Going Nuclear - The Science Of Nuclear Weapons - Part 1 - Just a Theory
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 11. 2017
- Going Nuclear is a multi part series where I go into detail on how nuclear weapons work, looking deep at the science and explaining how some curious discoveries in the early 20th century lead to the most powerful weapons ever used in war, and how those were tuned and evolved into the smaller, more powerful modern weapons.
Part 1 covers the early experimental discoveries and how they provided the theoretical underpinnings to show that Atomic chain reactions would work and how that might lead to a new form of energy.
Music is 'Tranquility Base' by Kevin Macleod / Incompetech.com - Věda a technologie
Multipart video? I hope you checked your staging! 🚀💥
Paul Paulson hahahahaha love it!!!!!!! I always end up ejecting at launch!
i learned this the hard way when i mapped the "detonate" command on one of BD Armory's nukes to the wrong key.... that went as well as expected
*accidentally publishes part 8 instead of part 2*
Hey now, we haven't gotten to the thermonuclear stuff yet, no need to talk about staging.
+
It's truly astonishing how small the scientific community was back then or rather how close all the important scientist were.
It was a new field of science and the number of leading scientist was small. This photo ist a great example of that, an conference with 29 attendees, 17 were or became Nobel Prize winners. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Solvay_conference_1927.jpg
“ how close they were” … there is a story of what happened during the effort at Los Alamos. Many of the family dependents on “the Hill” were employed in administrative or clerical positions. One day, a receptionist got a phone call asking to speak with Dr. Heisenberg. She dutifully click the intercom and asked for someone to answer for Dr. Heisenberg. She did this several times before someone informed her that Dr. Heisenberg was leading the German effort at the atomic bomb, and was not available.
If you compare it today to the forefront of science (which this stuff was like magic) it makes sense.
I've rewatched this series like six times already, and every time, I find something new to appreciate. It's incredibly detailed, and I can't help but wonder what cool stuff didn't make it into the final cut. Do you think there's a chance for a sequel or another episode sometime in the future? I'd love to see more!
Whos here in 2023 brushing up before Oppenheimer comes out?
In the last episode Scott will teach us how to make a atom bomb with normal household items
Doc Dat that's Cody's lab , not here , here is the theory
Nah, that would be more of a Colin Furze thing to do
edit: unless they did a collab...
And it will end up in the daily mail xD
Doc Dat steal some plutonium and strike it with neutrons
Doc Dat Technically possible. Though a dirty bomb would be way easier. Aaaaaand I'm on an NSA list.
I kind of hope this is followed up with a series called "The science of nuclear reactors and how they are not nuclear bombs waiting to happen you idiots"
I second this idea.
I will support that idea
And including the fact that we can reproses nuclear waste
here here, also please call your congressmen and have them vote to open the Yucca mountain disposal facility
"The Science of Nuclear Reactors: We've come a long way since Chernobyl guys".
I've been using nuclear reactor generated power for over 10 years and I'm pretty happy with it. Much better than burning coal and releasing crap into the atmosphere. I just can't wait until molten salt reactors become mainstream because then the chance of meltdown would much lesser.
To think they split atoms before effective deodorant was invented..
"..an atomic weapon was possible... fly safe"
I expected react safe.
I remember hearing once that the best way to disarm a nuclear bomb is to just start ripping out wires. Hopefully I am never in a position to test this
General Harness strictly speaking yes that would work. Unless there’s extra security circuitry that would auto detonate if it detected another wire was clipped . Typical tv scenarios . Irl there’s so much that has to go so perfectly I don’t think security measures like that were implemented because it’s so hard to actually make a nuclear bomb function correctly in the first place and an auto detonate circuit would just complicate things too much
The film 'The Peacemaker' has a pretty accurate scene of disarming a bomb that way, although the bomb it'self looks a bit too prop-ish (there are some vids about of real ones, to see roughly what they look like internally), and it does explode, but in a non-nuclear way. I've heard also that real ones do have tamper resistance and will explode (non-nuclear) to destroy themselves and prevent tampering, so they can't be easily used by someone that isn't meant to be using them.
Always interested in the extra stuff you dig up while researching your topics - even an armchair rocket scientist (and, to an extent, armchair nuclear physicist) like myself is always excited to see what more you can teach. Can't wait for part 2!
"When dealing with nuclear weapons, there's really no need to proceed with caution"
Scott "Rayburn" Manley 2017
Hi Scott,
You probably have access to all of the background information for this series, but if you want more,m I got my Bachelors and Masters in Nuclear Engineering from OSU (Oregon) with a focus on non-proliferation and was at Lanl. I would be more than happy to help.
