danny8522003 Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 Naturally I meant that the mass converted into energy would be increased by 60 years of scientific advancement. That's what i was trying to say too - sorry if i didn't make that clear. You forgot to mention the ICBMs on Subs... each sub can hold up to 24 ballistic missiles with up to 10 warheads on each' date=' with each warhead capable of leveling a city. Did you know that if a SSBN was its own country, it would be the third largest nuclear power in the world? (after the US and Russia) [/quote'] That is indeed a very scary thought
ridgey Posted August 16, 2005 Author Posted August 16, 2005 Are lighter elements able to form a critical mass, given enough force?
swansont Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Are lighter elements able to form a critical mass, given enough force? For fusion? Yes. As an example, I give you...the sun (or any star)
insane_alien Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 look at the sun its hydrogen/helium it is sustaining a nuclear reaction therefore it is at critical mass. thats how we make the bombs bigger today we have the fission device but that is only the igniter for the fusion reaction which can level cities with the amount of hydrogen in a party balloon(if it was filled with hydrogen instead of helium)
ridgey Posted August 16, 2005 Author Posted August 16, 2005 When a star goes a supa nova, is that fission?
swansont Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 When a star goes a supa nova, is that fission? Fusion, though because of the energy liberated, some number of endothermic fission reactions could occur. Certainly some endothermic fusion reactions occur, since we can get elements heavier than iron out of them.
ridgey Posted August 16, 2005 Author Posted August 16, 2005 Was the big bang fusion, fission of something completly different? Another question When energy is expended, is it a net loss to the universe? The universe must have started as a set amount of energy. Is this number getting smaller?
MetaFrizzics Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 I give you...the sun Thank you! There is no point in building a fusion bomb to destroy a city. The people you destroy would not be the enemy who attacked you. It is an immoral and ineffective way to stop a political party or military group. The enemy would not be deterred by the threat if they have already launched an attack. By simple logic, any paramilitary group willing to launch a WMD on any city will be in their own mind unreachable or irrelevant targets and not have enough concern for any other city to care if you make such a threat as a deterrant. "I have become destroyer of my own conscience and humanity." (what Oppenheimer should have said.)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now