Talk:Tamper (nuclear weapon)
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Hawkeye7 in topic What makes a tamper a tamper? Inertia, or inertia + neutron reflection, or either one?
 | Tamper (nuclear weapon) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 2, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Tamper (nuclear weapon) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tamper (nuclear weapon). |  |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Did you know nomination edit
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the W71 nuclear warhead had a tamper made of gold? Source: "Gold (Z=79) has been used in at least one weapon design as part of the tamper (or possibly the radiation case) - the W-71 warhead for the Spartan ABM missile" ([1]) [nb: offline second source used in the article says the tamper. The W71 radiation case was made of thorium.]
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
5x expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC).
Hook is interesting and within acceptable limits. Sources check. Article expanded 5x in a timely fashion. Image has Creative Commons license. Am a little astonished about the detail and depth of the material in the Physics section, obviously not aimed at the average reader, but not a DYK criteria issue. There is a minor close paraphrasing issue to deal with involving nuclearweaponarchive.org, general phrases aside. See Duplication Detector results. No other problems. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- This seems to be only technical terms. Earwig reports no violation. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
What concerned me is that some of the tech terms were strung together in the same manner as the source. Since Earwig reports no flagrant similarities then there's no further need to belabor this. Article is good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tamper (nuclear weapon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments
- Thanks for knocking this one up, much appreciated in light of my comments elsewhere! I think there's a little bit of assumed jargon here, which we could probably resolve at GA by linking, so apologies if I'm asking for a few more phrases to be linked...
- Link critical mass?
- thermonuclear weapon can also be linked.
- "for special purposes" could you allude to one such "special" purpose?
- Link neutron.
- And chain reaction.
- "about 25 kg, while that of plutonium would be about 5 kg" converts?
- An odd thing about the old measurements: weights of base metals are in avoirdupois ounces, precious metals in troy ounces, fissile metals in grams. Hence,no conversion required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- "17.5 cm and a thickness of 11.3 cm, for a mass of 317 kg" same.
- "Tungsten carbide has ..." you previously told us this was WC, why not use that?
- Link depleted uranium.
- "are obvious advantages" delete obvious.
- Is Uranium-238 linked?
- "megaelectronvolts" consider linking this too, not exactly a common unit.
- "is 14.1 kg, compared with 52.5 kg in " convert.
- "the W-88 warhead" neither the image or linked article hyphenates W88.
- "an atomic weight nearly" overlinked.
- Link boron(-10).
- And plutonium(-239).
- "and ionizes at" first mention of "ionize" since the lead and you didn't link it in the lead.
- Can we link British nuclear tests at Maralinga?
That's it, it's a very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would have liked to link to an article on diffusion theory, but it redirections to Radiative transfer equation and diffusion theory for photon transport in biological tissue - the very problem (redirects going to inappropriate places) that caused me to write this article in the first place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
What makes a tamper a tamper? Inertia, or inertia + neutron reflection, or either one? edit
The introduction seems undecided on this question. The following sentence suggests that a "tamper" has both functions: "It is used in nuclear weapon design to reduce the critical mass of a nuclear weapon and to delay the expansion of the reacting material through its inertia." Whereas this next bit suggests that "tamper" is specific to the inertia function: "Due to its inertia it delays the thermal expansion of the fissioning fuel mass, keeping it supercritical longer. Often the same layer serves both as tamper and as neutron reflector."
Then, the bit about lightweight beryllium suggests more emphasis on neutron reflection (with X-ray transparency), and then the block-quote suggests that the name comes from the inertia function. Then there's even mention that the tamper can enhance yield if it's made of fissionable material.
From all this, I'm getting the vibe that the "tamper" is defined not by its specific effect, which varies between designs, but simply as "the material surrounding the core which engages in physics during supercriticality to enhance yield" (/efficiency?). To test this definition: if it were found that wrapping the core in a layer of tin foil, or NaCl, or fish, caused more nuclear fissions/fusions via new physics, then would that layer be a "tamper" regardless of the specifics? SSSheridan (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, reading in the "Nuclear weapon design" article, phrases like "reflector/tamper" and "pusher/tamper" make it sound like the inertia is what makes it a "tamper." If that's the case, then this article should be revised to clarify that. Presumably the lightweight beryllium reflector would still also function as a tamper, but a less effective one. And if wrapping the core in fish increased yield via new physics, it would get a new name.
- Obviously, there's no official organization policing these definitions, which is why I can't do the edits myself without input from someone who's familiar with the open-source literature. SSSheridan (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- The name comes from its inertial properties, akin to the tamper used with conventional explosives. Neutron reflection is an important property, as it reduces the critical mass. Other materials surround the core but are not considered part of the tamper. Aluminium is often used to provide a gentler transition between the plastic explosive and the dense tamper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)