Re: What's a good "proton reflector"?

In article <1134356968.833685.139970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>>
>> > I thought they did.
>> >
>> > The "Tsar Bomba". I clearly remember reading about it having a yield of
>> > 100MT in an interesting book about the SALT II talks. [Aside: The name
>> > "Gromyko" shows up pretty much *EVERYWHERE* in Soviet history]
>> >
>> > It appears Khrushchev overestimated the bomb's yield, but it is still
>> > interesting to read about.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
>> >
>> > http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your link--- it's the bomb. :)
>
>Follow the other links that talk about the various other Tsar stuff the
>Russians have produced. Funny as hell, I say. The Tsar tank in
>particular is a hoot.
>
>>
>> I think they told K. that the thing was proof of concept for a 100 MT
>> bomb, as indeed it was. Half the energy of these things comes from the
>> U jacket, which they replaced with lead so as to minimize fission
>> product fallout. But they knew the yield would have been double what it
>> was.
>>
>> Which leads to an interesting idea that even the Wiki entry misses
>> (maybe I'll add it). The biggest thermonuke ever tested in the history
>> of mankind was what we today call a NEUTRON BOMB. It's just that
>> nobody had that concept at the time. And nobody has made the connection
>> since.
>
>I am only thinking in terms of the neutron bombs America prototyped.
>But wasn't the yeild for those in the low kiloton range?

These were intended for smallish and widely scattered targets, thus a
multitude of small yield devices would've served better than few huge
ones.
>>
>> Isn't that odd? It means that part of the idea of a "neutron bomb" is
>> what *label* you paste on it. It can be the identical device made to
>> decrease fallout for the same reason, and if you don't CALL it a
>> neutron bomb, it's not thought of AS neutron bomb. Boy, we are
>> creatures of our language, aren't we?
>
>It is the same idea that got "nuclear" dropped from NMRI.
>
Yep.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats a good "proton reflector"?
    ... > It appears Khrushchev overestimated the bomb's yield, ... product fallout. ... nobody had that concept at the time. ... It means that part of the idea of a "neutron bomb" is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Whats a good "proton reflector"?
    ... > product fallout. ... But they knew the yield would have been double what it ... > nobody had that concept at the time. ... It means that part of the idea of a "neutron bomb" is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 1/2 dozenth request over 3-years
    ... times, nobody had solution. ... Hoping a fresh look might yield better ... Googled a BUNCH, nothing. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: Feedback on recursive file search...
    ... >> yield much to optimization. ... But programming is something nobody can ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.winapi)
  • Re: Feedback on recursive file search...
    ... >> yield much to optimization. ... But programming is something nobody can ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)