I'm always interested, I did a lot of research to back up my existing knowledge, and i'm living in fear of people like you showing me up. Would be happy to pass scripts to you ahead of time for your input.
That sounds good to me. If you want you can send them to Edited.
This is what science is all about!
Could anyone please explain why ALL film of detonations are faked, double exposures using piss poor 1930's style models? If you know of a single potentially legitimate piece of footage that is available online please post in any replies below, this is a deadly serious quest as having spent my entire adult life terrified for mine and my kids futures, I now find myself struggling to find any 'proof' by way of film stock (and yes, I know about volcanic glass under the detonated sites)
Aaaand I'm on a list.
welcome
Hi, same here.
Hey-yo NSA!
*LOUD NSA COUGHING*
Its ok, 6400 other people were added today. xD Especially scott manley. He made the video. lol.
If you're on a list, so is everyone who took high school chemistry or environmental science....
That's definitely my Scott's favorite series! I'd love to have some more.... Definitely would love to see the continuation of this little series!.
I really like how you can make a vid on a technical topic that’s easily understood - another great one Scott
Going Nuclear is an entertaining and erudite take on a fascinating yet mind-bending subject. Thanks for the great content, Scott.
Definitely would love to see the continuation of this little series!
Best material you've made in a long time, Scott. I can't wait to learn more. I'm sure you've read it, but I highly recommend command and control. It's a great look at how many near miss nuclear accidents we've had over the years.
This is good, waiting for more. Feel free to make them longer, I really enjoy this. Thanks!
That's definitely my Scott's favorite series! I'd love to have some more...
I can't tell you how excited I am for you to do a series on nuclear weapons! They really are extraordinary in every sense of the word.
Third time going through these videos, love them. Thank you for the hard work and sharing knowledge :D
very informative and enjoyable. I look forward to watching the rest of the series :)
🤗🤗 so excited for this series Scott 🙏🏆 thank you
Your first point about accidental detonations is generally true but only applies to implosion weapons. A gun-type weapon is much easier to set off accidentally. That's why the "Little Boy" bomb wasn't armed until the plane was in the air. Even so, had the Enola Gay crashed on takeoff the sea water would have served as a moderator and a low yield detonation would have ensued. Not a big city destroying blast but enough to irradiate much of tinian atol.
i love science + history videos. this was excellent, thank you.
Thank you for this! I'm a huge enthusiast of nuclear technology and I'm always extremely pleased when I see people who actually know what they're talking about.
some chilling low background audio going on. This is off my 'learning while drifting off' playlist :D
Excellent work - and I look forward to the rest of the series. One (minor) exception to your initial point about the immunity of nuclear weapons to rough handling would be the Violet Club / Green Bamboo 'Interim Megaton Weapon' - an oversized fission warhead comprising more than one uncompressed critical mass of fissile material, it relied on unfavourable geometry (the core was fashioned into a thin-walled sphere) to remain subcritical - so was regarded as a bit hairy when it came to accidental damage. Naturally without the core being properly compressed by the HE you'd get more of an 'unintended criticality incident' than an explosion - but I dare say it could probably ruin your entire day...
I'm a huge fan. Thanks Scott. Keep it coming
Oh man, Syphon Filter! That was an epic series back in the day. That specific level with the rocket cooked me a few times, before I realized I had to roll under the closing door.
You got yourself another sub! This is an awesome series man!
I used to be kind of a tree hugger while I was still in university. Now, I work at a CANDU nuclear plant and I'm a huge advocate for nuclear power.
Excellent work!
You can still be a tree hugger and work in nuclear reactors.
I love the Minmatar ship behind you. Those were my favorite frigate in EVE.
I just started reading Atomic Accidents by James Mahaffey this week. What a great time to start this series! Love it!
Ohh such a great book! Every aspiring nuclear engineer should read it :D
7:30 ~ Really appreciate the effort and love put into this.
From about the age of 7 on, I found this topic to be damn near magic.
We need a series on rocket history and just history of rocket engines, ship designs, etc. I'd absolutely love that!
Looking forward to more. Sidebar: the auto close captions sure have fun with your awesome accent!
Nice introduction to fission and the history behind nuclear weapons. Looking forward to more advanced concepts!
Scott Manley The new Lernig chanel. :D loved it scott looking forward to next part ^^
I love these history type videos, though I struggle to understand things i can relate to some (isotopes 238 refined to 235 in Factorio for example!)
Awesome content thankyou
6:22 did you just call Albert Einstein Alfred Einstein?
