HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
One thing that is bothering me these days are all the reports coming out of Afganistan that nuclear bomb making plans were found. Big deal. Anyone on the planet can make a nuclear device if they have the appropriate materials. The hard part is staying alive due to exposure while manufacturing the device. If however death is not an issue then the process itself becomes easy to accomplish. Materials - 4 stainless steal salad bowls (5 - 8 inch diameter) 10 pounds of U-235 (Plutonium) 1 containment cylinder in which to fit the salad bowls ? some explosives - C4 platic works best - but TNT or gun powder is acceptable. Assembly 10 pounds of U-235 is required to achive critical mass. However less will work but you will get a sub critical mass on detonation. The difference is taking out an entire city as opposed to a few city blocks. Divide the U-235 into two five pound masses. Beat it evenly into the inside of one of your salad bowls. U-235 is malleable like gold so you should have no problem shaping it. Do the same with the other U-235 mass and shape it into the other salad bowl. Keep the two bowls apart - you don't want an accident to cause your project to go critical. C4 explosives work best. You simply mold the C4 into the other two salad bowls. This is the most dangerous part of the project. Improper handling of C4 can cause an explosion. But gun powder is just as effective. Now fit the U-235 salad bowls into the C4 salad bowls and place them at each end of the cylindrical containment. Connect your explosives to a detonator and close off the ends of the cylynder. Make sure the detonator sets off both explosives at the same time. The trick is to bring the U-235 masses together at the same time. And thats it. I would recommend some form of protection while building the project. The aprons worn by dentists will work. They will protect you to some degree from radioactive poisoning. However - your life is only being prolonged by taking such measures - you still will end up dead due to the U-235 radiation regardless of what you do. And thats it. Conclusion -- Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue in building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only thing I find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many causes that people are willing to die for. And war will not make those reasons go away - it will only encourage them. regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot-god.com/ The dot.GOD Registry, Limited The Executive Plaza, Suite 908 150 West 51st Street Tel: 1 (208) 330-4173 Manhattan Island NYC 10019 USA Fax: 1 (208) 293-9773
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
At 11:20 PM 11/16/2001 -0500, you wrote: >\Divide the U-235 into two five pound masses. Beat it evenly into the >inside of one of your salad bowls. U-235 is malleable like gold so you >should have no problem shaping it. Do the same with the other U-235 mass >and shape it into the other salad bowl. My recollection is that all Uranium metal isotopes are much harder and denser than steel. That's why depleted uranium 238 its used for armor piercing ammunition. steve
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Friday, November 16, 2001, at 09:08 PM, Steve Schear wrote: > At 11:20 PM 11/16/2001 -0500, you wrote: >> \Divide the U-235 into two five pound masses. Beat it evenly into the >> inside of one of your salad bowls. U-235 is malleable like gold so you >> should have no problem shaping it. Do the same with the other U-235 >> mass >> and shape it into the other salad bowl. > > My recollection is that all Uranium metal isotopes are much harder and > denser than steel. That's why depleted uranium > 238 its used for armor piercing ammunition. IIRC it's heavier, not harder (more mass for the size). Lead and Gold (as the !Dr mentioned) are both (cm^3 for cm^3) heavier than steel, and both are "softer". Both also make (in the material sense) better bullets for certain types of targets, with the exception that gold is a lot more expensive than lead, and far more useful as bait for the things you want to shoot. -- For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Friday, November 16, 2001, at 09:08 PM, Steve Schear wrote: > At 11:20 PM 11/16/2001 -0500, you wrote: >> \Divide the U-235 into two five pound masses. Beat it evenly into the >> inside of one of your salad bowls. U-235 is malleable like gold so you >> should have no problem shaping it. Do the same with the other U-235 >> mass >> and shape it into the other salad bowl. > > My recollection is that all Uranium metal isotopes are much harder and > denser than steel. That's why depleted uranium > 238 its used for armor piercing ammunition. > Gold is malleable AND is denser than steel. Uranium is NOT malleable AND is denser than steel. The main reason for using DU in armor-piercing shells is the sheer density. The bomb instructions Joe provided are as accurate as most recipes in "The Anarchist Cookbook." (A book my local Sheriff's Department banned in 1970.) --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks." --Cathy Young, "Reason Magazine," both enemies of liberty.
