Peaceful... Nuclear Explosion ?!?

[YNM]

I'm... not sure what parts to discuss off it, but I just wanted to share some stuff I found lying about the .net .

Similar film "a few years later" I believe :

I'm well aware I'm not the first to see about them in this bustling forum :

But I also found archives from a similar project "from the other side" :

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium27.htm

It seems to be an online version (perhaps slightly abridged ?) for this document.

 

Now, what I found interesting is what the Soviets /Russian side managed to do where the American side kind of going "a bit quick".

- Yields from Plowshare seems to be larger than their soviet counterparts.

- They seems to have more fusion parts than fission.

The basic thing that obviously scares the hell out of people from hearing nuclear explosion is their radioactive fallout. But fusion don't generate as much, soo ?

 

Discuss ?

Edited February 20, 2018 by YNM

[Nuke]

what if you build a massive underground sphere, line the walls with lead panels, place a nuke at the center and detonated, how much energy the resulting pool of liquid metal would have. if an hbomb is used, would this be a viable fusion reactor. 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Nuke

[DerekL1963]

28 minutes ago, YNM said:

The basic thing that obviously scares the hell out of people from hearing nuclear explosion is their radioactive fallout. But fusion don't generate as much, soo ?

How much fallout/kt of yield is generated depends on the exact design of the device.  Fusion in theory generates less, fusion weapons in reality can be as dirty or even much dirtier.

That being said, if you're using nuclear weapons to move dirt you're going to generate fallout regardless of the device used.

3 minutes ago, Nuke said:

what if you build a massive underground sphere, line the walls with lead panels, place a nuke at the center and detonated, how much energy the resulting pool of liquid metal would have. if an hbomb is used, would this be a viable fusion reactor. 

1) Depends on the yield of the weapon, the size of the pool, etc... etc...

2) No.

[DDE]

21 minutes ago, Nuke said:

what if you build a massive underground sphere, line the walls with lead panels, place a nuke at the center and detonated, how much energy the resulting pool of liquid metal would have. if an hbomb is used, would this be a viable fusion reactor. 

Fusion, no, but I've seen this seriously discussed as an alternative to fission reactor powerplant - just harvest the heat.

50 minutes ago, YNM said:

Now, what I found interesting is what the Soviets /Russian side managed to do where the American side kind of going "a bit quick".

- Yields from Plowshare seems to be larger than their soviet counterparts.

- They seems to have more fusion parts than fission.

The basic thing that obviously scares the hell out of people from hearing nuclear explosion is their radioactive fallout. But fusion don't generate as much, soo ?

The Taiga nukes designed specifically for the program were 98% fusion despite modest yeild. Yes, fallout reduction was a key goal. The preceding Telkem blasts were using tiny, 240 t nukes. That said, they were designed primarily for seismic sounding, linear excavation, geological engineering, and firefighting (see below).

What you appear to have missed is that about four-fifths of Soviet blasts were operational, rather than R&D.

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by DDE

[kerbiloid]

Nukes are useful and peaceful.

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

(Russian link on this page provides more detailed version but then you would transgoogle it into your language)

Edited February 20, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

16 minutes ago, DDE said:

The Taiga nukes designed specifically for the program were 98% fusion despite modest yeild. Yes, fallout reduction was a key goal. The preceding Telkem blasts were using tiny, 240 t nukes.

What you appear to have missed is that about four-fifths of Soviet blasts were operational, rather than R&D.

I'm well aware that the Soviets had a lot more "success" relative to their American counterpart; it helped seal two runaway wells, increased oil and gas field production and help some mining in Kola peninsula.

33 minutes ago, Nuke said:

what if you build a massive underground sphere, line the walls with lead panels, place a nuke at the center and detonated, how much energy the resulting pool of liquid metal would have. if an hbomb is used, would this be a viable fusion reactor. 

The Americans were considering it - presumably the first test (Gnome) had some radiated samples but it's not known whether it's promising or not. What I get is the only success from American effort was in geoseismic effects.

30 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

How much fallout/kt of yield is generated depends on the exact design of the device.  Fusion in theory generates less, fusion weapons in reality can be as dirty or even much dirtier.

The soviet bombs were mentioned to be up to 97% fusion, and they're very small, one only measured 24 cm (9.5 in) in diameter.

