EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

I vote "crazy"

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - I vote "crazy"

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

John Larkin
Guest

Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:45 pm   



https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

John Robertson
Guest

Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:45 pm   



On 2019/01/31 11:19 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
Quote:


Not new news, the USA contemplated that in the late 50s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Oilsand (Alberta, Canada!)

https://aoghs.org/technology/project-gasbuggy/

No one ever learns...

John :-#(#

Martin Brown
Guest

Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:45 pm   



On 31/01/2019 19:19, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:


It might be preferable to the cocktail of chemicals used by conventional
fracking - although it strikes me as more likely to create earthquakes.
And without the sand to hold the cracks open it may be short lived.

Nuclear detonator is more like a very sophisticated precision shaped
charge designed to cause an implosion or shockwave and has no fissile
radioactive components itself. I can't see it being cost effective.

You pride yourself on thinking outside the box but are quick to condemn
a method that might work because it was NIH.

Although ISTR the USA did try considering this in the past but with a
nuke still attached. They thought about but decided against nuking the
moon too which Carl Sagan was involved with computing the effects of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:39:24 PM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
Quote:
On 2019/01/31 11:19 a.m., John Larkin wrote:


https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas




Not new news, the USA contemplated that in the late 50s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Oilsand (Alberta, Canada!)

https://aoghs.org/technology/project-gasbuggy/

No one ever learns...

John :-#(#


Surprised that lunatic Teller wasn't involved ...


Guest

Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas

Article is factually incorrect. The Hiroshima bomb used no such detonator, it was a simple gun trigger, which required no such spatially synchronized detonation wave, and it was the world's first dirty bomb. It was a very simple fool proof detonation design that they didn't even bother to test before the bombing. The idiots who threw it together admitted as much by stating they just needed to get rid of a bunch of enriched uranium because they no longer had use for it.

This is the exploding bridge wire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator

Luis Alvarez again!

This is very simple and low tech. The Chinese proposal does not use a nuclear detonation, which at most would just create a huge methane gas leak they couldn't contain. Dunno how they call this thing rapid fire when it needs to be hauled back to the surface after each and every shot. It's going to take them forever to fracture any capacity out of that highly compressed rock.


Quote:



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


Jon Elson
Guest

Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:39:14 -0800, John Robertson wrote:

Quote:
On 2019/01/31 11:19 a.m., John Larkin wrote:


https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-
use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas




Not new news, the USA contemplated that in the late 50s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Oilsand (Alberta, Canada!)

https://aoghs.org/technology/project-gasbuggy/

No one ever learns...

We didn't just "contemplate" it, we actually DID a test. It worked, too,
except for the "little" problem that the gas was radioactive! Want some
nice radioactive gas PIPED inside your house? No thanks!

Jon


Guest

Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:45 pm   



On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 4:01:09 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:59:17 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas

Article is factually incorrect. The Hiroshima bomb used no such detonator, it was a simple gun trigger, which required no such spatially synchronized detonation wave, and it was the world's first dirty bomb. It was a very simple fool proof detonation design that they didn't even bother to test before the bombing. The idiots who threw it together admitted as much by stating they just needed to get rid of a bunch of enriched uranium because they no longer had use for it.

This is the exploding bridge wire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator

Luis Alvarez again!

This is very simple and low tech. The Chinese proposal does not use a nuclear detonation, which at most would just create a huge methane gas leak they couldn't contain. Dunno how they call this thing rapid fire when it needs to be hauled back to the surface after each and every shot. It's going to take them forever to fracture any capacity out of that highly compressed rock.


The Fat Man plutonium bomb used a lot of exploding-wire detonators to
shape the spherical implosion. They use krytron tubes to discharge
capacitors into the detonators. That was the Nagasaki bomb.


All of that is covered in the exploding bridgewire wiki article. It was more than just an implosion. It was a spherical lens that shaped the shock wave with sphere center the focal point. This is an idea originally conceived by VonNeumann.