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > Gold is malleable AND is denser than steel. > > Uranium is NOT malleable AND is denser than steel. Incorrect. Uranium is an actinide series element. It is a hard silver almost white substance which is both malleable and ductile. Of course this does not imply you should use it as a replacement for duck tape. Also like gold it has a luster when polished. > The main reason for using DU in armor-piercing shells is the sheer > density. correct > The bomb instructions Joe provided are as accurate as most recipes in > "The Anarchist Cookbook." > > (A book my local Sheriff's Department banned in 1970.) not surprised. regards joe -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
Hello !Dr., That's just description of chain reaction from school course of physics, every kid know that from age 14. It's impossible to find somewhere in universe 2 kilos of pure plutonium. So, impossible to built nuclear bomb with wight less then 40-50 kilos, and definitely impossible to built it in stainless steal (why you need to steal them ? :) ) salad bowls. DJB> 4 stainless steal salad bowls (5 - 8 inch diameter) DJB> 10 pounds of U-235 (Plutonium) DJB> 1 containment cylinder in which to fit the salad bowls DJB> ? some explosives - C4 platic works best - but TNT or gun powder is DJB> acceptable. DJB> Assembly [...] LOL ! To be realistic - everyone can built BIG bomb with ammony, acetone and sugar - things from nearest supermarket. Not as big as nuclear one, but enough big to destroy building. -- Best regards, Sergeimailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Sergei Kolodka wrote: > To be realistic - everyone can built BIG bomb with ammony, > acetone and sugar - things from nearest supermarket. > Not as big as nuclear one, but enough big to destroy > building. That is the issue is it not? The fact is the building of a nuclear bomb and the associated risks are questionable. Much easier to just work with easy to find materials. Incidentally - the process of refining U-235 from U-238 is not impossible - and I suspect U-235 is easily available on the black market. It's normally distributed as little pellets. But you are absolutly correct - much easier to just goto the local supermarket and pick up a few sundries and bang - you've got a bomb - or something dangerous. My point was that it is unfortunate that humanity is so repressed that issues exist which cause individuals or groups to manufacture such things with the intent of committing harm. Sept 11 is an excellent example of this where planes became flying bombs. And it is much easier to walk onto a plane and use it to cause harm then building a nuclear device. regards joe -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot-god.com/ The dot.GOD Registry, Limited The Executive Plaza, Suite 908 150 West 51st Street Tel: 1 (208) 330-4173 Manhattan Island NYC 10019 USA Fax: 1 (208) 293-9773
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
Here's a reference which should give you a good but brief outline of Uranium and it associated properties and uses. http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/elements/92.html Incendentally this reference is taken from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics a great reference manual. I still have my old copy in storage - great paper weight ;) Now one thing I've forgotten is that uranium is also pyrophoric when finely divided. I wonder if that property can be capitalized on to cause harm. Not only could one use Uranium (235, 238 whatever) as an incendiary device but both types of U will leave a radioactive hazard. Of course it's more logical to use U-238 for that. regards joe On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > > > Gold is malleable AND is denser than steel. > > > > Uranium is NOT malleable AND is denser than steel. > > Incorrect. Uranium is an actinide series element. It is a hard silver > almost white substance which is both malleable and ductile. Of course > this does not imply you should use it as a replacement for duck > tape. Also like gold it has a luster when polished. > > > The main reason for using DU in armor-piercing shells is the sheer > > density. > > correct > > > The bomb instructions Joe provided are as accurate as most recipes in > > "The Anarchist Cookbook." > > > > (A book my local Sheriff's Department banned in 1970.) > > not surprised. > > regards > joe > > -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Friday, November 16, 2001, at 10:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> Gold is malleable AND is denser than steel. >> >> Uranium is NOT malleable AND is denser than steel. > > Incorrect. Uranium is an actinide series element. It is a hard silver > almost white substance which is both malleable and ductile. Of course > this does not imply you should use it as a replacement for duck > tape. Also like gold it has a luster when polished. Uranium is not malleable in the same way either gold or silver are. Nearly all metals are malleable to some extent (in that they don't shatter when subjected to shear forces), but I was responding to your "beat the metal in a stainless steel bowl" idea. Good luck on beat U this way! A chart of the rigidity moduli for the elements gives a good idea of why U is not normally considered very malleable: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/properties/text/image- intensity/rigidity-modulus.html Also, I don't get what you mean by saying it has a luster when polished. Yeah, all metals do..until they oxidize/tarnish/anodize. The chunks of uranium I used to work with were pure metallic...and dark grey/black. > --Tim May "Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." --Robert A. Heinlein
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
Now - i've replied to you below - but I think were missing the point of the post. So i'll repeat - it's easy to do harm when you have the will to die to rally your cause - as we have seen on sept 11. and i find it regrettable that conditions exist in which people use extreme methods to focus the people of this planet on the fact that western governments are basically evil. Now the remainder of my reply is not much more then having a physics discussion - which i think is not the point - but -- On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > Uranium is not malleable in the same way either gold or silver are. I said it was malleable - it can be worked. maybe not the same way or gold or silver - but as you can see from the periodic table it is malleable. I personally have never worked it. But i have seen a few pelets in my lifetime. > Nearly all metals are malleable to some extent (in that they don't > shatter when subjected to shear forces), but I was responding to your > "beat the metal in a stainless steel bowl" idea. Good luck on beat U > this way! Possible - never build one myself. I would assume that if it is harder to work then gold - then just get very thick stanless steel bowls. I'm sure you'd need a few trials to figure it out. > A chart of