But, does the TNT should or can made almost the same radiaton damage?
408350
Ummm I am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if TNT produces radiation? if so then, No there is no radioactive fallout from TNT.\n\nBut if you are asking if TNT can cause the same destructive damage as a nuclear bomb (without the radiation damage) then yes. that is why they measure it against TNT so we have an idea of how destructive it is.
180267
Radiation comes in many forms.  Light and radio waves are radiation, but they're not energetic enough to cause problems in low doses.  Of course, with enough light you can burn someone, and enough radio waves can do similar, but it's not as much of a problem as more energetic forms of radiation. \n\nForms of radiation which have enough energy or have charge characteristics such that they can remove an electron from a chemical bond are called "ionizing radiation", also sometimes called "hard radiation".  These are the dangerous forms of radiation.  \n\nThere are three types of nuclear radiation, gamma, beta, and alpha, all of which are ionizing.  \n\nGamma radiation is fundamentally the same as light, but is of a much higher energy, such that it can break a molecular bond.  It's very energetic, but electrically neutral.  Gamma radiation can penetrate materials better than other forms of nuclear radiation.  Gamma rays come from either reorganization of an energized nulceus, in much the same way that visible light can be emitted by reorganization of electrons in the electron orbitals, and can also be produced when an anti-electron kicked out by the nucleus collides with an electron and undergoes matter/antimatter annihilation.\n\nBeta radiation is high energy electrons kicked out of the atomic nucleus when a neutron converts to a proton.  It has a fair amount of energy, plus a negative one charge.  It doesn't travel very far and is fairly easy to shield against, but it can cause a lot of damage.\n\nAlpha radiation is the least penetrating of all, being stopped by ~5 cm of air, or a thin layer of materials, like a latex glove or a sheet of paper.  Alpha rays have a large charge, however, and if absorbed by living cells can be very dangerous.  Alpha rays are two protons and two neutrons, basically a helium nucleus, spit out of a larger nucleus at a fairly high energy.  \n\nAll of these forms can break a chemical bond, and if this happens in living tissue, and it happens enough, it can kill you.  Proteins necessary for cellular functions get snipped in two, or get ionized in a spot that causes them to fold and twist and become non-functional, DNA can be broken, and cell membranes can be damaged, causing holes in cells which can result in cell death.  It's something like being shot with a shotgun, only at the molecular level.  \n\nAcute radiation poisoning, the amount needed to kill you in a short period of time, is somewhere around a one time exposure of 200 REM or more.  A REM is a unit of radiation exposure based on total radiation of various types, and the absorption of human bodies to that form of radiation. It's a complex number to come up with, and much of the data we have to determine REM exposure is based on empirical data.  Acute radiation poisoning is a terrible way to die.  The exact symptoms vary depending on the type and total dose of radiation absorbed, but generally speaking protein synthesis is disrupted causing problems with rapidly replaced cells, like blood cells plus loss of hair and skin problems, cells die by the millions, tissue structure breaks down, internal bleeding occurs, organs fail, your brain can be damaged enough that you suffer neurological problems like seizures and dementia, and then you die.  It can take a over a week to kill you, it's horribly painful, and there's no treatment that can cure you. \n\nLower doses of radiation can cause enough damage that cancer can arise later, or can cause various forms of tissue damage and impairment, depending on the dose, and where you absorbed the radiation in your body.  The damage can be very variable, which is one reason it's difficult to say just how much radiation it takes to cause a problem.  There are some treatments that can minimize the damage of low doses of radiation, but it depends a lot on what type of radiation you were exposed to.  \n\nAlso, all living things do have cellular repair mechani
1001885
It would do nothing.  In 1994, a comet (Shoemaker-Levy) crashed into Jupiter.  I don't have the exact numbers on the equivalent to a nuclear bomb, but it was much more powerful than any bomb.  Jupiter kind of sat there and shrugged it off without much effect.\n\nEdit:  Found a site that says *one* fragment of the comet was the same as 225,000 megatons.  The biggest fragment was the same as 6 million megatons.\n\nhttp://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/sl9/cometfaq2.html
286082
Im guessing it can be used for atomic bombs...... and atomic watches and otehr atomic powered devices.... would nuclear power be the same?
