along with the U-233 from the
> Thorium Fuel Cycle is even worse than Pu-240.

Mike,

You guys just don't get it! A gun-type weapon for an ATL is a
possiblity. Why?
There just isn't anything so terrible about using a gun-type device
since it will be a test device: And then there and then a poor yield is
observed: And then after that poor yield more advanced designs can be
used. After gun-type designs, simple 6-sided implosion is a goog
candidate. I just don't see how the potential for a poor yield leads to
a conclusion that an ATL can't have them. A poor yield doesn't block
gun-type weapons as far as I can see. What your case can be adapted to
do is making a case for going on to implosion after a poor yield, that
the design for a gun-weapon would be abandoned after one test, but not
that it isn't created at all. Do you have a problem with subcritcal
masses fired together in a gun-type research device too like Kelly
McDonald?

John Freck

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]