Slashdot Mirror


Former Truck Driver Reconstructs A-bomb

mdsolar writes "Coster-Mullen taught himself how to build an A-bomb. 'The secret of the atomic bomb,' he says, 'is how easy they are to make.' His findings are available in a book he continuously updates and publishes himself called Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man, which has received rave reviews from the National Resource Defense Council: 'Nothing else in the Manhattan Project literature comes close to his exacting breakdown of the bomb's parts.'"

12 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by chemicaldave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He didn't reconstruct a bomb, he reverse engineered it and taught himself how to build one.

  2. It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Nimey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    which are a rather simple design; among other things, they don't have any safety features.

    Broadly, what you need is two correctly sized-and-shaped chunks of enriched uranium with enough U-235 to cause a chain reaction, a smoothbore gun barrel (IIRC Little Boy used one of 6" diameter), and some gunpowder in silk bags to drive one piece of uranium into the other. There are a few other parts to this, such as the tamper and the fuze, but the toughest part should be obtaining enough enriched uranium.

    Certainly the featured bomb is not a fully-working model. It'll be a reproduction with inert material standing in for the U-235, no gunpowder, and an inert fuze.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Certainly the featured bomb is not a fully-working model. It'll be a reproduction with inert material standing in for the U-235, no gunpowder, and an inert fuze.

      That seems a bit overkill. Couldn't he at least use two coconut halves for the U-235, a little bit of gunpower and a real fuse? Then at least you'd get a bang and a "clop!" when you set it off.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a little bit more complicated than that. The average time between neutron emissions in the fissile material for a gun-type bomb has to be substantially longer than the assembly time. Otherwise you'll get predetonation and the device will fizzle. If the design doesn't incorporate a neutron source, the parts will just sit there until there's finally a spontaneous emission that can start a chain reaction.

      To avoid that unpredictable delay, during which the pieces might move back out of perfect alignment, real-world gun-type designs have incorporated neutron sources that release extra neutrons at just the right moment. The most common design uses an explosion to mix polonium and beryllium, which then release enough neutrons to trigger the reaction. That kind of neutron generator was used in the Little Boy device.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  3. Re:In future news... by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not really, everything including technical schematics from the Manhattan Project have been available for decades. The knowledge of how to make a simple gun design device isn't what keeps people from making nukes, it's the availability of highly enriched uranium.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. no worries, by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I seriously doubt that he's figured out to use a Frisbee to spoof the motion detectors to steal super enriched plutonium from John Lithgow's lab. D'OH!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  5. The real secret of the bomb .. by scharkalvin · · Score: 3, Informative

    It isn't how the bomb is constructed that is the hard part. 'Little boy' was very simple, but very crude. Most of the Uranium in the bomb was wasted because critical mass was not maintained long enough to consume most of the material. The yield of Little boy was only 9-10 kilotons, compared to 12-15 kilotons for 'Fat Man'. The hard part was the processing of the nuclear material to get enough of the high grade stuff concentrated enough to reach critical mass. That's the part you can't do in your garage. If you can steal enough material that will assemble to reach critical mass the rest is easy. During the war we were able to process enough Uranium for but a single bomb, and enough Plutonium for perhaps four. There was a third core available to drop on a third city in Japan if necessary and a forth was a few months away. (The first core was the Trinity test bomb, the second over Nagasaki).

  6. Re:2004 by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently you missed this and this and this and this and this and and and and

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  7. Re:He hasn't actually built one by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 5, Funny

    So maybe this is a case for Mythbusters?

  8. Re:Reconstructs A-bomb? by fnj · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry, you've got it wrong. It's a uranium-type gun-type bomb that is dead simple to build and practically foolproof if you've done the elementary physics and workmanship right. The only hard part with that is getting the highly enriched uranium. A plutonium-based implosion-type bomb is another story. The hollow spherical high-explosive lense and the arrangement of synchronized detonators is very, very exacting, and the very specialized grade of krytron tube to set it off just right so it doesn't fizzle.

  9. Re:whoa! by hjrnunes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you people even considered that they didn't make an atomic device because they don't want to?

    They're people too you know? They want to live their lives like everybody else. They don't because, in their eyes, a foreign-backed foreign power is usurping what used to be their land. So they take violent action against whom they perceive as their enemies and its supporters. But that doesn't mean they'd be willing to detonate nuclear weapons because of that. Why would they contaminate the land they claim as theirs with radiation? Not to mention destroying most it in the detonation itself?

    When are people going to understand that terrorism is not a mental condition? It's a way of fighting. Normally used when you're at a very disproportionate disadvantage. Give them a force comparable to the IDF and watch terrorism decline sharply. Hell, why doesn't Israel use their nuclear weapons then? They have them. Because they're the good guys? Or maybe because they don't want to destroy what they're trying to obtain?

    *sigh*