Live data from Hacker News

Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

dannen.com

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#21
post #14
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the NUKEMAP, the survival rate at 10 miles of a 1 megaton bomb should be pretty good: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ That gives 2.5km as the lethal radius for radiation, 3km as the 100% lethal radius for blast, 7km as the radius for "injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread" and 12.6km as the radius for 3rd degree burns from thermal radiation. At 16 km you'd still get badly burned if you we…

the bomb does not explode "near" the ground. the relatively small bombs of hiroshima and nagsaki exploded about a mile above ground. the goal here is to make the shockwaves double up near the ground, causing more destruction. i'd assume that bigger bombs would detonate at higher altitudes to achieve the same effect further out.

I do believe that the altitude of detonation is a tactical decision, based on target selection.

A commander might attempt to destroy some types of hardened bunkers by penetrating the ground before detonating, or completely destroy a fleet of armored vehicles or a single specific building with a direct strike on the fleet itself, or upon the building's roof. Destroying population centers, or industrial zones is another matter, where an airburst maximizes above ground damage distributed across an area.

The blast wave doesn't precisely "double up" as much as it smashes downward, and plows outward, with a reflection of the sphere bouncing back upward. This effect does result in two waves, above a certain height, closer in, near ground zero, with harsher effects on tall buildings, if there are any. But the angle of the reflection grows more acute, as distance from the center of the sphere increases, and the equator of the blast sphere widens. So, once you get out past a few miles from ground zero, unless your in a building taller than 200 feet (66 meters), it's still really just going to be a single front that slams the structure you're occupying.

Furthermore, while airbursts do take advantage of the principle of reflected force, peculiarities of the target terrain also play a role, in terms of both ground texture (stone vs. soil) and topography (hills and valleys). A city center with lots of concrete and asphalt will be highly reflective, but rural targets surrounded by agricultural soil will be absorbent and inelastic, and produce a distorted, lower fidelity reflection.

Topography, meanwhile, will produce additional distortion and blurred shadows, behind and around corners, so targets, set back, behind the crests of hills, or behind many layers of tall buildings, might enjoy a lateral shadows from both flash heat and blast forces, but not ambient heat after the wave passes.

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#22
post #19
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to figure out the most rational thing to do at each distance. In fireball, say goodbye. Sounds like shock wave isn't that big of a deal on its own far beyond the fireball region, beyond eardrums, but obviously shrapnel and collapses will get you indirectly. But thermal radiation seems to extend much farther per the website and there's no escape. So is that what actually kills the most people? (Though it's 2017…

The thermal pulse lasts several seconds for a large bomb. If you can immediately throw yourself into a ditch or behind a wall or otherwise shelter from it, you may greatly reduce the burns you receive. What kills the most people depends on the size of the bomb. For really small ones (like the US Army's nuclear bazooka from the 50s) the prompt radiation has the greatest lethal radius. For medium sized ones like Hirosh…

In the latter, do you mean thermal radiation or thermal conduction? I guess it doesn't make a huge difference because radiation hits you before you cam do anything about it, and conduction is impossible to get away from. But curious anyway.

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#23
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to figure out the most rational thing to do at each distance. In fireball, say goodbye. Sounds like shock wave isn't that big of a deal on its own far beyond the fireball region, beyond eardrums, but obviously shrapnel and collapses will get you indirectly. But thermal radiation seems to extend much farther per the website and there's no escape. So is that what actually kills the most people? (Though it's 2017…

The shock wave is a serious hazard to personnel far beyond the fireball. Just a few pounds of dynamic overpressure presents a hurricane-force wind hazard, and five will result in catastrophic damage to non-hardened structures and a near complete loss of life. The shock front detaches quite early from the fireball. The classic scary videos of residential structures annihilated during nuclear testing were sampled from…

Yeah those videos make me wonder. But my understanding from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions is that humans are quite a bit more resilient than structures. So a shock wave that utterly destroys an otherwise strong structure may not kill a human. However that seems related purely to the atmospheric shock wave itself. I guess shrapnel (even dirt), building collapse, maybe even "throwing the person" (so the ground, rather than atmospheric effects, kills) would greatly add to the indirect ways of dying. But is it most likely thermal radiation that actually does you in?

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#24
post #14
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the NUKEMAP, the survival rate at 10 miles of a 1 megaton bomb should be pretty good: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ That gives 2.5km as the lethal radius for radiation, 3km as the 100% lethal radius for blast, 7km as the radius for "injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread" and 12.6km as the radius for 3rd degree burns from thermal radiation. At 16 km you'd still get badly burned if you we…

the bomb does not explode "near" the ground. the relatively small bombs of hiroshima and nagsaki exploded about a mile above ground. the goal here is to make the shockwaves double up near the ground, causing more destruction. i'd assume that bigger bombs would detonate at higher altitudes to achieve the same effect further out.