the rigidity moduli for the elements gives a good idea of why > U is not normally considered very malleable: > > http://www.webelements.com/webelements/properties/text/image- > intensity/rigidity-modulus.html oy > Also, I don't get what you mean by saying it has a luster when polished. > Yeah, all metals do..until they oxidize/tarnish/anodize. just what it means - so your right - it shares that characteristic with other metals. > The chunks of uranium I used to work with were pure metallic...and dark > grey/black. sounds unrefined or badly oxidized. I've never seen chunks of uranium. Was this in it's unrefined state. What was it exactly. Pitchblende? regards joe -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Friday, November 16, 2001, at 08:20 PM, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > One thing that is bothering me these days are all the reports coming out > of Afganistan that nuclear bomb making plans were found. Big > deal. Anyone on the planet can make a nuclear device if they have the > appropriate materials. The hard part is staying alive due to exposure > while manufacturing the device. > > If however death is not an issue then the process itself becomes easy to > accomplish. Tom Clancy did a good job of describing how to make a low-yield nuke in one of his novels, the one about a nuke in the Denver stadium. (I think it was "The Sum of All Fears.") It's been many years since I read it, but my recollection is that one of the actors gets sick. As Eric C. pointed out in his follow-up to your article, this business of "staying alive" is probably the easiest of the problems to solve. The biggest hazard is from ingestion of the materials, either from some grinding or machining stage, or liquid compounds (molding the fissionables). (The "apron" you mention at some point is almost totally beside the point. Working in a good fume hood or laminar flow hood would be a better safety precaution. Wearing a moonsuit and gloves would be extra protection. Not eating sandwiches or Doritos while mixing the stuff also helps.) > Materials > - > > 4 stainless steal salad bowls (5 - 8 inch diameter) > 10 pounds of U-235 (Plutonium) > 1 containment cylinder in which to fit the salad bowls > ? some explosives - C4 platic works best - but TNT or gun powder is > acceptable. > > Divide the U-235 into two five pound masses. Beat it evenly into the > inside of one of your salad bowls. U-235 is malleable like gold so you > should have no problem shaping it. Do the same with the other U-235 > mass > and shape it into the other salad bowl. > > C4 explosives work best. You simply mold the C4 into the other two > salad > bowls. This is the most dangerous part of the project. Improper > handling > of C4 can cause an explosion. But gun powder is just as effective. Why so complicated on the detonation geometry? Without doing some experiments and getting the fast ignition triggers (on the real munitions list), I'd doubt strongly that your scheme would work the first time. And gunpowder is almost guaranteed to not work. > > > Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue in > building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only > thing I > find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many causes that > people are willing to die for. And war will not make those reasons go > away - it will only encourage them. > It's really _not_ this easy. It took China and India a while before they successfully tested an A-bomb (many years after they had the raw materials from their reactor programs). It may have taken the South Africans and Israelis a few years after getting materials, too. So, why didn't they just hammer U-235 into stainless steel mixing bowls and do it the way "anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device," one wonders. I'd guess that the "tall pipe" version is the most buildable of the basement nukes. (In a nutshell: a tall drainpipe, perhaps 40 feet tall. Set up in an apartment building, warehouse, etc. At the base the pipe is reinforced with copious amounts of concrete. The subcritical masses are at opposite ends of the pipe. The mass on top is piled on with several hundred pounds of ballast, to "tamp" the early critical mass action. To explode the bomb, drop the mass from the top of the pipe. The critical mass is briefly contained by the concrete collar around the pipe and the inertial mass above. Is it enough to produce a real chain reaction? Well, it's all relative. Still, not very efficient.)
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Saturday, November 17, 2001, at 12:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Now - i've replied to you below - but I think were missing the point of > the post. So i'll repeat - it's easy to do harm when you have the will > to > die to rally your cause - as we have seen on sept 11. and i find it > regrettable that conditions exist in which people use extreme methods > to focus the people of this planet on the fact that western governments > are basically evil. Look, people respond to points they are interested in responding to. That I didn't comment on your political point about "will to die to rally our cause" point does not mean I didn't "miss the point." It just is such an obvious point as to be unexceptionable. More interesting to me was picking apart your "stainless steel bowls bomb." > >> Nearly all metals are malleable to some extent (in that they don't >> shatter when subjected to shear forces), but I was responding to your >> "beat the metal in a stainless steel bowl" idea. Good luck on beat U >> this way! > > Possible - never build one myself. I would assume that if it is harder > to > work then gold - then just get very thick stanless steel bowls. I'm > sure > you'd need a few trials to figure it out. A true understatement. Try beating a piece of uranium! (From the rigidity modulus tables, and Young's modulus tables, you can find comparable metals to experiment with.) This is why most such hemispheres and hemispherical sections are made with molds and slurries of fissionables. Getting uniformity by "beating" a fairly hard metal is not easy. > >> The chunks of uranium I used to work with were pure metallic...and dark >> grey/black. > > sounds unrefined or badly oxidized. I've never seen chunks of > uranium. Was this in it's unrefined state. What was it > exactly. Pitchblende? Pure metallic uranium, both in the natural abundances and in the pure U-238 (DU) form. --Tim May "The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." --Frederic Bastiat
