Talk:Uranium hydride bomb

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Looks like the Elrics succeeded. Citations with the testing failures could use more expanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaijo (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A too simple explanation?

Although Hydrogen itself would be a moderator, Deuterium would be expected to participate in (n,2n) reactions, losing high energy neutrons. (Other Deuterium interactions would be expected to interfere with fission.) However although Uranium Dioxide, used along with the Uranium metal in the Fermi pile, have a similar Uranium atomic density, most metal Hydrides have a larger lattice (metal density) due to the large size of the Hydride anion (and larger Uranium covalent radius compared to the U^+4 ion, which is similar in size to Calcium +2 and Sodium +1). Also note that although Uranium-235 has a large capture radius for Thermal Neutrons, it has a similar (or lower) neutron capture radius as U-238 for high energy neutrons which are actually responsible for a majority of the bomb's fission reactions. Primary problem with high energy U-238 fission is to few fission neutrons produced. Other small atoms (also participating in n,2n reaction), Lithium-7 or Beryllium or Boron-11, might be a better solution to using smaller quantities of U-235. Note that Germany in World War 2 was believed to have exploded a unenriched Uranium bomb "containing light elements". As part of the Manhattan project, Fermi showed sustained fission for the first time in a reactor using unenriched Uranium and the United States used unenriched Uranium reactors to produce Plutonium. With a suitable containment/casing, e.g. several feet of reinforced concrete, a supercritical reactor can explode before dissipating the fissionable material. 96.89.150.123 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of weapon names

The names of the devices of that time were capitalised, even though the names were not necessarily acronyms, a format kept by Chuck Hansen and Rhodes in their books. The historical reason behind it has been addressed in Shrimp / SHRIMP? in Castle Bravo talk page for whoever might be interested, and I suggest to keep the original, historical way of naming them. I understand that their all-caps format might displease some readers, but I believe historical accuracy should always come first. Dragon Heart String (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't do this. See WP:MOSCAP. --John (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Wikipedia doesn't do this when they have only a stylistic function. In this case, full-caps is not stylistic, it is the historical way of writing the names. Dragon Heart String (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest raising this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters if you are unhappy at our house style. --John (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how should I put this? I'm afraid that the whole thing is a bit too technical. Dragon Heart String (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

low enriched uranium?

Can we have a reliable reference for this claim? That shot Ray used low enriched uranium(LEU)?

It seems incredulous considering that neutron capture by U-238 would completely extinguish this device and give it little to no chance of having a good neutron economy.

It seems far more plausible that Ruth used deuterium moderation and Ray used typical hydrogen moderation. Rather than low enriched uranium. Perhaps lower enriched uranium was used. Though LEU has a modern classification of under 20% U235 that could lead readers to assume Ray used this.

Though either way, we need reliable references.

LEU can be used in nuclear weapons though it is really only found in the secondary stage. Not the core of the primary.

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the edits were poorly made and were not properly cited. As such I reworded the content (with some minor corrections on Ray's yield and the type of HE assembly actually used by both systems, since these data are published) and added some relevant references. If there are new data on the subject of the devices' "pit mix" (as Hansen put it) I will add more citations.Austro-Hungarian (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lower enrichment just means bigger bomb. Hanford reactors producing Plutonium were natural Uranium fueled. Fermi had concerns about the Chicago pile would go critical. Big bomb but would fit in a cargo ship. Shjacks45 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation?

Another wiki said fast neutrons generate more neutrons (for Plutonium 4.9 vs 2.6) than thermal neutrons notwithstanding lower cross-section of fast neutrons. Note Deuterium splits into neutron and proton at 2 MeV energy level, and participates in (n,2n) reaction. Shjacks45 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]