[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Soviet Atomic bullets (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/14/2014 5:30:39 PM EDT
|
Group buy ? The article says they were made in 54r
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/19-11-2014/129079-atomic_bullets-0/ |
|
Quoted:
There might be a nuclear isotope with a small enough critical mass to fit in a bullet but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that sounds like bullshit. There might be a nuclear isotope with a small enough critical mass to fit in a bullet but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it. Smart man. |
|
Quoted:
There might be a nuclear isotope with a small enough critical mass to fit in a bullet but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that sounds like bullshit. There might be a nuclear isotope with a small enough critical mass to fit in a bullet but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it. Looks like Californium ain't one of them. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like its critical mass is around 11 pounds, which is just a wee bit heavy for a rifle bullet. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/transport/doc/irsn_sect03_146.pdf |
| I'm pretty sure that I can dig up a cite where Ted Taylor very strongly suggests the ability to assemble a critical mass with well under 100 g of Pu. Doing so in a 7.62 bullet sounds like kind of a challenge, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that real neweps can be made with a great deal less material than is commonly held to be required. |
|
My favorite thing from the article was this comment:
Will Cooke ? 15:05 23 ?????? They brought slaves to America before they had tractors. They did not know they could be taught English. If we had brought monkeys over from Africa instead of slaves, and bred with them, They would have rioted for their "Civil Rights" too. They would have raised up an "Ape Lincoln" and now we would have a monkey for president of the United States. There is no such thing as a "human being". What we call people (just because they have vocal chords)(and some of those are very primitive) are closer related to monkeys than horses and donkeys. Does a monkey man have civil rights just if it is born in America?? I am not a racist. The people that call me a racist are racist. They give "civil rights" to people completely based of where a man is born! They won't give "Civil Rights to a good man born ten feet south of the Arizona border! When we invent a helmet that can track cows brainwaves and let them talk electronicly, they will tell far worse stories than the "black man" ever did! their babies are taken away from them and eaten! They will take McDonalds to the supreme court for murder, and elect a cow to be governor of Kansas! Something as complex as Life did not evolve twice on this planet! We only give "Civil Rights" to the ones who can talk and call them "people". All around us are higher and lower life forms. If it became popular to have monkeys as pets, Someday they will breed some that will make perfect wives (probably with a "shocker" on their neck), they will obediently do anything you ask and you can beat them when you get mad at them (somebody is gonna get rich doing this). When do they get to riot for their "Civil Rights" and elect a monkey to be our president! Remember, history repeats itself! |
|
Quoted:
Looks like Californium ain't one of them. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like its critical mass is around 11 pounds, which is just a wee bit heavy for a rifle bullet. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/transport/doc/irsn_sect03_146.pdf Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that sounds like bullshit. There might be a nuclear isotope with a small enough critical mass to fit in a bullet but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it. Looks like Californium ain't one of them. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like its critical mass is around 11 pounds, which is just a wee bit heavy for a rifle bullet. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/transport/doc/irsn_sect03_146.pdf There is a pretty big difference between a chunk of metal sitting on the table, and one compressed at 2,800 fps. I expect the critical mass to be much, much less. 11 pounds also seems to be an excessively high mass, weapon cores are almost all under 15 pounds for even simple fission devices using plutonium. Some isotopes of Ca should be under 5lbs just sitting on the shelf, and much less if engineered properly. I still doubt a 7.62 bullet is currently possible, but I have little doubt that a 30mm one could be made (presuming you have the several billion dollars worth of Californium handy). |
|
Quoted:
There is a pretty big difference between a chunk of metal sitting on the table, and one compressed at 2,800 fps. I expect the critical mass to be much, much less. 11 pounds also seems to be an excessively high mass, weapon cores are almost all under 15 pounds for even simple fission devices using plutonium. Some isotopes of Ca should be under 5lbs just sitting on the shelf, and much less if engineered properly. I still doubt a 7.62 bullet is currently possible, but I have little doubt that a 30mm one could be made (presuming you have the several billion dollars worth of Californium handy). Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that sounds like bullshit. There might be a nuclear isotope with a small enough critical mass to fit in a bullet but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it. Looks like Californium ain't one of them. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like its critical mass is around 11 pounds, which is just a wee bit heavy for a rifle bullet. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/transport/doc/irsn_sect03_146.pdf There is a pretty big difference between a chunk of metal sitting on the table, and one compressed at 2,800 fps. I expect the critical mass to be much, much less. 11 pounds also seems to be an excessively high mass, weapon cores are almost all under 15 pounds for even simple fission devices using plutonium. Some isotopes of Ca should be under 5lbs just sitting on the shelf, and much less if engineered properly. I still doubt a 7.62 bullet is currently possible, but I have little doubt that a 30mm one could be made (presuming you have the several billion dollars worth of Californium handy). 