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > I'd guess that the "tall pipe" version is the most buildable of the > basement nukes. (In a nutshell: a tall drainpipe, perhaps 40 feet tall. > Set up in an apartment building, warehouse, etc. At the base the pipe is > reinforced with copious amounts of concrete. The subcritical masses are > at opposite ends of the pipe. The mass on top is piled on with several > hundred pounds of ballast, to "tamp" the early critical mass action. To > explode the bomb, drop the mass from the top of the pipe. The critical > mass is briefly contained by the concrete collar around the pipe and the > inertial mass above. Is it enough to produce a real chain reaction? > Well, it's all relative. Still, not very efficient.) I very much doubt terrorist would build an efficient bomb. Non of what we discussed is effcient. Your pipe idea is a very interesting example. But I think the point is made that harm can be done. Even if the mass does not go critical - it still means a few city blocks that will be inconvenienced from the resulting radiation. You pipe certainly would not go boom - but it would leave a mess of radioactivity in the area. regards joe -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Saturday, November 17, 2001, at 12:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> I'd guess that the "tall pipe" version is the most buildable of the >> basement nukes. (In a nutshell: a tall drainpipe, perhaps 40 feet tall. >> Set up in an apartment building, warehouse, etc. At the base the pipe >> is >> reinforced with copious amounts of concrete. The subcritical masses are >> at opposite ends of the pipe. The mass on top is piled on with several >> hundred pounds of ballast, to "tamp" the early critical mass action. To >> explode the bomb, drop the mass from the top of the pipe. The critical >> mass is briefly contained by the concrete collar around the pipe and >> the >> inertial mass above. Is it enough to produce a real chain reaction? >> Well, it's all relative. Still, not very efficient.) > > I very much doubt terrorist would build an efficient bomb. Non of what > we > discussed is effcient. Your pipe idea is a very interesting example. > But > I think the point is made that harm can be done. Even if the mass does > not go critical - it still means a few city blocks that will be > inconvenienced from the resulting radiation. You pipe certainly would > not > go boom - but it would leave a mess of radioactivity in the area. The idea _is_ for it to detonate, not just have a severe thermal excursion! The total "radioactivity" in a critical mass of fissionables is actually not all that great. (Not something I'd want in my backyard, and sure to produce panic, but not all that significant.) The point of a bomb is to get a _lot_ of those radioisotopes fissioning in a much shorter amount of time than usual. Without that chain reaction, the radioisotopes are just decaying at their normal very, very slow rate. (The reason uranium is so radioactively benign is that it's half life is several billion years for the most common isotope and pretty close to that for the U-235 form...the reason we still find both in nature, of course.) For the oft-discussed "radiological bomb" there is no need for U-235. In fact, shorter half-lived stuff like cesium-137 and even spent fuel rods would be better. Personally, this is much _less_ worrisome than biological weapons. If radioisotopes are spread over a few city blocks, for example, they can be cleaned up in various ways. Easy to detect with a Geiger counter (or scintillation counter), easy to vacuum up with HEPA filter units, all sorts of foaming agents and hoses and the whole decontamination apparatus. And if the Geiger counter is silent, it's all gone. A radiological bomb would result in an evacuation, and the usual panic by the sheeple who are afraid of atoms, but the cleanup would be straightforward. (Chernobyl was what it was because many tons, even hundreds of tons, of fuel rods were vaporized and/or burned. Not many terrorists could arrange for the vaporization/combustion of this much material.) --Tim May "As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself." -- David Friedman
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
At 11:56 PM 11/16/2001 -0800, Tim May wrote: >Nearly all metals are malleable to some extent (in that they don't shatter >when subjected to shear forces), but I was responding to your "beat the >metal in a stainless steel bowl" idea. Good luck on beat U this way! Isn't a plowshare a bit more appropriate thing to beat it into? :-)
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > Look, people respond to points they are interested in responding to. > That I didn't comment on your political point about "will to die to > rally our cause" point does not mean I didn't "miss the point." It just > is such an obvious point as to be unexceptionable. I went fishing and here we are - the truth. I'm not saying this to insult you. After all christ was a fisher of man. The only important thing which you have written me to date is stated above - and I quote "It just is such an obvious point as to be unexceptionable." Correct Tim - absolutly correct. And why is that. Why has this civilization reached the point where the death of people is "unexceptional". And why do we as a civilized people involve ourselves in endless drivel invoiving steal bowls while the unexception suffer. This civilization has become an abomination in the eyes of god and pretty well any other civilized intellect who recognize that the unexception is in reality a horror of vast purportions. This civilization claims to love it's children - yet children are massacred yearly in the thousands. Most of it state sponsored. Unexceptional? This civilization claims it loves democracy, yet we fund israelly nazis who brutalize the palestinian people. Obvioulsy very unexceptional - yes? East Timor, South Arfrica ... crimes, murders, rapes - all state funded - unexceptional? Now Tim your a bright boy - why do you think all of this has become "unexceptional". That one i'm not too sure I understand. I suspect it involves some conditioning for us to consider this so unexceptional. I mean Tim - let's get real - if your mother gets raped pillaged and pludered - i in some way doubt you would conisder that unexceptional. So why do we allow our governments to continue in this unexecptional way with the mother of others? regards joe -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Tim May wrote: > The idea _is_ for it to detonate, not just have a severe thermal > excursion! No Tim - that is incorrect. The Thermal incursion will do just swell. Remember these people are making a point. So the nuclear device is nothing more then a prop in an endless show of pain. The rest of the act will rely on the audience. I remind you of antrax theatre. -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Bill Stewart wrote: > At 11:56 PM 11/16/2001 -0800, Tim May wrote: > >Nearly all metals are malleable to some extent (in that they don't shatter > >when subjected to shear forces), but I was responding to your "beat the > >metal in a stainless steel bowl" idea. Good luck on beat U this way! > > Isn't a plowshare a bit more appropriate thing to beat it into? :-) exactly. now how can we achive that. like everyone else - i love the show. sex is better. the prices are dropping. so i can't really complain from the consumers point of view. however i am a human being and i do think it's time we get our demented politicians to stop this crap once and for all. so how to do this bill. i personally think we should maybe make laws to hang politicians. start hanging them petty crimes they commit against us - i.e. environmental polution and we can work up from there. but i'm a bit of a radical and am willing to listen to other options. anyone have ideas. regards joe -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
