Hiroshima B0mb had Uranium, Nagasaki B0mb had Plutonium.. Why?

a reply to: Azureblue

I believe the reason was that they only had sufficient fissionable material to construct 3 atomic bombs at that time so 1 was used for the Trinity test to prove the plutonium bomb was workable and the other 2 were shipped off to Tinian. If the Japanese sub had torpedoed the ship before it offloaded the bombs, history would be somewhat different.

Plutonium is more deadly, I guess.



Had to find the right altitude to detonate?

To max the shock waves.

That was like 50 years ago dude.

So why are people still living there after only a few years?

Now we can put up into orbit a couple tons of a scrap metal rod and send it back down at 24,000 mph anywhere and no radiation involved.

There is a K word involved.

Never see it coming either.

Maybe when radioactive material explodes, it eats itself faster?

a reply to: Pilgrum

That about covers it. Making a bomb with highly-enriched uranium is incredibly simple, requiring only two subcritical masses of uranium and enough explosive to slam them together (a gun-bomb). Trouble is, refining uranium to weapons-grade enrichment (80%+ U-235) is a complicated and time-consuming procedure, requiring processing a lot of (highly toxic, corrosive and generally nasty) uranium hexafluoride via centrifuges or gaseous diffusion to separate out the inert U-238 isotope from the fissile U-235.

Plutonium on the other hand, is incredibly easy, relatively speaking. It simply requires a breeder reactor and fuel-grade uranium (below 20% U-235, much less difficult to refine than weapons material). Running the reactor exposes U-238 in the fuel (or added in the form of slugs) to neutron radiation, transmuting it into plutonium-239, then just separating the plutonium from everything else via chemical processing. But plutonium is much more difficult to work with for making bombs, because it's a nasty metal to work with and tends to spontaneously fission in amounts approaching critical mass (meaning that you can't just smack two subcritical lumps of it together and get a fission explosion, like a uranium gun-bomb does). So plutonium weapons require things like neutron reflectors and the well-known lensed implosion design using detonators timed down to 0.1 microseconds or thereabouts, much more complex than uranium devices.

The Manhattan Project was very much a "try everything and see what works best" operation, so they used both uranium and plutonium devices, experimenting with a variety of designs. The plutonium implosion design both used an easier fuel to produce and required more testing, so the Trinity test was run before building the final Fat Man device dropped on Hiroshima, whereas the Little Boy uranium bomb was more or less foolproof in design and went from theory to deployment without being used in a test shot first.

originally posted by: ShadeWolf
a reply to: Pilgrum

That about covers it. Making a bomb with highly-enriched uranium is incredibly simple, requiring only two subcritical masses of uranium and enough explosive to slam them together (a gun-bomb). Trouble is, refining uranium to weapons-grade enrichment (80%+ U-235) is a complicated and time-consuming procedure, requiring processing a lot of (highly toxic, corrosive and generally nasty) uranium hexafluoride via centrifuges or gaseous diffusion to separate out the inert U-238 isotope from the fissile U-235.

Plutonium on the other hand, is incredibly easy, relatively speaking. It simply requires a breeder reactor and fuel-grade uranium (below 20% U-235, much less difficult to refine than weapons material). Running the reactor exposes U-238 in the fuel (or added in the form of slugs) to neutron radiation, transmuting it into plutonium-239, then just separating the plutonium from everything else via chemical processing. But plutonium is much more difficult to work with for making bombs, because it's a nasty metal to work with and tends to spontaneously fission in amounts approaching critical mass (meaning that you can't just smack two subcritical lumps of it together and get a fission explosion, like a uranium gun-bomb does). So plutonium weapons require things like neutron reflectors and the well-known lensed implosion design using detonators timed down to 0.1 microseconds or thereabouts, much more complex than uranium devices.

The Manhattan Project was very much a "try everything and see what works best" operation, so they used both uranium and plutonium devices, experimenting with a variety of designs. The plutonium implosion design both used an easier fuel to produce and required more testing, so the Trinity test was run before building the final Fat Man device dropped on Hiroshima, whereas the Little Boy uranium bomb was more or less foolproof in design and went from theory to deployment without being used in a test shot first.

The FBI/DHS know about you?

a reply to: Gothmog

Matter vs Antimatter is what I was referring to for destroying matter, or complete conversion to energy.

Theory also allows for the reversal: energy to matter.

The production of antimatter for study and observation of it's total energy conversion has been conducted several times.

Hiroshima event used a Urainium Gun. Nagasaki event used Plutonium implosion. Watch Fat Man and Little Boy. Having known in depth information about this in grade school, without the Internet...in this day of endless info...this is just a silly question.
a reply to: FamCore

How far away are the stars?...
a reply to: FamCore

It was one disgusting test, with the victims being monitored for long times regularly. Horrible stories of little girls who had to get naked in a room of American "experts"... Plutonium injections...
A chapter that shows how completely irrelevant human life is to certain groups.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Gothmog

Matter vs Antimatter is what I was referring to for destroying matter, or complete conversion to energy.

Theory also allows for the reversal: energy to matter.

The production of antimatter for study and observation of it's total energy conversion has been conducted several times.

That is a correct statement if you use the term "conversion" . Yet , according to some modern theories
Crash a pound of iron into a pound of anti - copper and what do you get for your money - nothing , they would actually pass through each other.
Crash a pound of iron into a pound of anti-iron.....look out star system
And , some string/superstring theories do account for a "reverse" conversion.

a reply to: FamCore

1) Atoms were not annihilated when the bomb detonated, they were 'split', they call this "Fission".