American's cleanest ones were said to be only 94% fusion.

 

 

Obviously, using them for surface earthwork is "a brave idea", but for underground fracking operations and such, it clearly shows good merit. Is there more of a problem with the geology or something, when working with shale in America ? I heard the resultant gasses have waay above acceptable tritium.

Edited February 20, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

31 minutes ago, Nuke said:

massive underground sphere

More like a cylinder, as the top of the cave tends to fall down, but not necessary getting open..

Edited February 20, 2018 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

More like a cylinder, as the top of the cave tends to fall down, but not necessary getting open..

I dunno, did they even check that at Kama-1 before they started dumping the waste from the UDMH plant into that void?

[YNM]

26 minutes ago, DDE said:

I dunno, did they even check that at Kama-1 before they started dumping the waste from the UDMH plant into that void?

They only checked the upper seal, so unless the resulting cave roof were to be naturally impermeable (and unsolvable - they always use a salt formation) I presume those that were used really is a sphere. They'd also notice losses if it's not a good seal below (ie. rubble), at least at those used for storage.

Edited February 20, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

Rainier of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob

Logan and Blanca of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hardtack_II

were pretty well documented in 1950s books even translated from English.

Edited February 20, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Rainier of Operation Plumbbob, and Logan and Blanca of Operation Hardtack II were pretty well documented in 1950s books even translated from English.

They weren't meant for proper "excavation" stuff though. They were entirely fission. In wiki there are studies for cancer off these "no leak" explosion, it's nowhere as good as your side managed to do.

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, YNM said:

They weren't meant for proper "excavation" stuff though.

They made nice and pretty well described caverns.

[CastleKSide]

I guess if you don't breach the surface you have a lot less issue with the fallout. Heres the map from the US tests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sedan-Smallboy_dose.png

[p1t1o]

Dont get the wrong idea. The cavities formed from underground detonations do not last, almost without exception they immediately collapse, and the one exception was very, very unstable. 

This is a very good read:

http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/DocumentArchive/524871.pdf

I think unless you are fighting lava monsters, doing anything useful with nukes underground is not a great idea. 

For one thing, ground is not a hermetically sealed container, just because there are no immediate outgassings, you have just done something very bad down there and none if it is particularly motivated to stay put.

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by p1t1o

[YNM]

17 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Dont get the wrong idea. The cavities formed from underground detonations do not last, almost without exception they immediately collapse, and the one exception was very, very unstable.

...

For one thing, ground is not a hermetically sealed container, just because there are no immediate outgassings, you have just done something very bad down there and none if it is particularly motivated to stay put.

It might be true for "soils", however the stuff the Russians were talking was strata(s) that even in natural conditions can hold back natural gasses. They're kilometres underground - it's all as good as rocks.

And we're only talking a few kt, not a hundred kt.

Which brings back to why did the Americans proposed something so dirty (high yield, shallow depth) not even the Russians took it.

Edited February 20, 2018 by YNM

[p1t1o]

5 minutes ago, YNM said:

It might be true for "soils", however the stuff the Russians were talking was strata(s) that even in natural conditions can hold back natural gasses. They're kilometres underground - it's all as good as rocks.

Hmm. If I wanted to fracture a strata, Id use a nuke.

People are freaked out, often for good reason, by "fracking" which is under similar conditions but with far less extreme forces and no radioactivity. Im not into it.

 

[YNM]

12 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Hmm. If I wanted to fracture a strata, Id use a nuke.

People are freaked out, often for good reason, by "fracking" which is under similar conditions but with far less extreme forces and no radioactivity. Im not into it.

True if you're using fission and tens of kilotons in only 1 km under your feet.

But on the range of a few hundred tons and a few km under with near-pure fusion it *might* be better.

 

I have to admit though that the geology between American oil shales and the stuff in Russia where these explosions were employed are completely different. Which is why I'm asking if the problem also arose from the geology, for example if the fields in America contains more fractures and faults, if it's just that the deposits are very radioactuve already that adding more would cause it to go over the treshold, etc.

I mean, I myself initially thought no such feat could be done, but some reality says otherwise, so I'm just baffled by them. It's very interesting, I'd like to know why one works, why the other isn't from real data samples.

Edited February 20, 2018 by YNM