|
|
The structure of atomic bullets is incredibly simple. Californium is used to produce a tiny, dumbbell-shaped piece weighing 5-6 grams. The tiny explosive charge inside the bullet crushes it into a neat ball, which, for a 7.62-mm caliber bullet, has a diameter of 8 mm. The process leads to the appearance of a supercritical state, and a nuclear explosion is guaranteed! To detonate the charge, a contact fuze inside the bullet was used. Uh......no. |
|
One belt of 7.62X54R ammunition would cost more than an nuclear sub ! The soviets werent worried about irradiating thier own troops or treaties preventing,making,having or using some weapon. If they COULD have built it they would have --they had problems with sub sized nuc reactors,hell thier land based full sized ones wernt that great either. During the cold war they would have had to get a western company to develop it then steal the design,remove the safety features and make it out of sub standard materiels. Thats about the only way it would have got done at all
|
|
I liked the American atomic artillery ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46GBjlUOROY 
|
|
The problem was the short half life of californium. Also, it was a suicide weapon, as the blast was enough to kill the shooter. We even retired the Davy Crocket rocket and 155 mm atomic shells in favor of missiles, in part, due to command and control of the permissive action link system. It's all electronics now.
Hey, just kidding, what do I know about ex lax science? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Californium ain't one of them. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like its critical mass is around 11 pounds, which is just a wee bit heavy for a rifle bullet. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/transport/doc/irsn_sect03_146.pdf There is a pretty big difference between a chunk of metal sitting on the table, and one compressed at 2,800 fps. I expect the critical mass to be much, much less. 11 pounds also seems to be an excessively high mass, weapon cores are almost all under 15 pounds for even simple fission devices using plutonium. Some isotopes of Ca should be under 5lbs just sitting on the shelf, and much less if engineered properly. I still doubt a 7.62 bullet is currently possible, but I have little doubt that a 30mm one could be made (presuming you have the several billion dollars worth of Californium handy). http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-04-26/1272253169769.jpg Pretty sure he is right. As a fissile pit is compressed, its density increases. As its density increases, I believe the critical mass is reduced. Just because 11lbs is the critical mass in a normal state, does not mean you actually need 11lbs for a super-criticality to occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783642147081-c1.pdf If a sufficiently strong implosion can be achieved, then one can get away with having less than a “normal” critical mass by starting with a sphere of material of normal density and crushing it to high density by implosion However, I'm fairly sure you aren't going to get ~400 grains of any fissile material to go super-critical without something akin to the National Ignition Facility or a black hole compressing it. |
|
Quoted:
Pretty sure he is right. As a fissile pit is compressed, its density increases. As its density increases, I believe the critical mass is reduced. Just because 11lbs is the critical mass in a normal state, does not mean you actually need 11lbs for a super-criticality to occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass However, I'm fairly sure you aren't going to get ~400 grains of any fissile material to go super-critical without something akin to the National Ignition Facility or a black hole compressing it. Quoted:
Pretty sure he is right. As a fissile pit is compressed, its density increases. As its density increases, I believe the critical mass is reduced. Just because 11lbs is the critical mass in a normal state, does not mean you actually need 11lbs for a super-criticality to occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass However, I'm fairly sure you aren't going to get ~400 grains of any fissile material to go super-critical without something akin to the National Ignition Facility or a black hole compressing it. Except, per the article, they would have to be fired at max range to kind of not kill the shooter, and it wouldn't be 2800 FPS. I'd have to look again, but I think 2800 fps is too slow to prevent subcritical reaction that would salt the "core" and prevent a supercritical reaction. Even if it was fired near contact distances, you would have to build the entire system to prevent any yaw which, on impact, would adversely affect yield, even if 2800 fps was fast enough. Or maybe that's why they claim a yield of 100-700 Kg of TNT. 