2) and 3) Both bomb types were developed at the same time, because they weren't sure in the beginning if both would work. Thats why they went with both types of detonation and material. The project took years, they weren't sure in the beginning which would be 'best'.

The gun type uranium design was the simplest, Implosion type Plutonium was more complex, less certain.

4) We have. Thousands of Fission and Fusion bombs have been developed and tested since WWII. Currently the US employs Depleted Uranium in a variety of modern weapons systems, from small calibre to artillery, missiles and bombs.

Although they don't 'explode' like nuclear weapons, they do produce radioactive fallout, creating a lasting legacy wherever the US military operates.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: eriktheawful

Thanks for your response - clarification for what I mean by "comparable" to the dropping of the atomic bomb, I'm wondering what other destructive, geopolitical events seem to compare in terms of their impact on the world and the history books

I think Genghis Khans rampage westwards, where it is estimated 40,000,000 people were killed, ranks pretty high in the apocalypse table.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: FamCore

1) Atoms were not annihilated when the bomb detonated, they were 'split', they call this "Fission".

2) and 3) Both bomb types were developed at the same time, because they weren't sure in the beginning if both would work. Thats why they went with both types of detonation and material. The project took years, they weren't sure in the beginning which would be 'best'.

The gun type uranium design was the simplest, Implosion type Plutonium was more complex, less certain.

4) We have. Thousands of Fission and Fusion bombs have been developed and tested since WWII. Currently the US employs Depleted Uranium in a variety of modern weapons systems, from small calibre to artillery, missiles and bombs.

Although they don't 'explode' like nuclear weapons, they do produce radioactive fallout, creating a lasting legacy wherever the US military operates.

Also used as a plate that bolts on to the glasis as a latest update to the Abrams MBT.(on top of the Chobham armour)

If you feel like sharing, what happens to the 'plate' when the reactive armor beneath it explodes?

a reply to: Gothmog

Okay, look, the OP's statement was that it was impossible to destroy matter and impossible to create matter.

Total conversion of matter to energy and the reverse of that allows for it.

Why anyone who is interested in total energy conversion use two different materials to try and do so when they obviously have a different amount of protons, neutrons and electrons, would be, pretty stupid. You wouldn't get the total conversion you'd be looking for.

But: the point was - yes, you can destroy matter (if it's totally converted to energy, it's no longer matter) and you can in theory convert energy into matter (since energy is NOT matter, it would be the same as creating something, out of nothing as per the definition of what matter is).

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Gothmog

Matter vs Antimatter is what I was referring to for destroying matter, or complete conversion to energy.

Theory also allows for the reversal: energy to matter.

The production of antimatter for study and observation of it's total energy conversion has been conducted several times.

That is a correct statement if you use the term "conversion" . Yet , according to some modern theories
Crash a pound of iron into a pound of anti - copper and what do you get for your money - nothing , they would actually pass through each other.
Crash a pound of iron into a pound of anti-iron.....look out star system
And , some string/superstring theories do account for a "reverse" conversion.

Except for two things

1) Your Iron, anti-copper example is massively incorrect

Anti-copper would be made of anti-neutrons, anti-protons and positrons. if you smashed them together, the first thing that would happen is that the valence electrons and positrons would react, causing a large burst of 511keV gammas, The two materials would likely burn each other up, resulting from the fact that to get the nuclei close you do not need to overcome the coulomb barrier. The two bodies of material would burst with energy most likely in the form of gammas, and quite possibly alphas as the nuclear material basically destroys itself. You would, at the end of it all, probably have some stuff left over... if we go metric... because you know, we are civilized around these parts

1kg Copper = (1000/63.546)*6.022e23 = 9.47E24 atoms
1kg Iron = (1000/55.845)*6.022e23) = 1.08E25 atoms

You'd probably be left with vapour, but you'd have 1.33E24 atoms of Iron left over, so, roughly 2.2 grams. As i said, the reaction would create lots of energy and probably be very violent, the actual conversion wouldn't burn down to 2.2 grams left over unless you could confine the resulting plasma vaporization of everything into actually reacting.

SOoooo im not sure you actually understand particle or nuclear physics as much as your confidence claims.

2) You clearly dont understand string theory as they predict no such thing any more than the standard model does.


SO well done, all of the information you presented was highly inaccurate! but delivered with such great confidence.

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: Gothmog

As long as you are not dealing with nuclear fission or fusion, then the original laws of Thermodynamics hold true. You cannot create or lose mass. You also can not create or lose energy. Only during nuclear reactions can mass be lost and energy created.

Laws of thermodynamics hold true for nuclear reactions as well -- i.e., the conversion of matter into energy.

The total energy (including matter to energy conversion) in a system is still conserved, even in a nuclear reaction.

I remember seeing that detail in a Docu, they had two methods to refine Uranium into Plutonium so they used both sources on different devices

If you are truly interested in the development, theories and usage of the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would recommend the book The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes

I'd have to say this is one of the best researched and annotated volumes I have ever read on the subject.

FYI, above I have linked to the wikipedia articles as opposed to the actual book.

a reply to: feldercarb

Its actual E = energy. M = mass. C = the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum. Acceleration plays no part in this equation.

Energy equals the mass of an object multiplied by the square of the speed of light in a vacuum

Oops. Fat fingers