On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 5:02:56 AM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 12:07 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > * > Yes that's one way it could go bad. But there's also the case that >> they literally don't work. * >> > > Unfortunately I think there is little chance that Russian H-bombs won't > explode because it's not that difficult to maintain them; Plutonium 239 has > a halflife of 24,000 years, U235 has a half life of over 700 million years, > and lithium-6 deuteride is stable. It's true that modern H-bombs also have > a very small amount of the hydrogen isotope tritium and it's half life is > only 12 years but it will explode without tritium just with a somewhat > reduced yield, and the chemical explosive used to initiate the implosion > could become unstable after a few decades and would need to be replaced > with fresh explosives, but I have a hunch if there is anything in Russia > that is well-maintained it is their nuclear bombs. And since Ukraine is > right on the Russian border a delivery system for such bombs is not really > an issue. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >
Plutonium pits have to be cycled every few years, where after 10 years their effectiveness is very reduced. It is not because the nuclei of plutonium has decayed, but the crystalline structure of the plutonium is not longer the optimal allotrope. The implosive collapse of the pit is not as effective at starting a fission chain reaction. There is a duty cycle on the plutonium that has to be remelted and metallurgically reconfigured. LC > ezi > > >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb895e96-de6b-42fe-9116-fc02d3eeaeaen%40googlegroups.com.
