Nature develops dynamically, living and inert matter continuously undergoes processes of transformation. The most important transformations are those that affect the composition of a substance. The formation of rocks, chemical erosion, the birth of a planet, or the respiration of mammals are all observable processes that involve changes in other substances. Despite their differences, they all have something in common: changes at the molecular level.

1. During chemical reactions, elements do not lose their identity. These reactions involve only the electrons in the outer shell of the atoms, while the nuclei of the atoms remain unchanged.
2. The reactivity of an element to a chemical reaction depends on the oxidation state of the element. In ordinary chemical reactions, Ra and Ra 2+ behave completely differently.
3. Different isotopes of an element have almost the same chemical reactivity.
4. The rate of a chemical reaction is highly dependent on temperature and pressure.
5. The chemical reaction can be reversed.
6. Chemical reactions are accompanied by relatively small changes in energy.

Nuclear reactions

1. During nuclear reactions, the nuclei of atoms undergo changes and, therefore, new elements are formed as a result.
2. The reactivity of an element to a nuclear reaction is practically independent of the oxidation state of the element. For example, Ra or Ra 2+ ions in Ka C 2 behave in a similar way in nuclear reactions.
3. In nuclear reactions, isotopes behave completely differently. For example, U-235 fissions quietly and easily, but U-238 does not.
4. The rate of nuclear reaction does not depend on temperature and pressure.
5. A nuclear reaction cannot be undone.
6. Nuclear reactions are accompanied by large changes in energy.

Difference between chemical and nuclear energy

• Potential energy that can be converted into other forms, primarily heat and light, when bonds are formed.
• The stronger the bond, the greater the chemical energy converted.

• Nuclear energy does not involve the formation of chemical bonds (which are caused by the interaction of electrons)
• Can be converted into other forms when a change occurs in the nucleus of the atom.

Nuclear change occurs in all three main processes:

1. Nuclear fission
2. The joining of two nuclei to form a new kernel.
3. Release of high energy electromagnetic radiation (gamma radiation), creating a more stable version of the same nucleus.

Energy conversion comparison

The amount of chemical energy released (or converted) in a chemical explosion is:

• 5kJ for every gram of TNT
• Amount of nuclear energy in a released atomic bomb: 100 million kJ for every gram of uranium or plutonium

One of the main differences between nuclear and chemical reactions has to do with how a reaction occurs in an atom. While a nuclear reaction occurs in the nucleus of an atom, the electrons in the atom are responsible for the chemical reaction that occurs.

Chemical reactions include:

• Transfers
• Losses
• Gain
• Electron sharing

According to the atomic theory, matter is explained by rearrangement to give new molecules. The substances involved in a chemical reaction and the proportions in which they are formed are expressed in corresponding chemical equations, which form the basis for performing various types of chemical calculations.

Nuclear reactions are responsible for the decay of the nucleus and have nothing to do with electrons. When a nucleus decays, it can move on to another atom due to the loss of neutrons or protons. In a nuclear reaction, protons and neutrons interact within the nucleus. In chemical reactions, electrons react outside the nucleus.

The result of a nuclear reaction can be called any fission or fusion. A new element is formed due to the action of a proton or neutron. As a result of a chemical reaction, a substance changes into one or more substances due to the action of electrons. A new element is formed due to the action of a proton or neutron.

When comparing energy, a chemical reaction involves only a low energy change, whereas a nuclear reaction has a very high energy change. In a nuclear reaction, the energy changes are of magnitude 10^8 kJ. This is 10 - 10^3 kJ/mol in chemical reactions.

While some elements are transformed into others in the nuclear, the number of atoms remains unchanged in the chemical. In a nuclear reaction, isotopes react differently. But as a result of a chemical reaction, isotopes also react.

Although a nuclear reaction does not depend on chemical compounds, a chemical reaction is highly dependent on chemical compounds.

