Nuke, Bombs, WMD, and Reactors

[RickJ]

UC Berkely
Physics 10: Physics for Future Presidents
Lecture 7: Nukes

Here is an excellent lecture about nuuclear bombs and reactors.  It's presented by Professor Richard A. Muller and is described as " The most interesting and important topics in physics, stressing conceptual understanding rather than math, wit...".  I found it to be very informative and thought I would share it with anoyone here that may be interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wR8LjNmSQ0&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=095393D5B42B2266&index=7

[InCreator]

I find those lectures pretty cool: It's easy to understand and interesting topics too!

Thanks for the link!

EDIT: Interesting that US university lecture is LOT less technical, more dumbed down (and well, simpler to understand) than exact same stuff I learned in 10th grade. We got formulaic, mathematical/physical and much more boring version of this, with load of exercises (like "find the critical mass of this and that if you have so much isotopes") and stuff. Then again, we got much deeper into this than simple mosquito examples and circles on blackboard.

[TheJBurger]

EDIT: Interesting that US university lecture is LOT less technical, more dumbed down (and well, simpler to understand) than exact same stuff I learned in 10th grade. We got formulaic, mathematical/physical and much more boring version of this, with load of exercises (like "find the critical mass of this and that if you have so much isotopes") and stuff. Then again, we got much deeper into this than simple mosquito examples and circles on blackboard.

Not so fast! 

This particular class is structured to be less technical and more conceptual -- and this is a review session, so they're barely skimming the surface, I believe. You can't really generalize all of US university into this one lecture. Every single class in every single different major in every different university is structured and presented in a different way. So, you're bound to find every difficulty and every level of technical understanding if you look around.

[InCreator]

I don't. But even if my course STARTED with introduction like this, I would liked it better.

We got right into chemical formulas and numbers. Loads of them. Pity I don't have my textbook around (300 pages!), I would scan that crazy shit we had to dig into.

Actually, after thorough search wiki has a tiny example of our "explanation" at it's best.

"1. A uranium-235 atom absorbs a neutron and fissions into two new atoms (fission fragments), releasing three new neutrons and some binding energy. 2. One of those neutrons is absorbed by an atom of uranium-238 and does not continue the reaction. Another neutron is simply lost and does not collide with anything, also not continuing the reaction. However one neutron does collide with an atom of uranium-235, which then fissions and releases two neutrons and some binding energy. 3. Both of those neutrons collide with uranium-235 atoms, each of which fissions and releases between one and three neutrons, which can then continue the reaction."

Read, understand. Ask if something was unclear, and "what?!" is not proper question. That's it. From there, numbers only.

Of course, if you grab chemistry easily, it's proper and simple explanation of nuclear fission. But if you don't so well...
Kind of differs from professor drawing circles onto blackboard, doesn't it?

God I hated chemistry. There's even a thread around here about my chemistry problems.

[RickJ]

EDIT: Interesting that US university lecture is LOT less technical,

The sub-title of the course is "Physics for future presidents" which means that political students who can't even spell MATH can take this course and get some benefit. 

[DoorKnobHandle]

Nice and interesting watch, great professor.

[InCreator]

The sub-title of the course is "Physics for future presidents" which means that political students who can't even spell MATH can take this course and get some benefit. 

I didn't confuse it with nuclear physics major anyway--
It was simply an opportunity to bitch about chemistry one again and express admiration towards professor's approach at teaching. Especially considering in so difficult topic versus "political students who can't even spell MATH".

I cannot balance simplest chemical formula, but if I had teachers like this, I probably could.

But nukes were actually one of more boring of the videos (though I haven't watched em all yet), being a crazy individual with mastermind syndrome (also classified so by Myers-briggs/Jung personality test), admiration towards destructive power of Man and sick idea of "if death really becomes unavoidable and my seconds are counted, seeing nuke exploding as my last sight would be cool"... I know about nukes enough, even with (otherwise) limited understanding about chemistry. If I were in that class, I could even add something

Actually, I had no idea that educational value of Youtube could be higher than crazies with conspiracy theories and low-quality teen experiment videos with flammable household liquids...

[LUniqueDan]

Thanx for the link RickJ - I'll read it later when I,ll have more time. 

The idea reminds me of an old funny text circulating in the 90's (under various names) : Construction Project: Atomic Bomb

With this kind of humor :
"[...] besides, large quantities of missing Plutonium tends to make plant engineers unhappy. We suggest that you contact one of the former Soviet Republics, or perhaps the Junior Achievement in your neighborhood. [...] "

[MrColossal]

I listened to everyone of these a few years ago when I was working late at work. My favorite being his explanation of the true events of Roswell, sadly I had never heard the truth before and it just made me giddy!