Quote:

But it's hard to imagine storing a rock-shattering amount of energy in
capacitors.

I wonder if chemical explosives work at that depth/pressure.


I believe the idea is to concentrate the shock wave energy onto a very small cross-sectional area, and this creates the fracture.

Quote:

It's interesting that China has so much ng. They will probably find a
way to harvest it.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


George Herold
Guest

Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:45 am   



On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas

No idea, I'll wait to see if it works. I also didn't know that
hydraulic fracking doesn't work deeper down. Too much pressure?

George H.
Quote:



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:45 am   



On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:59:17 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas

Article is factually incorrect. The Hiroshima bomb used no such detonator, it was a simple gun trigger, which required no such spatially synchronized detonation wave, and it was the world's first dirty bomb. It was a very simple fool proof detonation design that they didn't even bother to test before the bombing. The idiots who threw it together admitted as much by stating they just needed to get rid of a bunch of enriched uranium because they no longer had use for it.

This is the exploding bridge wire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator

Luis Alvarez again!

This is very simple and low tech. The Chinese proposal does not use a nuclear detonation, which at most would just create a huge methane gas leak they couldn't contain. Dunno how they call this thing rapid fire when it needs to be hauled back to the surface after each and every shot. It's going to take them forever to fracture any capacity out of that highly compressed rock.


The Fat Man plutonium bomb used a lot of exploding-wire detonators to
shape the spherical implosion. They use krytron tubes to discharge
capacitors into the detonators. That was the Nagasaki bomb.

But it's hard to imagine storing a rock-shattering amount of energy in
capacitors.

I wonder if chemical explosives work at that depth/pressure.

It's interesting that China has so much ng. They will probably find a
way to harvest it.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:45 am   



On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:39:46 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 31/01/2019 19:19, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas

It might be preferable to the cocktail of chemicals used by conventional
fracking - although it strikes me as more likely to create earthquakes.
And without the sand to hold the cracks open it may be short lived.

Nuclear detonator is more like a very sophisticated precision shaped
charge designed to cause an implosion or shockwave and has no fissile
radioactive components itself. I can't see it being cost effective.

You pride yourself on thinking outside the box but are quick to condemn
a method that might work because it was NIH.


The issue is joules of energy stored in capacitors, fracturing
kilotons of rock. The numbers aren't good.

We live in a world if insane "scientific" press releases, a tiny
fraction of which will ever work.


Quote:

Although ISTR the USA did try considering this in the past but with a
nuke still attached. They thought about but decided against nuking the
moon too which Carl Sagan was involved with computing the effects of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119


A nuke will fracture kilotons of rock for sure. A capacitor, not so
much.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

bitrex
Guest

Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:45 am   



On 01/31/2019 07:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:59:17 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas

Article is factually incorrect. The Hiroshima bomb used no such detonator, it was a simple gun trigger, which required no such spatially synchronized detonation wave, and it was the world's first dirty bomb. It was a very simple fool proof detonation design that they didn't even bother to test before the bombing. The idiots who threw it together admitted as much by stating they just needed to get rid of a bunch of enriched uranium because they no longer had use for it.

This is the exploding bridge wire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator

Luis Alvarez again!

This is very simple and low tech. The Chinese proposal does not use a nuclear detonation, which at most would just create a huge methane gas leak they couldn't contain. Dunno how they call this thing rapid fire when it needs to be hauled back to the surface after each and every shot. It's going to take them forever to fracture any capacity out of that highly compressed rock.


The Fat Man plutonium bomb used a lot of exploding-wire detonators to
shape the spherical implosion. They use krytron tubes to discharge
capacitors into the detonators. That was the Nagasaki bomb.

But it's hard to imagine storing a rock-shattering amount of energy in
capacitors.

I wonder if chemical explosives work at that depth/pressure.

It's interesting that China has so much ng. They will probably find a
way to harvest it.