And that's not even mentioning this part of the article The structure of atomic bullets is incredibly simple. Californium is used to produce a tiny, dumbbell-shaped piece weighing 5-6 grams. The tiny explosive charge inside the bullet crushes it into a neat ball, which, for a 7.62-mm caliber bullet, has a diameter of 8 mm. The process leads to the appearance of a supercritical state, and a nuclear explosion is guaranteed! To detonate the charge, a contact fuze inside the bullet was used. 
Not to mention this page which I linked earlier includes a pic of the container we used to transport "up to 1g" of Californium. |
|
However, it was noticed during the tests that if the bullet would hit a tank filled with water, a nuclear explosion would not take place, as water slows down and reflects neutrons. It turned out that a bucket of water could be most reliable armour against an atomic bullet. New armor for tanks. 5 gallon jerricans filled with H20.
|
|
Quoted:
Except, per the article, they would have to be fired at max range to kind of not kill the shooter, and it wouldn't be 2800 FPS. I'd have to look again, but I think 2800 fps is too slow to prevent subcritical reaction that would salt the "core" and prevent a supercritical reaction. Even if it was fired near contact distances, you would have to build the entire system to prevent any yaw which, on impact, would adversely affect yield, even if 2800 fps was fast enough. Or maybe that's why they claim a yield of 100-700 Kg of TNT.
And that's not even mentioning this part of the article which is hysterical. A "dumbbell" shaped mass that is formed into a "neat" sphere by a "tiny" (we're still working inside the size of a .311 projo out of a PKM) explosive charge which is initiated by a "contact" fuze.
Not to mention this page which I linked earlier includes a pic of the container we used to transport "up to 1g" of Californium. Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty sure he is right. As a fissile pit is compressed, its density increases. As its density increases, I believe the critical mass is reduced. Just because 11lbs is the critical mass in a normal state, does not mean you actually need 11lbs for a super-criticality to occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass However, I'm fairly sure you aren't going to get ~400 grains of any fissile material to go super-critical without something akin to the National Ignition Facility or a black hole compressing it. Except, per the article, they would have to be fired at max range to kind of not kill the shooter, and it wouldn't be 2800 FPS. I'd have to look again, but I think 2800 fps is too slow to prevent subcritical reaction that would salt the "core" and prevent a supercritical reaction. Even if it was fired near contact distances, you would have to build the entire system to prevent any yaw which, on impact, would adversely affect yield, even if 2800 fps was fast enough. Or maybe that's why they claim a yield of 100-700 Kg of TNT.
And that's not even mentioning this part of the article The structure of atomic bullets is incredibly simple. Californium is used to produce a tiny, dumbbell-shaped piece weighing 5-6 grams. The tiny explosive charge inside the bullet crushes it into a neat ball, which, for a 7.62-mm caliber bullet, has a diameter of 8 mm. The process leads to the appearance of a supercritical state, and a nuclear explosion is guaranteed! To detonate the charge, a contact fuze inside the bullet was used.
