Nukes 2of6: Critical Mass and the 'Gun Design' Nuke

Lecture by Professor Richard Muller of the University California, Berkeley. Taken from Lecture 7 of the spring 2006 webcasts of Physics For Future Presidents. Also known as Descriptive Introduction to Physics. Empahsis is on conceptual understanding, rather than mathematics.

This lecture deals with nuclear reactions, bombs and reactors. Also some information about the nuclear programme of Iraq in the 90s and North Korea recently.

All Lectures:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=095393D5B42B2266

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Hiroshima
• Bomb
• Nuclear
• Chain
• Reaction
• Uranium
• Plutonium
• Fission

[UniversalVision]

This is great stuff. May I asked where is the "link" to more of his lectures? I couldn't find the box on the right of the video. This is great stuff. I was surprised that such a design is so simple, yet the resources are hard to obtain. I saw a diagram from an encyclopedia of military warfare. It's awesome!

[theinquisitor]

@UniversalVision, ah that's because youtube in it's infinite wisdom decided to move the description boxes to below the video. If you click on the little block of text under the video that says "Lecture by Professor Richard Muller..." etc, it will expand and show a link to all the lectures in this course.

[geonerd]

I've never gained an intuitive grasp of why compression increases reactivity. It seem that an average N will still pass by the same number of nuclei before escaping, and that these targets will have the same capture cross section. I've heard the explanation that compression reduces the surface area through which N can escape. This sounds mathematically plausible, but how does this circumvent my my first argument? What am I missing? Anyone?

[TheJacolyte]

@moveaxebx

number of wars fought over religious differences: countless

number of wars fought over secularism: ... *crickets chirping*

[theinquisitor]

@moveaxebx: "you believe that God does _not_ exist"

No actually I just don't believe that God exists. There's a subtle but important difference there. Atheists have nothing necessarily in common except that they don't accept the claims of religion. If someone did raise the masses to kill religious people, atheism would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for membership. It also requires the belief that killing religious people is a good thing. THAT belief is the bad part, not atheism.

[moveaxebx]

@theinquisitor

"People act on their beliefs, not their lack of beliefs."

And you believe that God does _not_ exist.

My point was, no ideology, formal or unformal, is safe from fundamentalism. People who are trapped in it, don't see it that way. They all think that they are fighting for something. It can happen tommorow that one atheist will raise and attract masses with stories how all religious people should be killed...and people will follow. Good luck!

[theinquisitor]

@moveaxebx, can you think of a single example of that? There's no such thing as a fanatic atheist. You can't fanatically not believe in something. There are fanatical communists, who also happen to be atheists, but what you need to worry about there is the communism not the atheism. The problem is ideology. People act on their beliefs, not their lack of beliefs. How often do you take action based on all the things other people believe in that you don't?

[moveaxebx]

@TheJacolyte

Now imageine a fanatic atheist who wants to drop bomb on religious people? Not good either, huh?

[coolestdude80]

Professor Muller is awesome! The terrorists that want to use this information are too simple and have no resources to produce these kind of weapons. Amen.

[goddesslush]

no cop out at all. how can you honestly say its hundred percent factual online? unless you believe it? there is nothing to verify such things even when you cross reference the sources they have to be real 100% right? So enlighten me with what you mean else shut up.. it depends on what we are looking up thou. I find people like you extremely ignorant i doubt you even know what your talking about either.