Incidentally the only surefire way to destroy well-hardened ICBM silos
is to detonate ground bursts of say 100 kiloton weapons in a diamond or
star pattern, at a range of maybe 500 yards from the silo, fracture the
rock, and implode/crush the silo inwards from all sides at the pinch point

bitrex
Guest

Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:45 am   



On 01/31/2019 07:43 PM, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
On 01/31/2019 07:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:59:17 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas


Article is factually incorrect. The Hiroshima bomb used no such
detonator, it was a simple gun trigger, which required no such
spatially synchronized detonation wave, and it was the world's first
dirty bomb. It was a very simple fool proof detonation design that
they didn't even bother to test before the bombing. The idiots who
threw it together admitted as much by stating they just needed to get
rid of a bunch of enriched uranium because they no longer had use for
it.

This is the exploding bridge wire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding-bridgewire_detonator

Luis Alvarez again!

This is very simple and low tech. The Chinese proposal does not use a
nuclear detonation, which at most would just create a huge methane
gas leak they couldn't contain. Dunno how they call this thing rapid
fire when it needs to be hauled back to the surface after each and
every shot. It's going to take them forever to fracture any capacity
out of that highly compressed rock.


The Fat Man plutonium bomb used a lot of exploding-wire detonators to
shape the spherical implosion. They use krytron tubes to discharge
capacitors into the detonators. That was the Nagasaki bomb.

But it's hard to imagine storing a rock-shattering amount of energy in
capacitors.

I wonder if chemical explosives work at that depth/pressure.

It's interesting that China has so much ng. They will probably find a
way to harvest it.


Incidentally the only surefire way to destroy well-hardened ICBM silos
is to detonate ground bursts of say 100 kiloton weapons in a diamond or
star pattern, at a range of maybe 500 yards from the silo, fracture the
rock, and implode/crush the silo inwards from all sides at the pinch point


actually the exact pattern may be different from that (and probably
classified), has to be timed so the incoming warheads detonate
approximately simultaneously without fratriciding even though they're
all arriving at slightly different times, very slightly but still
significant wrt how fast detonation and fireball development of the
other warheads happens

Jasen Betts
Guest

Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:41 am   



On 2019-01-31, John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
Quote:


Why do you vote crazy?

Is it because unlike USA they are not using an actual atomic bomb, (just some left
over, high explosive, initiator charges)

Or is it beacue they are fracking?

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Jasen Betts
Guest

Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:45 am   



On 2019-02-01, John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:39:46 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:



A nuke will fracture kilotons of rock for sure. A capacitor, not so
much.


If you think the exploding bridge wires were resonsible for the
compression of the plutonium pit you are mistaken.

The bridge wires were the detonators that started
the high explosive off the HE compresses the pit.

They're puttins surplus high explosive down the hole.
probably recycled from some de-commsioned nukes,

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Jon Elson
Guest

Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:45 am   



bitrex wrote:


Quote:

Incidentally the only surefire way to destroy well-hardened ICBM silos
is to detonate ground bursts of say 100 kiloton weapons in a diamond or
star pattern, at a range of maybe 500 yards from the silo, fracture the
rock, and implode/crush the silo inwards from all sides at the pinch point

You don't actually have to demolish the missile to put it "effectively" out
of action. You just have to shake it pretty well. The angular alignment of
these things have to be INSANELY accurate to hit a target 7000 miles away.
I actually have no idea how they survey these things in to the required
accuracy. Our Minuteman missiles have windows in the guidance system, and
they install something on the walls of the silo, something like a mirror and
a transit. They sight through the guidance platform to the mirror and back
and use that to align the guidance platform. How they set up the mirror and
transit base to the required accuracy is the mystery. Some kind of super
surveying technique.

So, anyway, if a single nuclear explosion was within a few thousand feet of
a silo, the missile would rock and get out of alignment. Then, you might be
able to still launch and hit the general target region, but I'd assume your
aim would be off by miles.

Jon

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - I vote "crazy"

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map