How Oppenheimer's "Gadget" Worked  

Hydrogen bomb explosion requires atomic bomb explosion

so.. that massuve explosion need a big explosion that is also need an explosion?

@@Adam-it9yx actually, yess

My mind is blown...

@@Adam-it9yx It's why hydrogen or fusion weapons are also called thermonuclear weapons. The bomb gets the hydrogen hot enough to turn it into a plasma, which triggers a fusion reaction. This was also the reason they were initially worried about the atomic bomb destroying the entire planet. The fear was that it could start a self sustaining chain fusion reaction with the nitrogen in the atmosphere. Thankfully, and perhaps obviously, it's a little more complex than that.

The explosion sounds in the movie will scare you too so get ready

@@hasanicahyadi9100 fuck

@@hasanicahyadi9100 I watched it yesterday, so many woman screamed it was funny

I know I turned up the volume thinking there was a VO I couldn’t here then “CRRROOOOOMMMPPHH”

@@pinacoladatv808 don't comment if you haven't watched the movie buddy. The sounds are delayed around 45 seconds and it's super loud, which you would know if you actually watched the movie

Except the real one was far bigger and brighter than the one shown in the movie

It didn't produce a sound like that. The shock liquified the pit.

Wtf 😆

Technically, yes. 🇯🇵

my le bomb le killed people?

You thought wrong

The chemical reactions have terminated long before the nuclear reactions start.

„Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.“

Got there in the end 💥

"Now I am become Barbie Girl, Destroyer of Barbie Worlds"

Work began in earnest on an implosion design in September of 1943, with the first finished bomb completed by July of 1945

I've always wondered how those work... *for purely academic purposes, of course*

Pls do it

Nolan didn't animate the explosion lol and that was why it didnt hit the mark of many people

@@raguram9343 as adamant as Nolan was to not use CGI - he should have, or at least a little bit to beef up their captured practical footage. This way the explosion would still be grounded in reality, but just more impactful - and also so that they could have an actual mushroom cloud shape form, because that barely formed in the movie. When CGI is done right, it can add so much to a movie. CGI only has a bad reputation because studios rush and overwork artists to push crappy visuals. Nolan has used CGI amazingly in the past, I just wished that he did again for explosion in the movie

I agree! The explosion in the movie barely formed the iconic mushroom cloud shape. It felt like a small conventional explosion or some gasoline lit on fire. Nolan should have used CGI, or at least a little bit of CGI to beef up the captured practical footage. God, it was so lame - so much build up for such an anti-climatic, lame, Die Hard action movie looking explosion

​@@PrabhablyAGoodRU-vidractually that's because Trinity wasn't so powerful as it was just the first test of the A bomb It's normal that the mushroom wasn't that big

@@Matt_ctnI'm not saying that the mushroom cloud wasn't big, I'm saying that the shape just barely formed. After viewing the actual Trinity Test footage, the shape and scale of the mushroom cloud and explosion is much more impactful.

@@Matt_ctn Even then, and being someone who has watched the trinity footage a lot, if he can make a realistic black hole with CGI, he could have used a little, or at least tried harder to make it look a little more like it and represent the distance better also, because they were supposed to be really far away which makes me respect it a little bit more, but the tower seemed very close when it had those shots

The boron shell is modeled in, just not labeled.

There have been a few failures or “fizzles” where weapon either didn’t go off or didn’t generate the expected yield. A few (namely Castle Bravo and Castle Romeo) generated significantly more yield than predicted.

look at the subtle off-white smoke produced. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh my god... it's also a hydrogen bomb!

There are no "explosive mirrors" in this device.

Pu-239 and U-235 are not easy things to get. There's more to making a bomb than knowledge.

@@altaccount4697 oh ok 👍

@@RADIUM._. yep. The refinement process is insanely difficult and energy intensive. The explosive lensing requires a lot of very complex math. This is more something that you'd need the resources of a nation to do, rather than individuals. This is also an older style fission device, whereas modern bombs are fission-fusion. It would be much much lower yield than anything in the US arsenal for example.

