11–20 of 40 posts
If you don't like nagging subscription popups, here is a popup-free summary of the truck driver's story: https://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/john-coster-mullen
Try Reader View in Firefox for reading the text uninterrupted.
> The source of the error, Coster-Mullen recognized, was an assumption that every (male) researcher who studied the subject had made about the relation between projectile and target. These scholars had apparently been unable to conceive of an arrangement other than a “missionary position” bomb, in which a solid male projectile penetrated a vessel-like female target. But Coster-Mullen realized that a female-superior arrangement—in which a hollow projectile slammed down on top of a stationary cylinder of highly enriched uranium—yielded the correct size and mass.
Does anyone understand what point is being made here? I don't understand how which piece is the projectile would make a difference in the overall size/geometry. All else equal, I would think it would be easier if the lighter, simpler piece were the projectile. Accelerating a cone/cylinder without breaking/damaging it seems a lot easier than accelerating the complementary shape.
Then again, I'm male, so I guess I'm just not capable of imagining the "female superior" design...
>> Fat Man used explosives to squeeze together two hemispheres of plutonium. I thought the plutonium core was one piece and the explosives compressed it, making the same mass critical due to increased density.
The plutonium cores were machined as hemispheres because they had to put an initiator in the center.
> In the standard historical accounts, the way that the bomb’s gun mechanism worked was by shooting a cylindrical “male” uranium projectile into a concave, stationary uranium target. This act of atomic coitus created a mass sufficient to produce a critical reaction. The mass of the projectile was said to be 38.5 kilograms, and the mass of the target was said to be 25.6 kilograms. But no matter how many times Coster-M…
> In the standard historical accounts, the way that the bomb’s gun mechanism worked was by shooting a cylindrical “male” uranium projectile into a concave, stationary uranium target. This act of atomic coitus created a mass sufficient to produce a critical reaction. The mass of the projectile was said to be 38.5 kilograms, and the mass of the target was said to be 25.6 kilograms. But no matter how many times Coster-M…
A cylindrical barrel is being fit over a fixed centre pin, rather than a pin inserted into a barrel.
Makes sense when you realise that the moving component is inside of a similarly cylindrical bomb casing and that no fancy and complicated sabot and/or rail arrangement are required to keep it aligned and centered with the fixed pin.
Most DC charging plugs work the same way for the same reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The plutonium cores were machined as hemispheres because they had to put an initiator in the center.
Also to prevent criticality problems when moving them.
You're machining a perfectly spherical plutonium core out of a LARGER chunk of plutonium.
> In the standard historical accounts, the way that the bomb’s gun mechanism worked was by shooting a cylindrical “male” uranium projectile into a concave, stationary uranium target. This act of atomic coitus created a mass sufficient to produce a critical reaction. The mass of the projectile was said to be 38.5 kilograms, and the mass of the target was said to be 25.6 kilograms. But no matter how many times Coster-M…
If I want good prose, I read the the Cabinet Magazine which is far superior in writing, curtness and straightforwardness while not affecting the charming and poetical aspects of writing.
Furthermore, New Yorker has inappropriate political and social undertones that is very offputting - they don't belong here and but its beat into place. Any informed reader would see through it. If you enjoy that sort of a thing, great but it's not my thing even if I agree with the underlying message.
> In the standard historical accounts, the way that the bomb’s gun mechanism worked was by shooting a cylindrical “male” uranium projectile into a concave, stationary uranium target. This act of atomic coitus created a mass sufficient to produce a critical reaction. The mass of the projectile was said to be 38.5 kilograms, and the mass of the target was said to be 25.6 kilograms. But no matter how many times Coster-M…
New Yorker, I found, is always obtuse, long-winded prose that fill up 14 pages where the whole thing can be, if it was written like a normal article, summarized in no more than 3 pages. It is prose porn for writers and readers alike. If I want good prose, I read the the Cabinet Magazine which is far superior in writing, curtness and straightforwardness while not affecting the charming and poetical aspects of writing.…
> In the standard historical accounts, the way that the bomb’s gun mechanism worked was by shooting a cylindrical “male” uranium projectile into a concave, stationary uranium target. This act of atomic coitus created a mass sufficient to produce a critical reaction. The mass of the projectile was said to be 38.5 kilograms, and the mass of the target was said to be 25.6 kilograms. But no matter how many times Coster-M…
New Yorker, I found, is always obtuse, long-winded prose that fill up 14 pages where the whole thing can be, if it was written like a normal article, summarized in no more than 3 pages. It is prose porn for writers and readers alike. If I want good prose, I read the the Cabinet Magazine which is far superior in writing, curtness and straightforwardness while not affecting the charming and poetical aspects of writing.…
Just look at the title, manages to demean and belittle an entire industry that is entirely required for a functioning economy and society.
Y'all wonder why blue collar America thinks we're stuck up entitled pricks? Maybe it's because we are.