Samuel Davidson could you please elaborate on your comment?
@@Q3ark Albert had a sexual relationship with his cousin.
Einstein was a cheeky bastard. He would often expose himself in front of women, willing or not. Brilliant dude, not so lucky with the ladies.
@Samuel Davidson No shit. He was a priviledge scientist.
My guess is English is his second language give him a break GREAT VIDEO!!
This looks like it's going to be an interesting series.
I never knew that Lithium was the only light element that generates net positive energy during fission. I always thought it was like a net loss for anything under lead and net gain for heavier (I guess as a rough rule of thumb, I am sure theres exceptions)...Learn something new every day, keep it up Scott!
Ya, one of the only ones too! Google "nuclear binding energy" and you will see why, there is this big hump at Helium and a big dip at lithium!
Trying to keep up..... Wow! I really admire you Physicists... I have always tried to open that part of my mind. I can only say that YOU ROCK! I will always try to follow... Cheers, Scott! \m/
Interesting that this video was recommended after I recently finished "The Sum of All Fears" by Tom Clancy. I look forward to watching the whole series!
Thanks a lot M. Manley for these tutorials on nuclear weapons...
My idea for more tutos: Civilian (Energy production) nuclear, mainly on different reactor types.
Again, thank you.
Funny, a few months ago I really got into the the inner workings of atom bombs, now I see Scott is doing a series!
I would really like to see one part of this series covering the Teller-Ulam design. Radiation implosion and all
Thanks for the video
Good stuff, thanks.
You should cover some of the wild and wacky ideas for nuclear bombs near the end of this series. Like General Atomic's Project Orion studies. (I'd like to see that in Kerbal)
BTW as a child who grew up during the last decades of the Cold War, I've read a LOT on nuclear weapons. And they still strike a very primal fear in me. I've always read that in the UK, the 'big idea' for nuclear weapons came from Leo Szilard one day when he was pondering something he read and the thought occurred to him 'what would happen if when splitting, the atom released more neutrons than it absorbed or were lost in inefficiencies.'
P.S. A game you should look at/review/give some props to, imho, is SimpleRockets. It seems something that the less heavy duty sim people that watch your channel might enjoy.
Can't wait for more of your "how to build a nuke" series! ;)
everyone's favorite science guy (sorry Bill Nye) talking about something i want to learn even more about? im in!
Bill Nye is opposed to nuclear energy, so I endorse your proposal.
Great stuff. Absolutely terrifying. Any chance you could do a presentation like this with what is actually visible from a nuclear explosion? I've seen things about the shock wave & "mach stem" but why the vertical column of debris & mushroom shaped cloud after detonation? Trinity & Baker look similar whether on land or underwater.
Can't wait to see the next episode. ^_^
It would be cool if you expanded on this in the future, and talked about Nuclear reactors as well.
Making uranium achieve fission is similar to making iron achieve fission. We don't typically worry about iron near us achieving fission! The only difference is the amount of energy released if it ever did happen. Since it's not realistically going to happen, it's like worrying about monsters under the bed being more dangerous than pink fluffy unicorns, even though they're both about as likely to be spotted in your bedroom at night.
3:40 The same thing is being told about fusion reactors today. Some people are sceptical that stable and controlled fusion is possible at all. What's your take on that?
Raze the Raven It's MUCH harder to do.
Ancient suns already did all the hard work for us.
Simple:
Money.
The Fusion-programs have gotten way too little money, mostly of some retards like greenpeace that are, with their actions, doing more harm to the planet in the long term than anything else.
I think a supercomputer is essential to understanding fusion, so today is the right time to experiment with fusion and not 30 years ago when computers was slow, however, I think we need more supercomputer; we need a supercomputer that can simulate & control fusion in real time because we need to keep fusion stable, they aren't stable on their own, todays (fusion) reactor only able to sustain fusion for few millisecond.... A cheap shortcut to avoid using a ludicrous-supercomputers is to detonate mini fusion-bomb periodically like a combustion engine, this technique involve ideas of using ludicrous-powered-laser to detonate fuel pallets or ludicrous-powered-"electromagnetic pinching" method to compress fusion-able gasses to produce repeatable fusion explosion.... they all look promising but if you want a sure/guarantee on energy output then just use Wind turbine & Solar. 👌
Iirc, there was a report that chinese fusion reactor managed to break even and some more
So, we're close
Also: spherical reactor>torus reactor
Learned a lot Scott. I was turned on to your series after watching the Chernobyl video you made.