Summary

A nuclear reaction occurs in the nucleus of an atom, the electrons in the atom are responsible for chemical compounds.
1. Chemical reactions involve the transfer, loss, gain and sharing of electrons without involving the nucleus in the process. Nuclear reactions involve the decay of a nucleus and have nothing to do with electrons.
2. In a nuclear reaction, protons and neutrons react inside the nucleus; in chemical reactions, electrons interact outside the nucleus.
3. When comparing energies, a chemical reaction only uses a low energy change, whereas a nuclear reaction has a very high energy change.

In the media you can often hear loud words about nuclear weapons, but very rarely the destructive ability of a particular explosive charge is specified, therefore, as a rule, thermonuclear warheads with a capacity of several megatons and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War are put on the same list , whose power was only 15 to 20 kilotons, that is, a thousand times less. What is behind this colossal gap in the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons?

There is a different technology and charging principle behind this. If outdated “atomic bombs”, like those dropped on Japan, operate on pure fission of heavy metal nuclei, then thermonuclear charges are a “bomb within a bomb”, the greatest effect of which is created by the synthesis of helium, and the decay of nuclei of heavy elements is only the detonator of this synthesis.

A little physics: heavy metals are most often either uranium with a high content of isotope 235 or plutonium 239. They are radioactive and their nuclei are not stable. When the concentration of such materials in one place increases sharply to a certain threshold, a self-sustaining chain reaction occurs when unstable nuclei, breaking into pieces, provoke the same disintegration of neighboring nuclei with their fragments. This decay releases energy. Lots of energy. This is how the explosive charges of atomic bombs work, as well as nuclear reactors of nuclear power plants.

As for the thermonuclear reaction or thermonuclear explosion, the key place is given to a completely different process, namely the synthesis of helium. At high temperatures and pressure, it happens that when hydrogen nuclei collide, they stick together, creating a heavier element - helium. At the same time, a huge amount of energy is also released, as evidenced by our Sun, where this synthesis constantly occurs. What are the advantages of thermonuclear reaction:

Firstly, there is no limitation on the possible power of the explosion, because it depends solely on the amount of material from which the synthesis is carried out (most often lithium deuteride is used as such a material).

Secondly, there are no radioactive decay products, that is, those very fragments of nuclei of heavy elements, which significantly reduces radioactive contamination.

Well, thirdly, there are no colossal difficulties in the production of explosive material, as in the case of uranium and plutonium.

There is, however, a drawback: enormous temperatures and incredible pressure are required to begin such a synthesis. To create this pressure and heat, a detonating charge is required, which works on the principle of the ordinary decay of heavy elements.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the creation of an explosive nuclear charge by one country or another most often means a low-power “atomic bomb”, and not a truly terrible thermonuclear one capable of wiping out a large metropolis from the face of the earth.

As you know, the main engine of progress of human civilization is war. And many “hawks” justify the mass extermination of their own kind precisely by this. The issue has always been controversial, and the advent of nuclear weapons irrevocably turned the plus sign into a minus sign. Indeed, why do we need progress that will ultimately destroy us? Moreover, even in this suicidal matter, the man showed his characteristic energy and ingenuity. Not only did he come up with a weapon of mass destruction (the atomic bomb) - he continued to improve it in order to kill himself quickly, efficiently and reliably. An example of such active activity can be a very quick leap to the next stage in the development of atomic military technologies - the creation of thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bomb). But let’s leave aside the moral aspect of these suicidal tendencies and move on to the question posed in the title of the article - what is the difference between an atomic bomb and a hydrogen one?

A little history

There, beyond the ocean

As you know, Americans are the most enterprising people in the world. They have a great flair for everything new. Therefore, one should not be surprised that the first atomic bomb appeared in this part of the world. Let's give a little historical background.

• The first stage on the path to the creation of an atomic bomb can be considered the experiment of two German scientists O. Hahn and F. Strassmann to split the uranium atom into two parts. This, so to speak, still unconscious step was taken in 1938.

• French Nobel laureate F. Joliot-Curie proved in 1939 that atomic fission leads to a chain reaction accompanied by a powerful release of energy.