"!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > Where did this bullshit come from? Did someone take a ravioli recipe and do some search and replace? Is Dr. Joe Baptista really Jim Choate in disguise? My favorite short quote : "The trick is to bring the U-235 masses together at the same time." I'm slow, I know, so I'm still trying to figure out how to do it any other way when you have only two pieces. Could someone help me understand this part of the design? I would have to say, though, that my absolute favorite part is where one starts with a supercritical mass and subsequently divides it into two equal parts in order to prepare the device. ROTFL. Anyone gonna post fast neutron cross-section data for Pu and U isotopes? M >One thing that is bothering me these days are all the reports coming out >of Afganistan that nuclear bomb making plans were found. Big >deal. Anyone on the planet can make a nuclear device if they have the >appropriate materials. The hard part is staying alive due to exposure >while manufacturing the device. > >If however death is not an issue then the process itself becomes easy to >accomplish. > >Materials >- > > 4 stainless steal salad bowls (5 - 8 inch diameter) >10 pounds of U-235 (Plutonium) > 1 containment cylinder in which to fit the salad bowls > ? some explosives - C4 platic works best - but TNT or gun powder is >acceptable. > >Assembly > > >10 pounds of U-235 is required to achive critical mass. However less will >work but you will get a sub critical mass on detonation. The difference >is taking out an entire city as opposed to a few city blocks. > >Divide the U-235 into two five pound masses. Beat it evenly into the >inside of one of your salad bowls. U-235 is malleable like gold so you >should have no problem shaping it. Do the same with the other U-235 mass >and shape it into the other salad bowl. > >Keep the two bowls apart - you don't want an accident to cause your >project to go critical. > >C4 explosives work best. You simply mold the C4 into the other two salad >bowls. This is the most dangerous part of the project. Improper handling >of C4 can cause an explosion. But gun powder is just as effective. > >Now fit the U-235 salad bowls into the C4 salad bowls and place them at >each end of the cylindrical containment. Connect your explosives to a >detonator and close off the ends of the cylynder. Make sure the detonator >sets off both explosives at the same time. > >The trick is to bring the U-235 masses together at the same time. > >And thats it. I would recommend some form of protection while building >the project. The aprons worn by dentists will work. They will protect >you to some degree from radioactive poisoning. However - your life is >only being prolonged by taking such measures - you still will end up dead >due to the U-235 radiation regardless of what you do. > >And thats it. > >Conclusion >-- > >Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue in >building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only thing I >find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many causes that >people are willing to die for. And war will not make those reasons go >away - it will only encourage them. > >regards >joe baptista >
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
A propaganda weapon doesn't have to work, it just has to present a threat of working to people who may or may not understand how it is meant to work. It doesn't have to be a credible military weapon. A kamikaze airliner isn't a credible *military* weapon against anyone who can afford artillery. That didn't stop them though. The tall pipe that others mentioned would work well enough to scare people - all you need to do is find a way of convincing others that you've done it. One idea was to set one up in a tall block of flats. You know the sort where there is a 6-inch gap between flights of stairs in the stairwell, so if you stand at the top and look down you see right to the basement. There are abandoned 19 or 20 story blocks in grotty suburbs of London with stairwells like that, I bet the same is true of most big cities. You only have to break in for a single day. You set a number of lumps of U one above the other in such a way that when a higher one falls onto one below it will take it with it - maybe just tie them to the railings with thread, and put some old metal plates in the way to stop them bouncing out of the stack. Use lumps of lead for testing. The topmost one can be released by any simple mecahnism. You then assert publically that when the top one is dropped they will all cascade down and assemble a critical mass on the floor below. Hey presto, one big propaganda coup, one mass panic and evacuation of big city. The building will probably still be standing after it goes off, or fails to, but who will want to be first in? Ken Brown "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > on Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 12:24:31AM -0800, Tim May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Friday, November 16, 2001, at 08:20 PM, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue > > > in building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only > > > thing I find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many > > > causes that people are willing to die for. And war will not make > > > those reasons go away - it will only encourage them. > > > > It's really _not_ this easy. It took China and India a while before > > they successfully tested an A-bomb (many years after they had the raw > > materials from their reactor programs). It may have taken the South > > Africans and Israelis a few years after getting materials, too. So, > > why didn't they just hammer U-235 into stainless steel mixing bowls > > and do it the way "anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device," > > one wonders. > > This analysis neglects consideration of several points: > > - Nation-states (even authoritarian ones) will likely want to create > both a sustained program, not merely crank out a few crude nukes, > and preserve the talent involved. One-offs are almost always easier > to complete than a production effort, but the lowered total cost is > offset by a higher unit cost. The terrorist organization can > accomplish its goals with crude tactics and marginally effective > devices. Credible military threat isn't as simple. > > - Credible military weapons have minimum requirements of both efficacy > -- efficient use of supercritical energy -- and predictability -- > having the damned thing go off in the silo / bunker / hanger / > munitions dump rather than the chosen target isn't particularly > useful.