NOW WE TALKING, THIS IS THE VIDEO TYPE WHICH MAKE ME LOVE THIS CHANEL
The best Channel of CZcams!!!!!!!!!!!!!¡!!!!!!!!!!
Syphon Filter... man that brings back some memories. One of my favorite games of all time. Great video series thanks!
More of this please very intriguing to expend my knowledge of nuclear weaponry, strange how mass destruction always interested the human mind...
Somebody please explain to me why the contemporary scientific community was so flabbergasted by the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938. In Rutherford's 1906 book, Radioactive Transformations, which was published years before Rutherford's own discovery of the atomic nucleus, on page 170:
"The interesting question arises whether the atom after losing an (alpha) particle is able to exist for a short time in more than one stable form. After the expulsion of an a particle, with explosive violence, there must result a rearrangement of the parts of the atom to form a permanently or temporarily stable system. It is conceivable that more than one fairly stable arrangement may be possible, and, in such a case, two or more products of disintegration must be produced in addition to the expelled a particles. These stable atomic systems, although of equal atomic weights, would exhibit differences in chemical properties, and it should be possible to separate them from one another."
In 1934 Ida Noddack wrote:
'''...it is conceivable that the nucleus breaks up into several large fragments which of course would be isotopes of known elements but would not be neighbors of the irradiated element."
And yet the reactions to the Hahn/Strassmann/Fritsch announcements reportedly ranged from disbelief to wonder. Was nobody listening?
this is so much more interesting then listening to a lecture and taking notes at school
Going nuclear is my favorite series on this channel, incidentally my past time activity as well
Same
THanks for explaining stuff. Very interesting for non phys grads ;P
Nice model Saturn V model in the background.
Good video thanks! How is it that they fire a particle at uranium atoms to initiate the chain reaction?
I love this. Just had an exam on nuclear physics.
As an Engineer, this subject is crazy and fascinating to me.
As Scott Manley has made so many cool videos I still come across ones I haven't seen.
Can you make a series in ksp using principa?
YOOOOO Finally someone knows siphon filter!!
The thing many people overlook about nukes is how precise the timing of the explosives has to be in order to force an implosion type device to detonate. A fraction of a second off and you get an uneven implosion and a fizzle yield (lots of radiation, but no big boom). The explosive initiators have to go off at exactly the same time on all sides. That means the cables all have to be the same length and resistance, and the triggering pulse has to be be precise. A regular switch will have spikes, or a curve. You need a krytron switch to get that perfect square signal. Those are hard to come by (unless you have an old Xerox copier). I remember when they caught Sadam Husein trying to smuggle Krytrons in for his nuclear program. He denied needing to smuggle them in and said they made their own, and held up something that looked nothing like a krytron. They are used in anything that needs a very precise pulse. I used them when working on laser beam switches.
A fizzle of 200 tons of TNT equivalent is nothing to snivel at.
you get a lot of radiation, but no big boom. Pretty sure it wouldn't be much more than the explosion of the explosives used to initiate it. It would however spread radiactive material all over the immediate area.
200 tons can't even destroy a 200 ft. testing tower, look up Operation Upshot-Knothole Ruth.
Thanks. Surprised to find this content, not too geeky, not too kindergarten.
Especially with the toy shelf in the set😅.
But I watched it all.
I guess this means youll be going over the rather large 'oops' of the Castle Bravo shot. Remember kids, Lithium 7 is not inert!
'Oops I didn't think it would be that big' is every nation's first hydrogen bomb
Isn't "Oops I didn't think it would be that big" the story of EVERY nuclear bomb - heck, EVERY bomb period?
r3dp9 not entirely true, several of the scientists on the manhattan project thought that the trinity test would set the atmosphere on fire, thankfully they were wrong
No, they didn't. There were three separate studies done on that question, by three different physicists. Teller did one and Bethe did one, and Feynmen did one. They all came to the conclusion that there was no enough energy available to do that, even ten times more would be insufficient. Rhodes tells of Fermi doing a pool about it, but it was obviously a black joke, and Groves told him to knock it off, he was disturbing the security police who didn't know better. No physicist (and Groves wasn't one by any stretch) believed it.
@@scottmanley Not the First two British H-Bombs, they fizzled somewhat. Should have produced 1MT, actually produced around 300 KT
I'm going to be following the series. For such a serious topic it's slightly off putting that it is set in a toy store.
