Which one is the most destructive:  an H-Bomb, a Nuclear Bomb, a Neutronium Bomb, or an Anti-Matter Bomb?
595744
Anti-matter bomb cause it hasn't been invented yet (who knows how much damage it could do.
232724
"Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are very resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, but steel armor can reduce neutron radiation only by a modest amount so the lethal range from neutrons greatly exceeds that of other weapon effects. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs can exceed the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops. Armor can absorb neutrons and neutron energy, thus reducing the neutron radiation to which the tank crew is exposed, but this offset to some extent by the fact that armor can also react harmfully with neutrons. Alloy steels for example can develop induced radioactivity that remains dangerous for some time. When fast neutrons are slowed down, the energy lost can show up as x-rays. Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield."\n\n\n\n"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.\n\nIn strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981."
905430
Beryllium is a moderator...it is used to slow down neutrons
1026133
A neutron bomb is a type of nuclear weapon invented by Samuel Cohen specifically designed to release a relatively large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation.\n\nA nuclear weapon is a weapon which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of either nuclear fission or the more powerful fusion. As a result, even a nuclear weapon with a relatively small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives, and a single weapon is capable of destroying or seriously disabling an entire city.
780706
none, the 2 different bombs you are trying to get at are usually called atomic and hydrogen bombs\n\natomic (that was dropped over Japan 1946) is uncontrolled splitting (fission) of uranium whereas in the nuclear power reactors this is done slowly -- the reaction is controlled.\n\nhydrogen bomb was never tested over human population (only atoll Bikini) is a synthesis (fusion) of hydrogen into helium. This reaction produces the energy from the Sun and it is still in a research mode here on earth to get this reaction under control.\nIt would be much more effective source of energy than the nuclear one.
1084273
The bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission bombs, with respective yields of 15 and 22 kilotons.  A fission bomb generates about 4,000,000 Megajoules of energy per kiloton of explosive force, so the Hiroshima bomb would have produced 60,000,000 Megajoules of energy while the Nagasaki bomb produced 88,000,000 Megajoules.
664567
One should not group antimatter particles all into the word element. It is possible to make any of the elements in the form of antimatter, and for any element the antimatter equivalent would be incredibly rare here on earth. Now to say the rarest is very hard because there could be at any given point in time a number of antimatter hydrogen atoms that might seem like a large number, to the human mind, here on earth. Anti hydrogen would be the most abundant anti element, although still inconcievably rare. However, some of the heaviest non-antimatter elements that have been created in the lab probably ocasionally briefly come into existence in nature here on earth. Some of these metals might be rarer than antihydrogen, the most abundent antielement here on earth. \nNote: positrons, anti electrons, are the most abundent easily observable antiparticle, but I have left them out because they are not an element.\n\nNow, as for the universe in general: It is a real curiousity that there does not seem to be an equal amount of antimatter as matter. We humans do not now how to create matter without also creating an equal amount of antimatter. Yet, it seems as though our universe is made up almost entirely of matter... What happened to all of the antimatter during the creation of the Universe??? I don't know, and as far as I am aware of there is not a solid leading theory to explain this enigma, but many ideas have been suggested with associated mathematics. Some of them propose that the antimatter went into another dimension. Others propose that there was a very slight inequality in the quantity of matter and antimatter with the difference being the matter that is currently in existence. Still others contend that the some total of matter and antimater within the Universe are still of equal quantities, but the areas where this antimatter is hiding is too far for light to have reached us from those locations. Although I have a preference between these ideas, I will not say what it is. So, lets just say that that might be a good topic for someone interested in the subject to do some real research.
1033923
No. Any naturally occurring antimatter would have long since been annihilated by a corresponding matter. As for artificially generated antimatter, I believe that we have managed to isolate no more than a few thousand antiatoms. For comparison, 1 gram of hydrogen contains 6.022*10^23 atoms - the amount of antimatter we have is so small that if we were to react the entire world's supply of antimatter with an equivalent amount of matter, we would have just enough energy to create a visible spark.
445580
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
674783
Everyone up until this point is more then 75% wrong. A Modern thermonuclear explosion occurs only one way. The other people who have answered your question before me have been watching too much TV or reading OLD encyclopedia's. A hydrogen bomb is not a thermonuclear explosion. Electrical shock...you got to be kidding me ...Detonation is accomplished by several means but the primary Explosion is small in comparison to the secondary blast. Highly radioactive or "HOT" Enriched Plutonium and or uranium particles are forced together at very high velocity,(Magnetically)the initial "Fusion" of these already unstable particles causes a exploding similar to TNT. The secondary explosion, or "Fission", destruction of the actual atoms of the forced together particles is what creates that horrific blast.The secondary blast itself has three stages. First an intense vacuum affect, the fission actually sucks oxygen atoms (or anything for that matter)into it.Secondly a shock wave will occur, thirdly the actual nuclear blast of super "Hot" and radioactive material.Material that was sucked in by the vacuum. Keep in mind that this all occurs withing a few seconds.
851578
It would be either an isotope or an ion depending on the number of neutrons or electrons in the atom.\nA good example of this for isotopes is hydrogen:\nWhen there is no neutrons it is H1 or just plain hydrogen\nWhen there is 1 neutron it is Deuterium or H2 also called heavy hydrogen\nWhen there is 2 neutrons it is called tritium or H3\n\nIf the only difference is the addition or removal of one or more electrons it is an Ion.