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
exactly right Ken .. as i said before to Tim May - propaganda is the key. Example - antrax theatre. i must admit i'm warming up to Tim May's tall pipe means of attaining critical mass - much easier then playing with explosive and timing devices - my only question is do our experts see a problem with that means of delivery? regards joe On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Ken Brown wrote: > A propaganda weapon doesn't have to work, it just has to present a > threat of working to people who may or may not understand how it is > meant to work. It doesn't have to be a credible military weapon. A > kamikaze airliner isn't a credible *military* weapon against anyone who > can afford artillery. That didn't stop them though. > > The tall pipe that others mentioned would work well enough to scare > people - all you need to do is find a way of convincing others that > you've done it. One idea was to set one up in a tall block of flats. You > know the sort where there is a 6-inch gap between flights of stairs in > the stairwell, so if you stand at the top and look down you see right to > the basement. There are abandoned 19 or 20 story blocks in grotty > suburbs of London with stairwells like that, I bet the same is true of > most big cities. You only have to break in for a single day. You set a > number of lumps of U one above the other in such a way that when a > higher one falls onto one below it will take it with it - maybe just tie > them to the railings with thread, and put some old metal plates in the > way to stop them bouncing out of the stack. Use lumps of lead for > testing. > > The topmost one can be released by any simple mecahnism. You then assert > publically that when the top one is dropped they will all cascade down > and assemble a critical mass on the floor below. Hey presto, one big > propaganda coup, one mass panic and evacuation of big city. The building > will probably still be standing after it goes off, or fails to, but who > will want to be first in? > > Ken Brown > > > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > > on Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 12:24:31AM -0800, Tim May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Friday, November 16, 2001, at 08:20 PM, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > > Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue > > > > in building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only > > > > thing I find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many > > > > causes that people are willing to die for. And war will not make > > > > those reasons go away - it will only encourage them. > > > > > > It's really _not_ this easy. It took China and India a while before > > > they successfully tested an A-bomb (many years after they had the raw > > > materials from their reactor programs). It may have taken the South > > > Africans and Israelis a few years after getting materials, too. So, > > > why didn't they just hammer U-235 into stainless steel mixing bowls > > > and do it the way "anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device," > > > one wonders. > > > > This analysis neglects consideration of several points: > > > > - Nation-states (even authoritarian ones) will likely want to create > > both a sustained program, not merely crank out a few crude nukes, > > and preserve the talent involved. One-offs are almost always easier > > to complete than a production effort, but the lowered total cost is > > offset by a higher unit cost. The terrorist organization can > > accomplish its goals with crude tactics and marginally effective > > devices. Credible military threat isn't as simple. > > > > - Credible military weapons have minimum requirements of both efficacy > > -- efficient use of supercritical energy -- and predictability -- > > having the damned thing go off in the silo / bunker / hanger / > > munitions dump rather than the chosen target isn't particularly > > useful. > -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:15:39PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > i must admit i'm warming up to Tim May's tall pipe means of attaining > > critical mass - much easier then playing with explosive and timing > > devices - my only question is do our experts see a problem with > > that means of delivery? > > Ah, yes. There are many -- dozens, perhaps hundreds -- of well-known, > published nuclear engineers with practical experience in designing, > engineering, and constructing atomic weapons posting on > cypherpunks. I'm sure those folks in the audience will be delighted to > answer your questions at greath length. well we seem to have some self proclaimed experts here - have faith Declan. After all being a journalist is an act of faith these days - just extend the concept. -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot-god.com/ The dot.GOD Registry, Limited The Executive Plaza, Suite 908 150 West 51st Street Tel: 1 (208) 330-4173 Manhattan Island NYC 10019 USA Fax: 1 (208) 293-9773
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > hold on mr. expert. > you hold a sub critical mass in your hand and in a few days you end up > shitting out your guts, lose your hair and die. > so i assume the person who had the opportunity to hold such a critical > mass is now dead. where are you getting your info on what it feels > like? curious george here. The common fissionable isotopes are alpha emitters with half-lives measured in thousands of years. Their rate of decay is miniscule. Alpha radiation, which consists of helium nuclei, can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Plutonium-239, which has a half-life of about 24,000 years, is slightly warm to the touch. Fissionable isotopes with much longer half-lives do not noticibly differ from room temperature. Alpha emitters are life threatening only if ingested. No ones hair is falling out. Really. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > Consider that nuclear weapons could not be built if the fissiles had > high rates of spontaneous decay - the stuff would detonate prematurely, > resulting in a fizzle. That, incidentally, is why plutonium cannot be > used in a gun-type device - two isotopes are inevitably present, one of > which (forgot the mass number, but you can look that up, too) has a > spontaneous decay rate that is too high for the (relatively) slow > assembly rate of a gun. Weapons grade plutonium contains less than 7% of the non-fissile isotope plutonium-240. This is created if you leave the plutonium-239 in the reactor after it is formed, and it manages to absorb an additional neutron. Small amounts of higher numbered plutonium isotopes are also created by the same process. For this reason, spent fuel from power reactors is not a suitable source of weapons grade plutonium, although it is theoretically possible to build a bomb from reactor grade plutonium if you use enough of it. Bear in mind you will have big thermal problems from short-lived plutonium isotopes if that you employ plutonium from spent fuel, as well as problems from neutrons getting soaked up by non-productive species. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
on Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 12:24:31AM -0800, Tim May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Friday, November 16, 2001, at 08:20 PM, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > > Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue > > in building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only > > thing I find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many > > causes that people are willing to die for. And war will not make > > those reasons go away - it will only encourage them. > > It's really _not_ this easy. It took China and India a while before > they successfully tested an A-bomb (many years after they had the raw > materials from their reactor programs). It may have taken the South > Africans and Israelis a few years after getting materials, too. So, > why didn't they just hammer U-235 into stainless steel mixing bowls > and do it the way "anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device," > one wonders. This analysis neglects consideration of several points: - Nation-states (even authoritarian ones) will likely want to create both a sustained program, not merely crank out a few crude nukes, and preserve the talent involved. One-offs are almost always easier to complete than a production effort, but the lowered total cost is offset by a higher unit cost. The terrorist organization can accomplish its goals with crude tactics and marginally effective devices. Credible military threat isn't as simple. - Credible military weapons have minimum requirements of both efficacy -- efficient use of supercritical energy -- and predictability -- having the damned thing go off in the silo / bunker / hanger / munitions dump rather than the chosen target isn't particularly useful. Tighter constraints => Longer fulfillment time. The original US project, as described by Feynman, involved much radiation exposure and high risks of criticality incidents at Oak Ridge, some of which are documented in his biographical essay collections. The Hanford reservation is still a glowing waste zone, much of which greatly postdates a fairly deep understanding of radiation hazards. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Saturday, November 17, 2001, at 09:50 AM, Eric Cordian wrote: > No ones hair is falling out. Really. Well, not from radiation anyway. -- "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits."--Chris Klein
Re: CDR: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
A couple of corrections from somebody who began studying this threat fifteen years ago. There is little danger to weapons builders from exposure to fissile materials, because they have very little spontaneous radioactivity. The radioactive emissions come when the device goes supercritical during detonation. You can actually hold a subcritical mass of plutonium in your hand for awhile - I'm told it feels warm. Can't say I've tried it myself. Plans for a nuclear device are easy enough to come up with - college kids regularly cause silly-season sensations by publishing "plans" for hydrogen bombs. You can't classify the basic physics, and the data for controlled nuclear reactions is equally applicable to deliberate fast-prompt-critical runaways, which is what nuclear bombs are. What's difficult is not the material, or the material processing, but the detonator TECHNOLOGY. Even that is not a problem if you have LOTS of U-235 or U-233 (plutonium won't work), because you can than use a gun-type device - very heavy and wasteful of material, but workable as proven by Hiroshima's fate. An implosion device (and only an implosion device can be made small) requires the simultaneous (to within microseconds) detonation of perhaps 32 composite shaped charges surrounding a spherical "core" and tamper shell. The manufacture of the charges is very demanding, but the manufacture of the detonators and switches (Krytrons) is the province of maybe four or five firms in the entire world, all carefully monitored by their respective governments. With a full set of _Exploding Wires_, lots of time and extensive manufacturing support, you could eventually get a set of krytrons with the necessary specs. Judging by the number of recent attempts to smuggle krytrons from established sources, however, this has not yet been accomplished by Saddam, Bin Laden or any of their ilk. I'm not losing any sleep over this "threat." Regards, Marc de Piolenc "!Dr. Joe Baptista" wrote: > > One thing that is bothering me these days are all the reports coming out > of Afganistan that nuclear bomb making plans were found. Big > deal. Anyone on the planet can make a nuclear device if they have the > appropriate materials. The hard part is staying alive due to exposure > while manufacturing the device. > > If however death is not an issue then the process itself becomes easy to > accomplish. > > Materials > - > > 4 stainless steal salad bowls (5 - 8 inch diameter) > 10 pounds of U-235 (Plutonium) > 1 containment cylinder in which to fit the salad bowls > ? some explosives - C4 platic works best - but TNT or gun powder is > acceptable. > > Assembly > > > 10 pounds of U-235 is required to achive critical mass. However less will > work but you will get a sub critical mass on detonation. The difference > is taking out an entire city as opposed to a few city blocks. > > Divide the U-235 into two five pound masses. Beat it evenly into the > inside of one of your salad bowls. U-235 is malleable like gold so you > should have no problem shaping it. Do the same with the other U-235 mass > and shape it into the other salad bowl. > > Keep the two bowls apart - you don't want an accident to cause your > project to go critical. > > C4 explosives work best. You simply mold the C4 into the other two salad > bowls. This is the most dangerous part of the project. Improper handling > of C4 can cause an explosion. But gun powder is just as effective. > > Now fit the U-235 salad bowls into the C4 salad bowls and place them at > each end of the cylindrical containment. Connect your explosives to a > detonator and close off the ends of the cylynder. Make sure the detonator > sets off both explosives at the same time. > > The trick is to bring the U-235 masses together at the same time. > > And thats it. I would recommend some form of protection while building > the project. The aprons worn by dentists will work. They will protect > you to some degree from radioactive poisoning. However - your life is > only being prolonged by taking such measures - you still will end up dead > due to the U-235 radiation regardless of what you do. > > And thats it. > > Conclusion > -- > > Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue in > building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only thing I > find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many causes that > people are willing to die for. And war will not make those reasons go > away - it will only encourage them. > > regards > joe baptista > > -- > Joe Baptista > > http://www.dot-god.com/ > > The dot.GOD Registry, Limited > The Executive Plaza, Suite 908 > 150 West 51st Street Tel: 1 (208) 330-4173 > Manhattan Island NYC 10019 USA Fax: 1 (208) 293-9773 -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should
