[HN Gopher] Experimental and Theoretical Confirmation of Covalen...
___________________________________________________________________
Experimental and Theoretical Confirmation of Covalent Bonding in
a-Pu
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 31 points
Date : 2025-10-01 23:42 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
| addaon wrote:
| Why should the nuclear physicists have all the fun? Let the
| chemists play too.
|
| I assume the huge density difference between plutonium allotropes
| contributes to making a density wave (explosion) an effective way
| to trigger criticality?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The chemistry and solid state physics of the actinides is
| pretty interesting because of all the electrons whizzing
| around: consider the infrared spectrum of thoria which makes it
| the choice for gas light mantles or the glow in the dark
| behavior of uranium glass which has nothing to do with
| radioactivity.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Not forgetting the Lanthanides, their cousins in the f-block,
| which have various interesting optical / catalytic / magnetic
| properties (e.g. Europium, Cerium, Neodymium).
| philipkglass wrote:
| Lower initial density isn't really an advantage. If I recall
| correctly, alpha phase plutonium was used in early nuclear
| weapons cores because it was easier to shape. The brittle,
| harder, denser delta phase (with mechanical properties
| comparable to cast iron) was used in later weapons once the
| difficulties of machining it were overcome.
|
| The decisions made during the Manhattan Project were not aimed
| at high efficiency nuclear weapons; the project needed to
| ensure that reliable weapons could be constructed quickly with
| the limited information available at the time. Even before
| fusion weapons were invented, atomic bombs became significantly
| more powerful, efficient, and lightweight due to realizing
| design optimizations that couldn't be tested before the war
| ended.
| addaon wrote:
| > Lower initial density isn't really an advantage.
|
| Wouldn't larger change in density for a given force be an
| advantage, though? It allows you to have a larger subcritical
| mass (at the lower density) that becomes critical as force is
| applied, without having to play geometric games; but maybe
| those games are trivial?
| jabl wrote:
| AFAIU it is suspected that many(most?) bombs have hollow
| cores; if so, they're already "playing geometric games".
| trebligdivad wrote:
| What does the word 'macropscopic' mean in it's abstract? The best
| bet is a typo of macroscopic - but hmm it's made it through that
| far and I do find a bunch of other uses of that word in physicsy
| stuff
|
| (The nice word in there is 'ansatzes' which I didn't know, as
| something like a starting guess/assumption)
| gus_massa wrote:
| Guessing: macropscopic is a typo. Most dictionaries don't have
| many technical words and you get use to click " _add to
| dictionary_ ". After a few days it's not highlighted in any of
| the authors or reviewers text editor and nobody notice it. If
| you want to get fancy, call it " _click fatigue_ ".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-05 23:01 UTC)