Interesting. Bring on the A-bomb foundries! Had this been discovered during the exploration phase of atomic bomb use we probably would have seen A-bomb foundry proposals.
There is a hypothesized process in this paper that sounds like a graduate thesis on its own.
No, I mean using atomic bombs to manufacture these alloys at scale. In the 50s a-bombs were proposed for all sorts of workaday uses. Imagine using a small a-bomb for mining just as we use ANFO today.
I am sure that somebody will take up the task of reproducing these alloys using intense heat from a non-atomic source. New alloys can be quite lucrative but developing them requires just as much experimentation as making new drugs. I'd imagine that getting to an alloy of 7 metals through progressive experimentation would take awhile. Now we know it's possible and have a possible production path. That is enough to spur some experiments down that road.
Looks like every time a new “big thing” gets invented, the big thing becomes like a hammer and everything else turns into the proverbial nail. Then it was atomic everything, not its AI everything. Same pattern repeating.
IIRC in “Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman” he recalls being asked during Manhattan Project (?) for ideas to commercialize atomic energy and they patented whatever the scientists brainstormed up.
Both the US and the Soviet Union actually experimented with "nuclear fracking" in oil/gas fields. The Soviet Union also used atomic bombs to put out fires in gas fields as late as 1981.
The idea was you could use nuclear bombs to dig canals. Or make harbors. Or really any large scale earth moving project. The U.S. did one test shot, a shallow buried bomb intended as a cratering charge. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.176944,-116.046111,4654m This ended up contaminating more people than any other test which put the breaks on that. The soviets had an equivalent study but tried a little harder and are now the proud owners of several new irradiated lakes.
I'm seeing 11 shots total,[0] though Wikipedia lists even more.
"Nine were for the purpose of developing an ultra-low fission thermonuclear explosive for use in nuclear excavation projects and one each was for the development of special emplacement techniques and for a small diameter, ultra-low tritium producing explosive for hydrocarbon applications such as Rio Blanco."
That whole effort was predicated on success of efforts to develop fission-free bombs. That never worked out, although the inertial confinement fusion program is in a way its descendant. The scale of ICF reactors shows why it didn't work out. A slight shame, since this might have made Project Pacer (exploding bombs in caverns to make energy) more feasible. There still would have been enormous tritium production/pollution.
They what?! Can we please get a link to this to read more?!
And yes, I have the same Google as you, but I'd love a link to your preferred telling of the tale of how the Soviets nuked a gas well fire just a couple years before I was born.
I recall we were seriously talking about using one during the early days of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. For a variety of reasons it wouldn’t have worked in that instance.
Wikipedia has an article about it[0]. Gas had been leaking for three years before they were able to use a nuke to seal the well. Estimated that it was burning 12 million m3 of gas daily.
> the explosive was detonated at a depth of 1,500 m (1,640 yd) on 30 September 1966. The hole that the explosive was lowered into had also been sealed with cement so as to prevent atmospheric radioactive contamination.
Sounds like an interesting idea and I think there are things like this being done but, couldn't we accomplish the same thing on a smaller scale without all the destruction? What about fusion welding once we get that more locked in? I know it's still a WIP but if we're getting to "millions of degrees", it could speed up the process if we're able to localize the fusion. Also, what about cold fusion? The problem on any of these is the cost -- it may be quicker/better but if the cost is way too high, it's not worth it. Maybe in the future it'll be cheaper/easier.
A disgustingly large and powerful pressurized microwave would likely be sufficient if "all" they need to do is spray various mixes of vaporized metals and water into plasma. I don't know that we've had too many justifications to build these otherwise
> I don't know that we've had too many justifications to build these otherwise
I don't know about you, but "spray various mixes of vaporized metals and water into plasma" sounds cool. If I had tens of millions of dollars, I'd pay to see that.
Could probably get styropryo to do it for a good bit less. The stuff he's doing on his second channel recently is so damn cool https://youtu.be/0Y-9GbsS9Fg
My comment was a bit trite but I was actually hoping for a reasonable shot at doing something worthwhile.
My expectations for doing it properly would be:
- facilities. Sure, high power microwaves and pressure chambers and combining the two may not be THAAAT expensive. But doing it in a calibrated fashion to have a chance to produce predictable repeated results isn't without some details.
- staff. I'd want at least 3 qualified people on it. Preferably multiple teams competing for results exploring different paths of interest.
- timeframe. I'd expect such a thing to last at least 3 years at an absolute minimum but that might only be enough to get to the hardware to a "calibrated repeatable" stage. So probably 5 to 10 to have any hope of meaningful results.
- money. That "if I had tens of millions" is a personal view of my own monetary worth. I wouldn't want to see ALL that used up in this, but I'd put forward a good fraction of it.
There is a hypothesized process in this paper that sounds like a graduate thesis on its own.