What else to see in the neighbourhood Bluebells bursting from below at Hockering Wood, once a bomb depot. Photograph by Lucy Denman. The pub named for him, on Church Street at Weston Longville, makes for a fine mid-day refresher. It had a close relationship with Attlebridge and a satellite was constructed along Blind Lane near the airfield which stocked American bombs One HE Group.
There are two main issues in building a bomb, both with significant depth of details. One is materials, you need a fissile material suitable for use in an unmoderated fast-fission chain reaction.
In the s the candidates for such materials were U, U bred from Thoriumand Plutonium primarily Pu The downside of all of these is they are hard to produce, which turns out to be somewhat advantageous for the human race because it means it's not easy to make nuclear weapons. U and Plutonium both require operating a nuclear reactor which serves as a prodigious source of neutrons which transmutes natural materials, that can then be chemically separated later.
U is naturally occurring but only in extremely low abundance as a tiny fraction of natural Uranium so isotopic separation at industrial scales is required.
The second issue is assembly, and this adds even more complexity. With highly enriched Uranium mostly U speed of assembly isn't enormously important. Assembling the critical mass at speeds similar to that of a bullet being fired works, and this is where the "gun-type" bomb design comes from.
A sub-critical mass of U is fired at another sub-critical mass, when they slam together they create a mass that is beyond critical, and in a matter of micro-seconds a multi-step fission chain reaction occurs which releases terajoules of energy.
With Plutonium there is an issue known as "pre-detonation" which prevents the use of a gun-assembly design. Any amount of bred Plutonium will contain a family of Plutonium isotopes, including things like Pu which has a very high spontaneous fission rate, resulting in a large latent population of neutrons in the fissile material.
What can happen is that during assembly if there are enough neutrons around then they can prematurely kick off a fission chain reaction at a time when the assembly is only just barely critical, and not in a super-critical state.
The problem here is that nuclear reactions release vastly more energy than chemical reactions, and they proceed at a much faster rate. So a just barely critical chain reaction will rapidly develop enough energy to heat up and vaporize the entire bomb, and in so doing cause the bomb's components to spread apart, which then puts the bomb into a non-critical state, halting further nuclear reactions.
If this happens at the instant that the bomb achieves critical mass then perhaps only a tiny amount of the potential nuclear energy is released, just around enough to vaporize the bomb, but not the kilotons of explosive yield desired.
In gun-type designs the speed of assembly is so slow that the chance of a pre-detonation "fizzle" becomes very high when used with Plutonium. Keep in mind that maintaining criticality in a bomb core for merely 10 additional nanoseconds can essentially double the yield, and that'll give you a sense of the forces, time scales, and margins involved.
In the early s nobody knew how to do bulk isotopic separation and several different techniques were in contention including thermal diffusion, gaseous diffusion, centrifugation, and electromagnetic separation.
Each of which would require massive, complex, expensive, and extremely high-tech industrial facilities. Obtaining highly enriched Uranium would make it possible to build bombs using a sure-fire weapon design, gun-assembly.
On the other hand, in principle breeding Plutonium was much easier, it required only operating a nuclear "pile" or reactor and pulling out Uranium periodically for processing, the reactor wouldn't even need to produce power, it just needed to produce neutrons. However, the implosion design was very sophisticated and untested, so it was a risk to pursue, though it offered the promise of being more efficient in terms of nuclear material used.
Here's the most important thing to understand about the Manhattan Project. At this point you see a huge variety of options of nuclear materials, production methods, and bomb designs. The sensible thing to do would be to do some degree of investigation into each aspect and then pursue the most promising alternatives.
That's not what the Manhattan Project did, instead they pursued every route to the bomb. That's how they achieved building nuclear weapons only 8 years after the discovery of the phenomenon of nuclear fission.
They pursued both implosion assembly and gun-assembly. They looked at U and discovered it was too hard to produce and to make into bombs. They pursued both Plutonium production and Uranium isotopic separation. They pursued every method for enriching Uranium and it turns out that what seemed to be the most promising one initially centrifugation was actually not very feasible with the technology of the time and would not be until around the s or so.
Ultimately enriched Uranium was produced using each of the different techniques thermal diffusion, electromagnetic separation, gaseous diffusion as separate stages in a multi-step process after the war the US focused on gaseous diffusion.
One thing to note about the "Little Boy" bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, the design was never tested before its use. That's how fool-proof the design was considered to be. Although it used so much Uranium 60 kg that it would not have been feasible to run a test regardless. Ultimately the answer to your question is that the Manhattan Project was in a break-neck dash to produce nuclear weapons using any methods possible.BTB-1, are based.
A short description of the bomb is given as well as the mechanical constants of the bombs used. The methods used in range summarized in Appendix Bare, however, of-considerable interest. The bombs dropped were divided into groups and the E. s. Martin E.
W. . By contrast, the total bomb tonnage in the European theater was 2,, tons of which 1,, tons were dropped within Germany's own borders. “On 9 March , a basic revision in the method of B attack was instituted.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki During the final stage of World War II, the United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, , webkandii.comon: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Empire of Japan.
London (region 5) was sub-divided into groups and further sub-divided by borough. If you visit The National Archives you can see a list of the groups, and the boroughs that were in them, at the start of the paper catalogue list for record series HO whether the bomb exploded; brief description of damage caused including the size of.
Mar 31, · Best Answer: The Manhattan Project During the Second World War, the United States and Britain jointly participated in the monumental task of building an atomic bomb. The project was code named the "Manhattan Project" to obscure its purpose, and because the first meetings were conducted in webkandii.com: Resolved.
May 22, · If an Atomic/nuclear bomb was dropped on the middle of England how much of the Uk would be damaged? Whole of England wiped out??? Update: Its not that I have paranoia or anything bad,its just purely out of interest after watching the descovery channel about the two If you believe that your intellectual property has Status: Resolved.