1160742
Completely dependent on the megaton yield and geography, e.g., mountains reflecting the blast wave or shielding from the heat wave.\n\nSettle for Washington DC. Virtually no one in an area of about 40-65 square miles would survive.\n\nTo visualize the destructiveness of a nuclear bomb, imagine a powerful strategic nuclear weapon detonated above the Pentagon, a short distance from the center of Washington, D.C.  Imagine it is a "near-surface" burst--about 1,500 feet above the ground--which is how a military planner might choose to wreak blast damage on a massive structure like the Pentagon. Let us say that it is an ordinary, clear day with visibility at 10 miles, and that the weapon's explosive power is 300 kilotons--the approximate yield of most modern strategic nuclear weapons. This would be far more destructive than the 15-kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima or the 21-kiloton bomb detonated at Nagasaki. \n\nThe detonation of a 300-kiloton nuclear bomb would release an extraordinary amount of energy in an instant--about 300 trillion calories within about a millionth of a second. More than 95 percent of the energy initially released would be in the form of intense light. This light would be absorbed by the air around the weapon, superheating the air to very high temperatures and creating a ball of intense heat--a fireball. \n\nBecause this fireball would be so hot, it would expand rapidly. Almost all of the air that originally occupied the volume within and around the fireball would be compressed into a thin shell of superheated, glowing, high-pressure gas. This shell of gas would compress the surrounding air, forming a steeply fronted, luminous shockwave of enormous extent and power--the blast wave. \n\nBy the time the fireball approached its maximum size, it would be more than a mile in diameter. It would very briefly produce temperatures at its center of more than 200 million degrees Fahrenheit (about 100 million degrees Celsius)--about four to five times the temperature at the center of the sun.\n\nThis enormous release of light and heat would create an environment of almost unimaginable lethality. Vast amounts of thermal energy would ignite extensive fires over urban and suburban areas. In addition, the blast wave and high-speed winds would crush many structures and tear them apart. The blast wave would also boost the incidence and rate of fire-spread by exposing ignitable surfaces, releasing flammable materials, and dispersing burning materials. \n\nWithin minutes of a detonation, fire would be everywhere. Numerous fires and firebrands--burning materials that set more fires--would coalesce into a mass fire. (Scientists prefer this term to "firestorm," but I will use them interchangeably here.) This fire would engulf tens of square miles and begin to heat enormous volumes of air that would rise, while cool air from the fire's periphery would be pulled in. Within tens of minutes after the detonation, the pumping action from rising hot air would generate superheated ground winds of hurricane force, further intensifying the fire.\n\nVirtually no one in an area of about 40-65 square miles would survive.
813411
Well, you couldn't, because my calculations tell me that if you get closer than about 5000 km. from a neutron star, the tidal forces, that is the difference between the gravity pull on your feet and your head, would stretch you out and kill you.  If you built a strong robotic vehicle that could get to within 1600 km of the surface, the rock would be pulled to powder by tidal forces before it hit the surface.  The bits would hit the surface at up to a third of the speed of light, 100 000 km/second, depending on the mass of the neutron star.  They'd get so hot on impact that they'd emit X-rays, which, as they climbed against the neutron star's gravity, would lose energy, and you'd see them from a safe distance as soft X-rays, UV and visible light.The amount of energy radiated would be about 10^15 joules; comparable to the Hiroshima bomb.  The mass of the neutron star would increase by about half a kilogramme or so.  The crust of a neutron star probably consists of iron or diamond, and your rock would end up as one of these.  It would be interesting to perform this experiment, from a safe distance, with a robot probe, on a neutron star within a whisker of collapsing into a black hole, to see what gives.
656932
Temperature only has meaning when you have a large enough quantity of particles to apply statistical mechanics to them. So, you are referring to a mass of, I suppose, a pure radiosotope. \n\nBeyond that it really depends.  Can be looked at in a fairly simple way.  That clump of neutrons and protons emits one or more particles and possibly a photon. What happens to those particles and photons makes a big difference in the impact they have on the surrounding material. If they are absorbed in some manner, a lot of their momentum will become momentum in the matrix (atoms and bonds between them) of the material. That means the temperature increases.  \n\nTo say how much it increases you need to know how much material is present, how well it absorbs the radiation it generates internally, and its thermal coeffecient (how much energy per mass/degree which depends on a LOT of things and will vary from substance to substance.)\n\nI recommend you go to wikipedia, or some other reasonably reliable source and look up "radioactive decay"  "temperature" and "chain reactions."\n\nSomething like plutonium will become noticbly warm in sufficient mass and in the appropriate shape (a sphere is nice) because the decay products from one atom are absorbed by the nuclei of more than atom on average, and these absorbtions cause THOSE atoms to decay in a short timescale, if you have chosen the right kind of atom. The net effect is the number of decaying atoms in the mass at any one point in time is pretty large and the thing heats up. The limit to this (why you don't get a runaway reaction) is closer to the surface (or due to impurities inside) significant amounts of the decay products are not absorbed by atoms that subsequently decay as a result.\n\nThat is why a small mass of U-235 will not "go critical" (almost all of it decays in a small time) whereas a larger chunk will.  Shape is important too, because clearly a very thin one atom thick sheet of the stuff would loose most of its decay products without setting off other atoms. A sphere is the most efficient shape in this regard. Finally, impurities matter because then you have non-reactive atoms absorbing some of the products so you are not setting off more than one atom for each atom that decays. That is why you can make a bomb with weapons grade U-235, but not less pure stuff.  The less pure stuff will still warm up because enough extra atoms get set off (suppose on average, each decay sets off 0.999999999999999 more decays) If the decays did not also happen spontaneously there wouldn't be any.\n\nLook up "chain reaction" in wikipedia also.