An interesting subject and the best expiation in to why Heavy Water was so important in the early work in Nuclear Fission (and the reason for the Allies attempts to stop the Germans getting their hands on the stuff). One interesting note Scott has missed is that from August 1940, the British passed on to the USA all of the reports produced by the MAUD committee showing that a Uranium 235 bomb was very possible. Those documents made it as far as the Uranium Committee Chairman's safe (the group set up by FDR after Einstein's letter) and were never passed on to the rest of the committee. It wasn't until October 1941 that the committee actually got to see the documents after Mark Oliphant, Frisch and Peierls boss at Birmingham University (and a member of the MAUD committee) visited the USA as part of his Radar development work (Working Microwave Radar (using the Cavity Magnetron) and the Theoretical workings of an A-bomb came out of his lab at Birmingham at about the same time). As part of the Visit, Oliphant sat in on a Uranium Committee meeting and was dismayed that no work had even been looked at into bomb research by the USA and in the meeting he quite clearly stated the a Weapon could be developed by 1943/44 if work started now in the USA and that it should take priority over what the Uranium Committee had been mainly looking at which was a nuclear power plant for ships and submarines.
You really need to add 2 or 3 genuine, vintage aircraft (or even spacecraft) flight instruments on those display shelves !
I would never expect to hear this particular track as the background music on this channel.
Could you use some kind of pulsed laser neutron induction to feed exact amounts at exactly controlled ratios? Digital moderation instead of physical. Could the beam of neutrons be pointed through some other field of directed particles to slow the neutrons? Like a flurry of ionized particles that slightly repel the neutrons before they reach the fissile material? I've heard it theorized but why hasn't it been tried? Or has it?
Yes please more
This series seems quite explosive.
The 'Fly Safe' at the end seems even more threatening than usual, given the subject matter.
Hello Scott, have you seen the 1984 movie threads. Do you know a movie that better portrays the effects of a nuclear war?
I bet this will get demonetized.
I'd really like to know if it does, however.
Why would it? There are plenty of more videos with even more technical know how shown on other channels and they are fairing just fine.
Cody's Lab nearly got banned from youtube altogether over the fruit fly in the microwave experiment. The initial video (which he never listed publicly) showed that microwaves cook grasshoppers but don't harm fruit flies. Due to viewer concerns the finally video used a grape instead of a grasshopper, but apparently someone with access to his unlisted videos flagged him and nearly got his entire channel banned.
Well, when I went back to check on this comment, I got an ad, so yay?
Read Clancy's Sum of All Fears. It will probably surprise you.
Yes, it is a novel. And you didn't read it. I know that because a good 10% of the book is taken up by the details of the construction of the nuke they use in Denver (in the book), and the detail is authentic, to the best that I've been able to determine. The movie has none of that detail, for obvious reasons.
Scott, can you release a 10 hour video of random rambling? I love your voice
This video just became relevant again 😫 background music makes more eerie
1:48 Good point. My father guarded nuclear missiles in the Cold War. They told him if war broke out, to break the warheads with C4. It would just keep them from going critical, not set them off.
Dude, you are crazy smart!
What about all of the near miss accidents? There were a few on UK air bases
Scott, is there a good book about the Manhattan Project that you would suggest?
I would definitely recommend "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes, and also "The Manhattan project" (Cynthia C Kelly)
Excellent. I Just finished Rhodes first book a few weeks ago and am just about done with his 2nd one.
Next time on Scott Manley! Scott teams up with Codys Lab, Thunderf00t, and EEVBlog to make a working suitcase nuke WITH A HILARIOUS OUTCOME!
If Elon Musk can make a spaceship, I see no reason this couldn't work!
Hey Scott, I go to a Health and Science high school in Oregon, I was wondering if I could interview you for a school project.
I am sooooo glad you researched the history of the atomic bomb. That was actually interesting! Very interesting! Especially since you don't bother with meaningless details, but only the functional parts of the story. Also you helped me understand the point of deuterium - "heavy water". It's just helium! :D
It's not helium. Hydrogen has one proton, Deuterium has one proton and one neutron. Helium has two protons and two neutrons.
Heavy water is water made with Deuterium instead of hydrogen, so it's D2O not H2O.
Benjamin, I didn't mean it literally. I meant, it's just a cheap replacement for Helium. It's H2O, not He2O :T
Scott, have you ever done an in-depth video to do with NASA's Project Orion (the 1960s nuclear pulse/bomb engine one, not the current SLS one)?
Yes, several.
Great historical review of the science! However, I am not sure I understand how nuclear fission could have been discovered in 1938 if "In 1932, the first people to split the atom were Cockcroft and Walton".
When he says splitting in the 1932 sense, he really means disintegration/transmutation.
Aaaand... now I'm on every watchlist.