@@altaccount4697 yuuh I could tell in da openhiemer mivie

Well, open "secrets" for decades. And now a very outdated design. Knowing is one thing, execution a whole nother matter!

The video states as much...

The individual lenses were separated by thin layers of felt, I believe. Sympathetic detonations were basically part of the design, since the shockwave of one layer detonating is what set off the next layer. Sympathetic denotations between lenses probably weren't much of concern because by the time the shockwave reached another lens, that lens should already be detonating as well.

@@CbassProductions Have you read The Making of the Atomic Bomb? It's on my to read list. If you have, how detailed does Rhodes go into the details, and physics of the designs?

​@@oceanic8424I own it. Haven't read it though

in the palm of my hand

More like in the back of your 5th wheel triple axle flat bed

@@nuclearTANK kinda is in the palm of your hand since the Plutonium core is about 10cm (about 4inch) wide. Yes, you do need the larger conventional explosives surrounding it to compress it to reach critical mass and start the reaction, but still - the core is that big...

*gun type *Little Boy

Shot gun style is for the little boy not this one.

All known nuclear weapon designs use conventional explosives to compress the nuclear material and start the chain reaction

I thought of that too 🤣🤣🤣 I literally said out loud someone needs some W-D40 😅😅😅 smh

No you don't.

The lenses themselves explode, but they are shaped in a way to focus the detonation shockwave. The combined effect of all the lenses exploding simultaneously is an implosion of the core.

Not for you.

Little Boy used U-235 as its fissile material. Fat Man (like the Gadget shown here) used Pu-239 as its fissile material with the dense U-238 used to help compress the core and reflect neutrons back into the Pu-239 during the implosion process. And at the temperatures and pressures generated by the fissioning Pu-239, U-238 was able to undergo fission and contributed about 20% of the bomb’s total yield, if I recall correctly.

Oppenheimers gadget was the little boy not fat man

Nvm your kinda right the bomb used in the trinity test the “Fat Man” used a uranium 238 shell with with plutonium 239 as a implosion device the little boy was more of a gun bomb so sorry about that

​@@ReflexPlays00Bro what are you on they are different bombs with different design, Fat Man has the same design tho.

Wrong. It used weapons grade plutonium and natural uranium.

Oppenheimer doesn't have CGI

@@PrabhablyAGoodRU-vidr that’s why it is way better isn’t it?

?

What?

ah yes... this is totally such dangerous information for people to learn that it obviously must be reported. Otherwise, the kid next door will use this to create their own nuclear bomb in their backyard, because plutonium is such a common everyday household material that the kids can easily get access to

You do realize that it's very complicated and dangerous to build one, right? You couldn't try even if you wanted to. You need certain classified/restricted information and government/military resources on a vast scale to achieve something like this. This isn't something you could build in your backyard. Knowing the ingredients are one thing. How to cook the thing into existence is another thing entirely 🤡

So you really think ANYbody could go out right now after watching this and assemble this fucking behemoth whenever they wanted? What're you, high or simple? 😂 this does nothing to explain how to make it, just the basics of whats in it. Wtf? 😮‍💨

Because knowledge is power, and an uniformed society is just as much a danger to itself

@@92larsko just as much of a danger as a nuclear bomb? Alrighty

@@Naturalista91 It goes both ways in terms of positive and negative outcomes. Yes, humanity learning about this information has then used the knowledge to create nuclear bombs - but this knowledge also unlocks the ability for humanity to create nuclear power plants and harness efficient and clean energy (instead of dirty coal and gas). Knowledge is not inherently good or bad/dangerous, it is up to people on how to use the knowledge. Every scientific breakthrough has good and bad pathways that society has to decide on which pathway to walk. A hammer can be an effective weapon for battle, and can be used to destroy walls, etc. but a hammer can also be a tool for rebuilding and creating something - it's up to the person on how to use it

Somewhere in the range of a few microseconds, or several thousand times faster than the blink of an eye.