• The genius of theoretical physics A. Einstein put his signature on a letter (in 1939) addressed to the President of the United States, the initiator of which was another atomic physicist L. Szilard. As a result, even before the start of World War II, the United States decided to begin developing atomic weapons.

• The first test of the new weapon was carried out on July 16, 1945 in northern New Mexico.

• Less than a month later, two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6 and 9, 1945). Humanity had entered a new era - now it was capable of destroying itself in a few hours.

The Americans fell into real euphoria from the results of the total and lightning destruction of peaceful cities. Staff theorists of the US Armed Forces immediately began to draw up grandiose plans consisting in completely erasing 1/6 of the world - the Soviet Union - from the face of the Earth.

Caught up and overtook

The Soviet Union also did not sit idly by. True, there was some lag caused by the resolution of more urgent matters - the Second World War was going on, the main burden of which lay on the country of the Soviets. However, the Americans did not wear the leader's yellow jersey for long. Already on August 29, 1949, at a test site near the city of Semipalatinsk, a Soviet-style atomic charge was tested for the first time, created at the right time by Russian nuclear scientists under the leadership of Academician Kurchatov.

And while the frustrated “hawks” from the Pentagon were revising their ambitious plans to destroy the “stronghold of the world revolution,” the Kremlin launched a preemptive strike - in 1953, on August 12, tests of a new type of nuclear weapon were carried out. There, in the area of ​​Semipalatinsk, the world’s first hydrogen bomb, codenamed “Product RDS-6s”, was detonated. This event caused real hysteria and panic not only on Capitol Hill, but also in all 50 states of the “stronghold of world democracy.” Why? What is the difference between an atomic bomb and a hydrogen bomb that horrified the world's superpower? We will answer immediately. The hydrogen bomb is much more powerful than the atomic bomb. Moreover, it costs significantly less than an equivalent atomic sample. Let's look at these differences in more detail.

What is an atomic bomb?

The principle of operation of an atomic bomb is based on the use of energy resulting from an increasing chain reaction caused by the fission (splitting) of heavy nuclei of plutonium or uranium-235 with the subsequent formation of lighter nuclei.

The process itself is called single-phase, and it proceeds as follows:

• After the charge detonates, the substance inside the bomb (isotopes of uranium or plutonium) enters the decay stage and begins to capture neutrons.

• The process of decay is growing like an avalanche. The splitting of one atom leads to the decay of several. A chain reaction occurs, leading to the destruction of all the atoms in the bomb.

• A nuclear reaction begins. The entire bomb charge turns into a single whole, and its mass passes its critical mark. Moreover, all this bacchanalia does not last very long and is accompanied by the instant release of a huge amount of energy, which ultimately leads to a grand explosion.

By the way, this feature of a single-phase atomic charge - quickly gaining a critical mass - does not allow an infinite increase in the power of this type of ammunition. The charge can be hundreds of kilotons in power, but the closer it is to the megaton level, the less effective it is. It simply will not have time to completely split: an explosion will occur and part of the charge will remain unused - it will be scattered by the explosion. This problem was solved in the next type of atomic weapon - a hydrogen bomb, which is also called a thermonuclear bomb.

What is a hydrogen bomb?

In a hydrogen bomb, a slightly different process of energy release occurs. It is based on working with hydrogen isotopes - deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and tritium. The process itself is divided into two parts or, as they say, is two-phase.

• The first phase is when the main energy supplier is the fission reaction of heavy lithium deuteride nuclei into helium and tritium.

• The second phase - thermonuclear fusion based on helium and tritium is launched, which leads to instant heating inside the warhead and, as a result, causes a powerful explosion.

Thanks to the two-phase system, the thermonuclear charge can be of any power.

Note. The description of the processes occurring in an atomic and hydrogen bomb is far from complete and the most primitive. It is provided only to provide a general understanding of the differences between these two weapons.

Comparison

What's in the bottom line?

Any schoolchild knows about the damaging factors of an atomic explosion:

• light radiation;
• shock wave;
• electromagnetic pulse (EMP);
• penetrating radiation;
• radioactive contamination.

