(1.) Hi, assuming you have high IQ scientists in your country who knows the theory of both types of bombs, building which type of bomb would be easier, less expensive, less time consuming, easier for storage, with better life time?
(2.) Is the physics of a H-bomb much more complicated than that of a fission…
(1) It is currently easier to construct a working fission weapon than a fusion weapon.
(2) No, the physics behind the construction of a fusion weapon is not really more complicated than fission weapon physics.
(3) Fission weapons must be driven critical to get an explosion, and you have to reach criticality VERY rapidly. There are several workable fission weapon designs
that allow this to happen. You are a bit limited on the fissionable materials you can
use to accomplish this. It is easier to make a transportable fission weapon using extremely pure nuclear fuel (highly refined) than it is to do a similar task with lower
grade fuel. And it is enormously expensive to refine nuclear fuel to a weapons grade material.
(4) Refinement procedures are somewhat slow and producing fuel of quality and quantity to make a fission bomb is expensive and time consuming. You know, I guess from your reading, that a fusion bomb is triggered by a conventional fission bomb using a hydrogen fuel?
(5) It takes as long as it takes. If you have a lot of centrifuges, then it takes less time.
If you have few, then it takes longer.
(6) I dont think that Iran is focusing on a fusion bomb right now. They are refining
uranium and/or plutonium to make fission weapons. They claim they want these fuels for peaceful atomic purposes, but the fact is that generating power with weapons grade is expensive and wasteful. I liken it to producing artificial diamonds to use as fuel in your barbecue pit.
(1) A fission bomb is much simpler than a fusion bomb. A fission bomb made with U-235 is basically simple: two sub-critical masses are kept apart and then ordinary explosives are used to push the parts together and exceed critical mass. The U-235 bomb dropped over Japan was not field tested before being used. A plutonium bomb is more difficult to make, since shaped-charge explosives are needed to obtain the high pressures needed to compress the plutonium. The plutonium bomb was the one that was tested at Almagordo NM. An H bomb uses a fission bomb as an igniter, and its construction must allow the confinement of the hydrogen isotope when the fission bomb explodes.
(2) The basic physics of both are similar. They both depend on the mass difference between original material and the masses of the pieces that they break into (fission) or are combined (fusion).
(3) A more powerful bomb means more fissile material. It is kept sub-critical by dividing it into two pieces. Those pieces must be pushed together very quickly, so more (chemical) explosive is needed. All of this makes large fission bombs very large and heavy. Even plutonium bombs will require more explosives to ignite when a larger mass of plutonium is used.
(4) That is true. All of the energy of the fission bomb comes from the fissile material, but in the H bomb, most of the energy comes from the fusion reaction. Since fusion involves light elements (hydrogen), the mass of the fusile material needed will be less that the equivalent fissile material.
(5) I have no idea.
(6) It appears that Iran is trying to make a U-235 fission bomb. That is why they have centrifuges, which are used to separate the U-235 isotope from the more abundant U-238. This is what is called uranium enrichment.
Well I think hydrogen bomb is a type of atomic bomb. Atomic bomb are of two types;- 1. Which work’s on nuclear fission. 2. Which work’s on nuclear fusion. The one which works on nuclear fusion generates more energy. Which is the same principle for Hydrogen Bomb. Thus, Hydrogen Bomb is stronger than a other atomic bomb(which works on nuclear fission).