It Was Another Misunderstanding Or Another Joke?

On his back to the US, on Air Force One, Trump was asked by a reporter whether he meant the US will be doing underground nuclear detonations, to which Trump replied with "Yes. You will find out [details] soon, but yes, we will be doing testing".

Chris Wright, our Sec. of Energy, is now trying to walk this back, on Fox News, by saying that "this will not be a nuclear test at this time".

So, if it's not a nuke test, they will have people jump up and down to simulate one?

I notice the White House is doing its best to make sure the topic is never brought up. Wonder why.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Khenpal1 · M

actually you dont have nukes if you are not tasting

SomeMichGuy · M

@Khenpal1 Nope.

We got over that need long ago.

And the results speak for themselves.

Northwest · M

@Khenpal1

actually you dont have nukes if you are not tasting

I assume you mean testing. But tasting is what you will really end up with, if you detonate nukes.

No you don't need to do detonation testing. We proved that point 80+ years ago. It would be like testing an internal combustion engine, to prove they're still feasible

Khenpal1 · M

@Northwest they last around 20 years , after that time you need to blow one in order to find out if they still work.

Northwest · M

@Khenpal1

they last around 20 years , after that time you need to blow one in order to find out if they still work

SomeMichGuy · M

@Khenpal1 How do you figure that (the 20-yr timeframe)?

Khenpal1 · M

@SomeMichGuy Both Uranium and fuel have time limit, so in theory one have the nukes which may not work.

Northwest · M

@Khenpal1

Both Uranium and fuel have time limit, so in theory one have the nukes which may not work.

The half life of plutinium-239 is 24,110 years, but let's just assume for now you don't really know what this is about.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Khenpal1 The two main radioactive isotopes used are

Pu-239, which (as @Northwest pointed out), has a "half-life" of 24,110 yrs.

U-235, with a half-life of 7.04E8 years.

To make use of the exponential decay form, we use these λ-parameters by defining

e^{-λ_s t_{s, 1/2}} ≡ 1/2 = 2^{-1}

for any given "species" s of radioactive nuclide.

Taking the natural logarithm of both sides

-λ_s t_{s, 1/2} = -ln(2)

so

λ_s = ln(2) / t_{s, 1/2}

(The factor "ln(2)" gives rise to the 0.693 which one often sees in textbooks, an approximation to the value.)

This allows us to estimate the fraction of UN-fissioned nuclei of species s which are left over; the decay follows

N_s(t) = N_s(0) * e^{-λ_s t}

where N_s(0) = the original number of nuclei (at time t = 0). So the FRACTION of UN-fissioned nuclei is estimated as

fraction ≡ N_s(t)/N_s(0) = e^{-λ_s t}

For

Pu-239
λ_{Pu-239} = ln(2) / 24,110 yr
≈ 2.875E(-5)/yr

So after 20 yrs,
fraction_{Pu-239} = e^{-(2.875E(-5)/yr)*20 yr}
≈ 0.999425 * 100% = 99.9425%

Since U-235 has a half-life over FOUR orders of magnitude bigger, there is FAR less difference.

You could also solve for when the fraction would be 99%; for Pu-239

e^{-(2.875E(-5)/yr)*t} = 0.99
t = -ln(0.99) / (2.875E(-5)/yr)

or

t = 349.58 yr

A bit more than 20...

Khenpal1 · M

@SomeMichGuy The reason sovjets did testing their nukes was in theory you have calculation , but in pracice nukes were never used as weapon. Whats freak Putin is by blowing one nuke once a year is reasuring the things work.

Khenpal1 · M

@SomeMichGuy [media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxPuho_9FwE]