The same can be said about a thermonuclear explosion. But!!! The power and consequences of a thermonuclear explosion are much stronger than an atomic one. Let us give two well-known examples.

“Baby”: black humor or cynicism of Uncle Sam?

The atomic bomb (codenamed “Little Boy”) dropped on Hiroshima by the Americans is still considered the “benchmark” for atomic charges. Its power was approximately 13 to 18 kilotons, and the explosion was ideal in all respects. Later, more powerful charges were tested more than once, but not much (20-23 kilotons). However, they showed results that were little higher than the achievements of “Kid”, and then stopped altogether. A cheaper and stronger “hydrogen sister” appeared, and there was no longer any point in improving atomic charges. This is what happened “at the exit” after the explosion of “Malysh”:

• The nuclear mushroom reached a height of 12 km, the diameter of the “cap” was about 5 km.
• The instantaneous release of energy during a nuclear reaction caused a temperature at the epicenter of the explosion of 4000 ° C.
• Fireball: diameter about 300 meters.
• The shock wave knocked out glass at a distance of up to 19 km, and was felt much further.
• About 140 thousand people died at once.

Queen of all queens

The consequences of the explosion of the most powerful hydrogen bomb tested to date, the so-called Tsar Bomb (code name AN602), exceeded all previous explosions of atomic charges (not thermonuclear ones) combined. The bomb was Soviet, with a yield of 50 megatons. Its tests were carried out on October 30, 1961 in the Novaya Zemlya region.

• The nuclear mushroom grew 67 km in height and the diameter of the upper “cap” was approximately 95 km.
• The light radiation hit a distance of up to 100 km, causing third-degree burns.
• The ball of fire, or ball, grew to 4.6 km (radius).
• The sound wave was recorded at a distance of 800 km.
• The seismic wave circled the planet three times.
• The shock wave was felt at a distance of up to 1000 km.
• The electromagnetic pulse created powerful interference for 40 minutes several hundred kilometers from the epicenter of the explosion.

One can only imagine what would have happened to Hiroshima if such a monster had been dropped on it. Most likely, not only the city, but also the Land of the Rising Sun itself would disappear. Well, now let’s bring everything that we have said to a common denominator, that is, we will draw up a comparative table.

Table

So, we found out what the difference is between an atomic and a hydrogen bomb. Unfortunately, our little analysis only confirmed the thesis expressed at the beginning of the article: progress associated with the war took a disastrous path. Humanity has come to the brink of self-destruction. All that remains is to press the button. But let's not end the article on such a tragic note. We really hope that reason and the instinct of self-preservation will ultimately win and a peaceful future awaits us.

What is the difference between nuclear weapons and atomic weapons?

The issue is resolved and closed.

Best answer

Answers

1 0

7 (63206) 6 36 138 9 years

In theory, these are the same thing, but if you need a difference, then:

atomic weapons:

* Ammunition, often called atomic, during the explosion of which only one type of nuclear reaction occurs - the fission of heavy elements (uranium or plutonium) with the formation of lighter ones. This type of ammunition is often referred to as single-phase or single-stage.

nuclear weapon:
* Thermonuclear weapons (in common parlance, often hydrogen weapons), the main energy release of which occurs during a thermonuclear reaction - the synthesis of heavy elements from lighter ones. A single-phase nuclear charge is used as a fuse for a thermonuclear reaction - its explosion creates a temperature of several million degrees at which the fusion reaction begins. The starting material for synthesis is usually a mixture of two isotopes of hydrogen - deuterium and tritium (in the first samples of thermonuclear explosive devices a compound of deuterium and lithium was also used). This is the so-called two-phase, or two-stage type. The fusion reaction is characterized by a colossal energy release, so hydrogen weapons exceed atomic weapons in power by approximately an order of magnitude.


