Atomic Bomb Explosion: The First 3/100,000,000ths of a Second - United Bimmer Community

**komodo** · 02-20-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Ever wondered what an atomic blast looks like before it obliterates everything around it? Before the smoke, the mushroom cloud, the devastation, it's really quite amazing to see the first few fractions of an atomic bomb upon detonation.

Edgerton built a special lens 10 feet long for his camera which was set up in a bunker 7 miles from the source of the blast which was triggered Nevada - the bomb placed atop a steel gantry anchored to the desert floor by guide wires. The exposures are at 1/100,000,000ths of a second

Due to the extremely high shutter speeds, the image quality and color depth is limited in these photos.

**jybute** · 02-20-2006, 07:55 AM

freaky man........ im definitely a peace advocate.

**doughboyea** · 02-20-2006, 09:22 AM

awesome, not meaning that it is great, but in reflecting to the amount of devistation that becomes of it, these sights are something to behold and respect...

Dough

witeshark · 02-20-2006, 09:50 AM

Extremely interesting!

**jms** · 02-20-2006, 01:18 PM

what I find scary is the way they (the government) just played with it. And who got to make the call to go ahead and detonate it? I mean some credible scientists working on the project believe it could set the atmosphere on fire. Who gets to make that call? Ooops we burned up the earth, my bad.

witeshark · 02-20-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms

what I find scary is the way they (the government) just played with it. And who got to make the call to go ahead and detonate it? I mean some credible scientists working on the project believe it could set the atmosphere on fire. Who gets to make that call? Ooops we burned up the earth, my bad.

What a great point!

**RealBmw 02** · 02-20-2006, 02:15 PM

im amazed at the shutter speed of his camera

**komodo** · 02-20-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms

what I find scary is the way they (the government) just played with it. And who got to make the call to go ahead and detonate it? I mean some credible scientists working on the project believe it could set the atmosphere on fire. Who gets to make that call? Ooops we burned up the earth, my bad.

Hah, and back then they probably didn't have the computer power to simulate the blast like they would today either... so they weren't entirely sure what to expect.

**bitcore** · 02-20-2006, 02:52 PM

DEATH2000 · 02-20-2006, 03:49 PM

Ive sen those, freaky stuff. The film in the camera was travilling at like 400mph+ or something like that when that was taken.

**jms** · 02-20-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by komodo

Hah, and back then they probably didn't have the computer power to simulate the blast like they would today either... so they weren't entirely sure what to expect.

That is actually completely accurate, most thought it would be a dud, some though it would ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere I think the closest prediction was 1 million tons of TNT, it ended up being close to 20 thousand. In any case it was all guesswork.

If you really want to be scared, look at fermi and chicago pile. They built a reactor using wood and graphite, manually manipulated the control rods, and in case of fire a couple of students had pitchers of water. (this is the first self sustaining nuclear reactor) I don't know how we didn't kill off the planet in the early days. Now we have a new problem. We havn't built a new reactor in 30 years so we have old nasty equipment and safety measures, sure they updated but a new plant would be safer than 30 years of patch jobs.

Storamin · 02-20-2006, 10:09 PM

My dad,>c1aption btw, is a consultant for nuclear procedure writing... most of the current sites are very safe. Especially since 9/11 they have increased security a lot along with crisis management in case anything does happen.

I can't tell you anymore, it's all classified and if I did I would have to kill you.

**jms** · 02-21-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storamin

My dad,>c1aption btw, is a consultant for nuclear procedure writing... most of the current sites are very safe. Especially since 9/11 they have increased security a lot along with crisis management in case anything does happen.

I can't tell you anymore, it's all classified and if I did I would have to kill you.

I went into the navy in the nuke program. I studied nuclear physics and reactor plant design and operation. The commercial plants in the us use a fast nuetron reaction with U-238. Military reactors use U-235 with a thermalized nuetron reaction. What's the difference, military is slower, less efficent, and safer, commercial is faster and more efficent. It is also less safe. Do you know how many accidents in naval reactory history resulted in core damage? Zero. But I'm sure you heard of Three mile island.

My concern was not the plants physical security but the plants design. When they built these plants they learned a few lessons. For example when they built Beaver-1 they used too much nickel in the reactor plant shielding. The nickel is reactive and depleted reducing the sheilding. They had to retrofit a new lining or lose thier license to operate.

We have all this new technology and better understanding. Why can't we build a new reactor using this new technology, make it safer. Because someone got a bug up their ass that nuclear power isn't safe. It is safe but you have to keep striving for better.

as for the classification, most data is classified confidential. Which means don't just give it to people, make them go to the library and look it up on thier own.

**01Mike330i** · 02-21-2006, 08:18 AM

Absolutely incredible.

Bitcore...I love the caption.

:

**Spieluhr** · 02-24-2006, 04:08 AM

^^^
dont we all wish.
haha, nice idea.