> Here's a story about a kid who basically made a duct-tape and tin foil > reactor. Or almost. If it's a hoax, its a pretty good one. > http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html > -TD
Inspiring... :) Which reminds me of an idea I am harbouring for couple months now, based on reports about this experiment: http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2003/ma03/ma03stober_doc.html The idea is preliminarily codenamed n+1th Country Experiment. The goal is to design an "open-source nuke"[1], using commonly available technologies (eg, Beowulf clusters). Or more accurately, the idea is to try if there are enough people on the Net skilled and crazy enough to try that. http://atombomb.sourceforge.net/ - just imagine it! :) [1] Not necessarily an actual nuke, the fun is not worth the expenses and risk, just detailed-enough project documentation and mathematical simulations to scare the sheeple a bit[2]. There are MUCH more informations available in public domain sphere than during the original experiment time. [2] Actually, decade ago I proved experimentally that an university book about nuclear chemistry, a highschool physics book, some old science magazine for kids, and couple civic defense books were sufficient to write an article about how to build a nuke, which looked credible enough to make it twice during the years to local national TV, first as the "danger of BBSes" (together with a demonstration of some lousy, negative-oxygen-balance sparkler[3] (they called it "explosive") made according to some other manual), then as the "danger of the Internet" (in prime time news, commented as realistic by some white-coated talking head from a local nuke power plant). News people are unbelievably dumb! :) [3] Black smoke, red flame, and for the appropriate visual effect dug into a heap of sand to make a properly sized splash of debris. Couldn't've they made at least RDX?
