On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/9/9 <wjhon...@aol.com>: >> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their >> "plans". >> The method of making an H bomb is widely known. >> The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary >> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a >> cheap thing to do. Everyone however knows *how* to do it. > > No thats the A-bomb (and even then explosive lenses are > problematical). H-Bomb plane still contain significant elements of > speculation. The various failed attempts to construct them suggest > it's not that easy.
This is wishful thinking, Geni. Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium sized ones (1 ton) is not. And the explosive lenses get easier the more you know about how to make them. The 1945 vintage ones we show for [[Fat Man]] are far harder to design and make than the ones used just 10 years later for a Brok / [[Mark 12 nuclear bomb]]. Which are easier to design, but bigger and therefore somewhat harder to actually make, than the ones from five years after that in the [[B-61 nuclear bomb]], which are conceptually quite simple (and not that computationally hard). Which are harder to make, if a lot easier to calculate, than the [[W88]]. There are no WP:RS compatible sources one can cite for those developments and details, and WP:NOT a bomb manual, but thinking that they're that difficult just because they're not talked about widely is wishful thinking. I wish people would stop using nuclear plans as the hypothetical for these discussions... -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l