0 0

6 (11330) 7 41 100 9 years

Nuclear and atomic are two different things... I won’t talk about the differences, because... I'm afraid of making a mistake and not telling the truth

Atomic bomb:
It is based on a chain reaction of fission of nuclei of heavy isotopes, mainly plutonium and uranium. In thermonuclear weapons, the stages of fission and fusion occur alternately. The number of stages (stages) determines the final power of the bomb. In this case, a tremendous amount of energy is released, and a whole set of damaging factors is formed. The horror story of the early 20th century - chemical weapons - was left sadly undeservedly forgotten on the sidelines, it was replaced by a new scarecrow for the masses.

Nuclear bomb:
explosive weapons based on the use of nuclear energy released during a nuclear chain reaction of the fission of heavy nuclei or a thermonuclear fusion reaction of light nuclei. Refers to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) along with biological and chemical ones.

0 0

6 (10599) 3 23 63 9 years

nuclear weapon:
* Thermonuclear weapons (in common parlance often - hydrogen weapons)

Here I will add that there are differences between nuclear and thermonuclear. thermonuclear is several times more powerful.

and the differences between nuclear and atomic are the chain reaction. like this:
atomic:

fission of heavy elements (uranium or plutonium) to form lighter ones


nuclear:

synthesis of heavy elements from lighter ones

p.s. I could be wrong about something. but this was the last topic in physics. and it seems like I still remember something)

0 0

7 (25794) 3 9 38 9 years

"Ammunition, often called atomic, upon explosion of which only one type of nuclear reaction occurs - the fission of heavy elements (uranium or plutonium) with the formation of lighter ones." (c) wiki

Those. nuclear weapons can be uranium-plutonium, and thermonuclear along with deuterium-tritium.
And atomic only fission of uranium/plutonium.
Although if someone is close to the explosion site, it won’t make much difference to him.

principle of linguistics g))))
these are synonyms
Nuclear weapons are based on an uncontrolled chain reaction of nuclear fission. There are two main schemes: “cannon” and explosive implosion. The “cannon” design is typical for the most primitive models of first-generation nuclear weapons, as well as artillery and small arms nuclear weapons that have restrictions on the caliber of the weapon. Its essence is to “shoot” two blocks of fissile matter of subcritical mass towards each other. This detonation method is only possible in uranium ammunition, since plutonium has a higher detonation speed. The second scheme involves detonating the bomb's combat core in such a way that the compression is directed to the focal point (there may be one, or there may be several). This is achieved by lining the combat core with explosive charges and having a precision detonation control circuit.

The power of a nuclear charge operating exclusively on the principles of fission of heavy elements is limited to hundreds of kilotons. Creating a more powerful charge based only on nuclear fission, if possible, is extremely difficult: increasing the mass of the fissile substance does not solve the problem, since the explosion that has begun disperses part of the fuel, it does not have time to react completely and, thus, turns out to be useless, only increasing mass of ammunition and radioactive damage to the area. The most powerful munition in the world, based only on nuclear fission, was tested in the USA on November 15, 1952, the explosion power was 500 kt.

Wad not really. Atomic bomb is a common name. Atomic weapons are divided into nuclear and thermonuclear. Nuclear weapons use the principle of fission of heavy nuclei (uranium and plutonium isotopes), and thermonuclear weapons use the synthesis of light atoms into heavy ones (hydrogen isotopes -> helium). A neutron bomb is a type of nuclear weapon in which the main part of the explosion energy is emitted in the form of a stream of fast neutrons .

How is it Love, peace and no war?)

It makes not sense. They are fighting for Territories on earth. Why nuclear contaminated land?
Nuclear weapons are for fear and no one will use them.
Now it’s a political war.

I don’t agree, people bring death, not weapons)

• If Hitler had atomic weapons, the USSR would have atomic weapons.
  Russians always have the last laugh.

  Yes, there is, there is also a metro in Riga, a bunch of academic towns, oil, gas, a huge army, a rich and vibrant culture, there is work, everything is there in Latvia

  because communism hasn’t taken off in our country.

  This will not happen soon, just when nuclear weapons will be ancient and ineffective like gunpowder now