Much less than a mile altitude at detonation for both bombs.

Hiroshima: 1900 ft [1] Nagasaki: 1650 ft [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#25
post #13
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per thermal radiation, does that mean essentially light? So if you see the explosion, no time to get out of the way, already burned?

- if you "see" the flash, thats the last thing youre ever going to see. will blind you. - thermal radiation is, in fact, light, which travels at the speed of light - but you should not imagine the entirety of the thermal energy to be released by a nuclear weapon to be released instantaneously in a radially travelling sphere. that being said, youre not going to outrun such an explosion. where you are at the time of de…

> - if you "see" the flash, thats the last thing youre ever going to see. will blind you.

Maybe not. Richard Feynman claimed to have watched a nuclear explosion with nothing but regular glass between him and the blast. He assumed the glass would block any ultraviolet light and he was not blinded.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/34/3/FeynmanLosAlamos.h...

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#26
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never understood why "duck and cover" ended up with such a bad reputation. Because in the the probability of being in a location where it would make a difference​ to even short-term survival was minimal, and, in the event of a major superpower exchange (the main plausible scenario when those drills were common for anything that would include attacks on US population centers) short-survival was widely perceived (w…

The probability of being in a location where it would make a difference was high. Huge parts of major cities would be in that zone. Duck and cover dates from the 1950s, where the US's end of nuclear war would have looked much closer to a strangelovian "hair mussed" than the total apocalypse you describe. The Soviet Union didn't have the capability to cause that level of damage to the US until the mid 1960s or so.

> Duck and cover dates from the 1950s

The bad reputation of duck and cover does not, however.

> The Soviet Union didn't have the capability to cause that level of damage to the US until the mid 1960s or so.

The bad reputation dates from later than the 60s, AFAICT. It's not like duck and cover went away then: we were doing duck and cover drills in my elementary school in the 1980s, and classrooms in community colleges I saw had duck and cover instructions posted prominetly in the 1990s.

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#27
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shock wave is a serious hazard to personnel far beyond the fireball. Just a few pounds of dynamic overpressure presents a hurricane-force wind hazard, and five will result in catastrophic damage to non-hardened structures and a near complete loss of life. The shock front detaches quite early from the fireball. The classic scary videos of residential structures annihilated during nuclear testing were sampled from…

Yeah those videos make me wonder. But my understanding from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions is that humans are quite a bit more resilient than structures. So a shock wave that utterly destroys an otherwise strong structure may not kill a human. However that seems related purely to the atmospheric shock wave itself. I guess shrapnel (even dirt), building collapse, maybe even "throwing the p…

The thermal radiation and resulting firestorm would be the cause of most deaths from an attack on a city.

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#28
This anecdote is described in greater detail in "The Pope of Physics", by Gino Segrè & Bettina Hoerlin (Enrico Fermi's biography told by a nephew of a close collaborator of the famous physicist). This fascinating episode is told in the first chapter, if I rember correctly. He also poses the "how many piano tuners are in Chicago" problem, using a similar approximation technique. Great read, totally recommended!

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#29
post #25
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- if you "see" the flash, thats the last thing youre ever going to see. will blind you. - thermal radiation is, in fact, light, which travels at the speed of light - but you should not imagine the entirety of the thermal energy to be released by a nuclear weapon to be released instantaneously in a radially travelling sphere. that being said, youre not going to outrun such an explosion. where you are at the time of de…

> - if you "see" the flash, thats the last thing youre ever going to see. will blind you. Maybe not. Richard Feynman claimed to have watched a nuclear explosion with nothing but regular glass between him and the blast. He assumed the glass would block any ultraviolet light and he was not blinded. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/34/3/FeynmanLosAlamos.h...

glass does block ultraviolet light, which makes it effective protection.

Re: Estimating a nuclear blast with bits of paper

#30
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the bomb does not explode "near" the ground. the relatively small bombs of hiroshima and nagsaki exploded about a mile above ground. the goal here is to make the shockwaves double up near the ground, causing more destruction. i'd assume that bigger bombs would detonate at higher altitudes to achieve the same effect further out.

Much less than a mile altitude at detonation for both bombs. Hiroshima: 1900 ft [1] Nagasaki: 1650 ft [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

about 1/3rd of a mile? weird units are weird :P
Post reply on HN