Not to mention this page which I linked earlier includes a pic of the container we used to transport "up to 1g" of Californium. Hey, I'm agreeing that a fissile-yield small arms projectile are impossible. Note what I said in bold above. I'm simply pointing out that masses below the normal-state critical mass can indeed to pushed to super-criticality and result in an ESK (Earth Shattering Kaboom). The poster claiming such is scientifically correct, even though it lends no credibility to the article. |
|
Quoted:
New armor for tanks. 5 gallon jerricans filled with H20. Quoted:
However, it was noticed during the tests that if the bullet would hit a tank filled with water, a nuclear explosion would not take place, as water slows down and reflects neutrons. It turned out that a bucket of water could be most reliable armour against an atomic bullet. New armor for tanks. 5 gallon jerricans filled with H20. .... Wouldn't reflecting neutrons encourage, not discourage, supercriticality? 
|
|
Quoted:
.... Wouldn't reflecting neutrons encourage, not discourage, supercriticality? Quoted:
Quoted:
However, it was noticed during the tests that if the bullet would hit a tank filled with water, a nuclear explosion would not take place, as water slows down and reflects neutrons. It turned out that a bucket of water could be most reliable armour against an atomic bullet. New armor for tanks. 5 gallon jerricans filled with H20. .... Wouldn't reflecting neutrons encourage, not discourage, supercriticality? Hey, I didn't write it. I just found the humor in it.
|
|
Quoted:
Hey, I'm agreeing that the claims of a fissile-yield small arms projectile are impossible. Note what I said in bold above. I'm simply pointing out that masses below the normal-state critical mass can indeed to pushed to super-criticality and result in an ESK (Earth Shattering Kaboom). The poster claiming such is scientifically correct, even though it lends no credibility to the article. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty sure he is right. As a fissile pit is compressed, its density increases. As its density increases, I believe the critical mass is reduced. Just because 11lbs is the critical mass in a normal state, does not mean you actually need 11lbs for a super-criticality to occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass However, I'm fairly sure you aren't going to get ~400 grains of any fissile material to go super-critical without something akin to the National Ignition Facility or a black hole compressing it. Except, per the article, they would have to be fired at max range to kind of not kill the shooter, and it wouldn't be 2800 FPS. I'd have to look again, but I think 2800 fps is too slow to prevent subcritical reaction that would salt the "core" and prevent a supercritical reaction. Even if it was fired near contact distances, you would have to build the entire system to prevent any yaw which, on impact, would adversely affect yield, even if 2800 fps was fast enough. Or maybe that's why they claim a yield of 100-700 Kg of TNT.
And that's not even mentioning this part of the article The structure of atomic bullets is incredibly simple. Californium is used to produce a tiny, dumbbell-shaped piece weighing 5-6 grams. The tiny explosive charge inside the bullet crushes it into a neat ball, which, for a 7.62-mm caliber bullet, has a diameter of 8 mm. The process leads to the appearance of a supercritical state, and a nuclear explosion is guaranteed! To detonate the charge, a contact fuze inside the bullet was used.
Not to mention this page which I linked earlier includes a pic of the container we used to transport "up to 1g" of Californium. Hey, I'm agreeing that the claims of a fissile-yield small arms projectile are impossible. Note what I said in bold above. I'm simply pointing out that masses below the normal-state critical mass can indeed to pushed to super-criticality and result in an ESK (Earth Shattering Kaboom). The poster claiming such is scientifically correct, even though it lends no credibility to the article. Have you ever had a chance to read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes? 
|
|
Y’all aren’t familiar with californium ammo?
I believe it was used by military units of the Third Imperium. But they had to store the ammo in nuclear dampener fields because the half life was so short. Once out of the dampening field it only takes a small amount of californium to reach critical mass. Meanwhile, in the real world… What the article describes MIGHT be possible. But you would get an incredibly expensive round of ammo which was made of a material far more valuable than gold. I don’t even want to speculate on the cost of that much californium. I don't even know if enough exists in the world to make one round. Then, the round would be very hot due to decay and it would likely endanger anyone nearby. It couldn’t be stored for long because the decay would render it inert after a short time… perhaps a month or so I would guess. And this super expensive, highly radioactive, and rather and unstable wonder weapon might be as effective as a Hellfire missile against tanks. ETA, I looked it up and the entire US production is something like a quarter gram a year. That pretty much rules out the nuclear bullet idea as a practical weapon, even if you only needed one. |