53220
Be careful, it may explode!
803226
No...\n\nAll calculations are based off of an impact explosion model developed for determining the effect of Bunker Buster artillery.\n\nThat type of impact would be no diferent than what was seen when battleships lobbed volkswagen sized shells into the earth...  Only the size and velocity of the projectile are increased to reflect the meteor...
622147
Wow dude you'll probably blow yourself up if you succeed.\nYou would probably be able to make it by continuing the nitration of TNT with a very powerful nitrating agent - say, nitronium tetrafluroborate.  But I don't think you will make it.
46832
This is too hypothetical to be a real problem.  The heat generated would also deform the steel.  For the current largest Thermonuclear bomb you would be looking at something approaching distances in the wall of the container approaching a mile.  Even this depends upon the volume contained within.\n\nFrom a practical aspect, if one took all of the world's current steel production for one year, you might have enough steel to construct such a device (about 5 million metric tons).  If you miscalculated, you would get an even larger boom (like putting a cherry bomb in a sealed pipe).\n\nA bomb is not a nuclear generator.  Read at the site below for information on a Soviet 100 megaton bomb:
257364
When an atomic bomb detonates, a nuclear fission reaction occurs which actually transforms a very small amount of mass into energy.\nUsing the well-known formula,\nE=mc^2,\nwe can calculate the amount of energy associated with that mass that is "lost".\n\nOnly a very very tiny amount of mass is actually trasformed into energy in the reaction, but since that mass is multiplied by such a huge number (the speed of light squared), the energy released is gigantic.\n\nUsually, A-bomb yeilds are given in terms of [kilo / mega] tons of TNT to measure the energy given off.\nThe yeild on the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima Japan in 1945 ('Little Boy') was about 16 kilotons of TNT [high end estimate].  1 ton of TNT releases about 4.25 E9 Joules of energy.  Using this conversion, we can calculate that the Hiroshima bomb released about 6.8 E13 Joules.  By comparison, the entire average enegry consumption of the United States per year is on the order of 10 to the 20 Joules, so 1 A-bomb packs a pretty good punch.\n\nSince 1945, atomic bombs have gotton much MUCH more powerful in addition to the Hydrogen bomb which is exceedingly more powerful than the atomic bomb.
347934
IF YOU DON'T BLOW UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'LL BE A MILLIONAIRE \nSERIOUSLY HOW MUCH RADIATION WOULD HAPPEN
943097
I think it's false. If the ionisation energy is increased, it's more difficult achieve ionisation, therefore less likely to be reactive. This is why those at the top of the group are more reactive.
6409
Yes, bombard it with neutrons and it will release energy...\n\nWill it be efficient.. NO. but you can do so.
850091
I think that the answer must be YES.\n\nLet's assume that  these are dry cell batteries (so they are not losing any matter by evaoporation or gaining any by using oxygen in the atmosphere.\n\nSo no particles get in or out of the battery.  However, the battery, once spent, has lost some energy (perhaps by powering a torch which then gives out light and heat energy).\n\nAccording to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.  So this amount of energy must be equivalent to (an extremely small) quantity of matter and the mass of the battery must have reduced by this amount.  It will not be measurable in ordinary circumstances and I am sure that other factors (eg dust particles settling on it, etc) would FAR outweigh this mass of the released energy.  But theoretically, yes, it would weigh less.\n\nOne gets a similar kind of balance in radioactive decay; a uranium nucleus decays into some other bits and pieces but the mass of the other bits and pieces is slightly less than the mass of the original uranium nucleus in order to account for the energy that is released (in the form of EM radiation).\n\nHope this makes sense.
502807
That depends entirely on the intensity and frequency of the radiation.