339420
The atomic bomb uses nuclear fission ( the splitting of the nucleus of an atom)and the hydrogen bomb uses nuclear fusion (the bringing together of 2 nuclei, which is what happens in the Sun.). \nUranium ore occurs naturally in a state that cannot be used in most reactors or to make nuclear weapons. Enriching the uranium makes it easier to use in reactors. The enrichment process increases the amount of the fissionable uranium-235 isotope. Uranium enriched to contain less than 20 percent uranium-235 is called low enriched uranium. Uranium enriched to contain 20 percent or greater uranium-235 is highly-enriched uranium that can be directly used to make nuclear weapons. This is because it is more unstable, i think.
779247
no... protons are held in place by the negatively charged electrons.\nits called neutron radiation or ionizing radiation. This type of radiation is one of the worse because it can pass through matter better than other types and only stops after a headon collision with a nucleus\n\nDiscovery\n\nIn 1930 Walther Bothe and H. Becker in Germany found that if the very energetic alpha particles emitted from polonium fell on certain of the light elements, specifically beryllium, boron, or lithium, an unusually penetrating radiation was produced. At first this radiation was thought to be gamma radiation although it was more penetrating than any gamma rays known, and the details of experimental results were very difficult to interpret on this basis. The next important contribution was reported in 1932 by Irène Joliot-Curie and Frédéric Joliot in Paris. They showed that if this unknown radiation fell on paraffin or any other hydrogen-containing compound it ejected protons of very high energy. This was not in itself inconsistent with the assumed gamma ray nature of the new radiation, but detailed quantitative analysis of the data became increasingly difficult to reconcile with such a hypothesis. Finally (later in 1932) the physicist James Chadwick in England performed a series of experiments showing that the gamma ray hypothesis was untenable. He suggested that in fact the new radiation consisted of uncharged particles of approximately the mass of the proton, and he performed a series of experiments verifying his suggestion. Such uncharged particles were eventually called neutrons, apparently from the Latin root for neutral and the Greek ending -on (by imitation of electron and proton).
7743
It depends on the mass.  Take a look at the graph in the source link. Elements with an atomic mass lower than that of Iron (or there abouts) generally must have energy added to the system to split it.  Conversely, those same atoms lighter than iron will release enegy when you fuse them together.  This is the property of nuclear fission.  It is how the sun works to create heat and light by fusing hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, and it is also the principle behind the H-bomb (the hydrogen bomb, or the fusion bomb, which is much more powerful than the fission bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima).\n\nIf the atom is heavier than iron, it will release energy when you split it.  Heavy elements like uranium and plutonium are unstable, and will naturally decay, releasing particles and energy.  If these high-energy particles hit other unstable elements--like more uranium--you can get a chain reaction, which makes decay happen more quickly.  Under controlled levels of uranium density, you can make this heat useful to boil water and run turbines and generate energy.  But if the density of the unstable element is really high, the chain reaction can take off uncontrolably, causing a nuclear explosion.  this is the principle behind fission bombs, like those dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.\n\nHydrogen bombs require tritium, which is a rare isotope of hydrogen that has two neutrons.  the technology behind nuclear fusion is more complicated than that behind fission.  Power plants currently use fission, but fission has the problem of producing radioactive waste.  Hydrogen fusion has the problem of being hard to control, although people are working on developing a fusion reactor to generate energy, which would be advantageous.
39983
none. they both are nuclear weapons.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon\nhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
894559
Anti-matter is one of the best bridges between theoretical and applied physics. In theory it was thought it could exist, so we looked for it and found it, then we we able to make it in the lab and it was the same as we found in nature, though very rare. Anti-matter is made the same way ordinary matter is made, with protons, electrons and neutrons; the main difference being each anti-particle has the OPPOSITE charge of its ordinary matter counterpart. So an atom of anti-hydrogen is made of one negatively charged anti-proton and one positively charged anti-electron. As for neutrons that have no charge, they can be distinguished by their opposite spin. The basic reaction is that when a particle of matter contacts a particle of anti-matter, they are mutually annihilated in an almost complete matter to energy conversion. That's where that E=mc2 comes into play  One of the more interesting topics for discussion is that if we assume the original Big Bang created equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, which would satisfy conservationism, then where is all the anti-matter? Are there whole galaxys made of antimatter?  Is that where the new galaxies are formed? As for practical applications, a controlled, large scale matter / antimatter reaction would be an enormous source of energy. maybe enough to power a starship.
270030
Atomic energy states that if we can "break" the energy bonds that keep one atom´s parts together, we would create a chain reaction in surrounding atoms.  This is achieved when we have what is called "critical mass", meaning that we have enough radioactive material for the chain reaction to occur.  Nuclear bombs can be fusion or fision bombs.  In a fision bomb, an atom´s nucleous is bombarded with neutrons and becomes so heavy that it splits as the result of a force (detonation of a small explosive charge), creating th chain reaction already described.  On a fusion bomb, the energy of the detonation combines together two or more radiactive elements to for another.  Each kind of bomb has its pros and cons. Both are very destructive.  Upon detonation a nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is so powerfull that can disipate a huge volume of atmospheric air and so much heat that burns everything on a several miles radius.  A few seconds after the explosion, the weight of the atmosphere pushes the air back to the void, creating an implosion, so you have two kind of destructive forces working in opposite directions with a difference of only seconds.  Then, radiation affects all organisms in the nearby areas and makes impossible to live in them for decades.