Re: CDR: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > detonation. You can actually hold a subcritical mass of plutonium in > your hand for awhile - I'm told it feels warm. Can't say I've tried it > myself. hold on mr. expert. you hold a sub critical mass in your hand and in a few days you end up shitting out your guts, lose your hair and die. so i assume the person who had the opportunity to hold such a critical mass is now dead. where are you getting your info on what it feels like? curious george here. -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
RE: CDR: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
> [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote > > On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > > > detonation. You can actually hold a subcritical mass of plutonium in > > your hand for awhile - I'm told it feels warm. Can't say I've tried it > > myself. > > hold on mr. expert. > you hold a sub critical mass in your hand and in a few days you end up > shitting out your guts, lose your hair and die. > so i assume the person who had the opportunity to hold such a critical > mass is now dead. where are you getting your info on what it feels > like? curious george here. > The dot.GOD Registry, Limited > http://www.dot-god.com/ > Sigh, the truth is out there; you just need to look it up. Pu-239 (the major isotope of weapons grade plutonium) has a half life of over 24,000 years, and is an alpha emitter. Alphas are very, very feeble, and won't get past the dead outer layer of your skin. Pu-241 (a minor contaminant) is a bigger problem since it has a half life of only 14.4. years, and decays to americium 241. Am-241 is a gamma emitter, and a lot more difficult to shield. Newly processed weapons grade PU in solid lumps is relatively harmless stuff. I wouldn't want to hold it in my bare hand, but it's a pretty low risk operation. Any serious mechanical processing will make dust, which is an entirely different scale of risk. I have a vague memory of seeing a photo of a ?3 inch? ball of Pu (isotopic composition unknown) in one of those old Time-Life books. The ball glowed a dull red with it's own internal heat. [Bet this post gets me on some list. Knowing how to use Google is starting to be viewed as suspicious.] Peter Trei
Re: CDR: Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
And you might mention for the nuclearly impaired that the fuel used in RTGs is not the same as the fissionables used in reactors and weapons. Marc de Piolenc Eric Cordian wrote: > > Peter Trei wrote: > > > I have a vague memory of seeing a photo of a ?3 inch? ball of Pu (isotopic > > composition unknown) in one of those old Time-Life books. The ball glowed > > a dull red with it's own internal heat. > > Sounds like plutonium-238, NASA's favorite fuel for deep space > Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs). It puts out 0.54 > kilowatts/kilogram and has a half life of 87.8 years. > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Cookbooks and Pigs (Was Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device)
Tim wrote: > The bomb instructions Joe provided are as accurate as most recipes in > "The Anarchist Cookbook." > > (A book my local Sheriff's Department banned in 1970.) How did the Sheriff's Department manage to do this?
Re: Cookbooks and Pigs (Was Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device)
On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 01:41 PM, Anonymous wrote: > Tim wrote: > >> The bomb instructions Joe provided are as accurate as most recipes in >> "The Anarchist Cookbook." >> >> (A book my local Sheriff's Department banned in 1970.) > > How did the Sheriff's Department manage to do this? > After some street protests around then, the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department ordered the UCSB Bookstore to remove copies of the book. This is what the various local papers and bookstore management reported at the time. (Rummaging in my memory, I'm not sure if the ban was in 1970, '71, or '72. I remember it was big local news when the local bookstores were allowed to resume selling the book, and I bought my copy in the summer of '73. Still have it, in fact.) As in many cases of book banning, each new case requires an ACLU/etc. court battle. They ban a book, maybe the lawyers sue, probably the ban is lifted, but this doesn't stop the exact same thing from happening a year later or in another state. Were I a judge, I would say "What part of the First Amendment didn't you understand? I'm sentencing the Sheriff, his top 5 deputies, the City Manager, the Mayor, and the 7 members of the City Council who voted on this to a year in County Jail." Of course, this is not possible in America--other lawyers would jump in and claim the judge had exceeded his authorit and that mere violations of the First Amendment are not criminal matters. Which leaves suing the local government, but this is rarely effective (or even allowed) and the victims/taxpayers end up paying all of the costs. The bureaucrats and politicians just laugh. (One reason I came to the "kill those who violate the Constitution willfully" point of view is seeing these deaths of a thousand cuts, where the Supreme Court could rule in one case that something is not constitutional and then have that exact same behavior repeated one county over. "So sue us!" is what the violators say, knowing there will be no sanctions against _them_, personally, and that the court costs will be paid for by the victims. While I wouldn't advocate killing those particular sheriffs who forced bookstores to remove that particular book, the principle is sound. And there are plenty of cases that do justify killing violators.) --Tim May "How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?" --Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
