The way I understand it our initial nuclear bombs (called atomic bombs then in the 40s) were fission. Since that time we have allegedly moved on to fusion bombs in our larger yield devices.
Here is where it becomes a stretch for many Americans - my little throw away line is actually a set up I'm 100% confident you won't be able to run with!
Got any proof? - has one ever gone off?
(and yes I always hope the reply to that will involve mention of Japan because those ones are on a par with 911 or the moon landing...)
And that howstuffworks site is just yet another propaganda site spouting the party line on bloody everything - jeepers it's a psyop in itself!
Heh. It was just one of many sites. You can use a search engine. It shouldn't be my job to be your research assistant. I have things to do with my time too. I do understand asking for sources. I also see that can be used as an escape hatch. Sometimes you need to do the work yourself. People not spending vast time giving you research to YOUR satisfaction is not always their fault. They will not know what will satisfy you, they won't know what you already have seen, and they also may be speaking about things they've read over many years and not remember all the links... so looking for them is a large amount of their time that may not even be what you are seeking. i.e. You truly want to know... try looking yourself and guard yourself from any preconceived notions for while your current understanding can be true... it can also be false.
I did out of curiosity look a little bit since it has been a very long time since I first heard about this stuff (over 3 decades). I likely first read about it in Encyclopedias, Magazines, heard in in physics classes, etc. So long ago it has melded with a vast amount of information that I am steadily losing details on as time passes.
That was one I found on duckduckgo.com when searching on fusion bomb test.
Now the reason this would be called a fusion bomb is the hydrogen aspect. The elements that we previously found that we could achieve fission with (splitting/breaking) have been very high in the periodic table of elements. Uranium, Plutonium, etc. Thorium is also one that we could use for such a process. Now hydrogen on the other hand. As far as we know in physics hydrogen can't be really split into other elements. This in science is based upon the best model we currently have. Science is never settled, it only operates with what explains the most observable data at the given time. It can always be challenged. Yet we tend to use what explains the most observable data until we come up with a better model that explains more. It's just a tool. So is it PROOF? Not in the religious unquestionable, not to be challenged sense of the word. It is simply the best explanation for what we observe.
So is a hydrogen bomb really fusing hydrogen? I'm not sure how easy it would be to prove that. Though they do put out vastly more power than the fission bombs tested before that. The claim is that it is fusing hydrogen.
As far as I know such proof at sufficient detail is likely classified as then you, I, and everyone else would essentially have the blueprints to make the devices.
So they claim it is a hydrogen bomb. A fusion bomb.
Could it be just a much more effective fission bomb? Sure. It also might be a fusion bomb.
Science can't prove a negative. It can only provide models to explain what we observe. People can make up theoretical models that explain some things. They may hold until an observation comes along they cannot explain. At that point we likely hold onto the existing model as we need to use something until we come up with a model that explains the new observation as well as maintains an explanation for the old observations. We don't suddenly go "caveman" and decide. Oops... Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation don't explain the three body problem. Let's toss it all out. No the model was still very useful for terrestrial calculations, trajectories, creating devices, etc. It simply did not explain everything. Along comes Einstein and his theories resolved the three body problem, yet even his models have their flaws. We seek to find ways to explain the flaws with new models. Yet that is no simple task. The job of TRUE scientists is to question everything, and challenge them, even their own ideas. Yet they must do so with reason, evidence, etc. rather than simply stating a negative.
Correct. They are Nuclear Bombs both Fission and Fusion.
Got any proof? - has one ever gone off?
The way I understand it our initial nuclear bombs (called atomic bombs then in the 40s) were fission. Since that time we have allegedly moved on to fusion bombs in our larger yield devices.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb6.htm
Here is where it becomes a stretch for many Americans - my little throw away line is actually a set up I'm 100% confident you won't be able to run with!
(and yes I always hope the reply to that will involve mention of Japan because those ones are on a par with 911 or the moon landing...)
And that howstuffworks site is just yet another propaganda site spouting the party line on bloody everything - jeepers it's a psyop in itself!
Heh. It was just one of many sites. You can use a search engine. It shouldn't be my job to be your research assistant. I have things to do with my time too. I do understand asking for sources. I also see that can be used as an escape hatch. Sometimes you need to do the work yourself. People not spending vast time giving you research to YOUR satisfaction is not always their fault. They will not know what will satisfy you, they won't know what you already have seen, and they also may be speaking about things they've read over many years and not remember all the links... so looking for them is a large amount of their time that may not even be what you are seeking. i.e. You truly want to know... try looking yourself and guard yourself from any preconceived notions for while your current understanding can be true... it can also be false.
To which i can only repeat:
Don't worry I've done my research!
I did out of curiosity look a little bit since it has been a very long time since I first heard about this stuff (over 3 decades). I likely first read about it in Encyclopedias, Magazines, heard in in physics classes, etc. So long ago it has melded with a vast amount of information that I am steadily losing details on as time passes.
https://www.wired.com/2010/01/first-fusion-bomb-test/
That was one I found on duckduckgo.com when searching on fusion bomb test.
Now the reason this would be called a fusion bomb is the hydrogen aspect. The elements that we previously found that we could achieve fission with (splitting/breaking) have been very high in the periodic table of elements. Uranium, Plutonium, etc. Thorium is also one that we could use for such a process. Now hydrogen on the other hand. As far as we know in physics hydrogen can't be really split into other elements. This in science is based upon the best model we currently have. Science is never settled, it only operates with what explains the most observable data at the given time. It can always be challenged. Yet we tend to use what explains the most observable data until we come up with a better model that explains more. It's just a tool. So is it PROOF? Not in the religious unquestionable, not to be challenged sense of the word. It is simply the best explanation for what we observe.
So is a hydrogen bomb really fusing hydrogen? I'm not sure how easy it would be to prove that. Though they do put out vastly more power than the fission bombs tested before that. The claim is that it is fusing hydrogen.
As far as I know such proof at sufficient detail is likely classified as then you, I, and everyone else would essentially have the blueprints to make the devices.
So they claim it is a hydrogen bomb. A fusion bomb.
Could it be just a much more effective fission bomb? Sure. It also might be a fusion bomb.
Science can't prove a negative. It can only provide models to explain what we observe. People can make up theoretical models that explain some things. They may hold until an observation comes along they cannot explain. At that point we likely hold onto the existing model as we need to use something until we come up with a model that explains the new observation as well as maintains an explanation for the old observations. We don't suddenly go "caveman" and decide. Oops... Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation don't explain the three body problem. Let's toss it all out. No the model was still very useful for terrestrial calculations, trajectories, creating devices, etc. It simply did not explain everything. Along comes Einstein and his theories resolved the three body problem, yet even his models have their flaws. We seek to find ways to explain the flaws with new models. Yet that is no simple task. The job of TRUE scientists is to question everything, and challenge them, even their own ideas. Yet they must do so with reason, evidence, etc. rather than simply stating a negative.
Well I know you. Anything that is sufficient proof for me, would likely be insufficient for you. ;) Thus, it is on you.