Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #543712 > unrolled thread

Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 14:21 -0600
    Re: Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-07 20:38 +0000
      Re: Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 15:11 -0600
        Re: Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-07 22:03 +0000
    Re: Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-07 21:33 -0800

#543712 — Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't

Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-confusion-the-data-suggest-north-korea-s-h-bomb-isn-t/


> Researchers can estimate the yield of a nuclear explosion based on
> the amplitude of the seismic waves it creates. Data collected at a
> Global Seismographic Network Station in Mudanjiang, China, however,
> suggest roughly a 3.4- to seven-kiloton blast, says Won-Young Kim, a
> senior research scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont–Doherty
> Earth Observatory. (A kiloton is equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.) Kim
> calculated this yield based on the magnitude 5.1 body waves the
> detonation sent rippling through Earth. This was more powerful than
> North Korea’s previous nuclear test, a 2.2- to four-kiloton blast in
> 2013 that set off waves equivalent to a magnitude 4.5 to 4.7
> earthquake, but not nearly enough to confirm the use of a
> thermonuclear bomb.
>
> Researchers have difficulty quantifying the exact size of North
> Korea’s nuclear detonations because the depth of the explosive
> device, properties of the rock surrounding the explosion and other
> factors influence the seismic measurements produced, Kim says. North
> Korea does not publicize the depth of its tests, although the
> material at the test site in Punggye-ri is thought to be hard
> granite.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#543718

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H?Bomb" Isn't
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-confusion-the-data-suggest-north-korea-s-h-bomb-isn-t/
> 
> 
>> Researchers can estimate the yield of a nuclear explosion based on
>> the amplitude of the seismic waves it creates. Data collected at a
>> Global Seismographic Network Station in Mudanjiang, China, however,
>> suggest roughly a 3.4- to seven-kiloton blast, says Won-Young Kim, a
>> senior research scientist at Columbia University?s Lamont?Doherty
>> Earth Observatory. (A kiloton is equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.) Kim
>> calculated this yield based on the magnitude 5.1 body waves the
>> detonation sent rippling through Earth. This was more powerful than
>> North Korea?s previous nuclear test, a 2.2- to four-kiloton blast in
>> 2013 that set off waves equivalent to a magnitude 4.5 to 4.7
>> earthquake, but not nearly enough to confirm the use of a
>> thermonuclear bomb.
>>
>> Researchers have difficulty quantifying the exact size of North
>> Korea?s nuclear detonations because the depth of the explosive
>> device, properties of the rock surrounding the explosion and other
>> factors influence the seismic measurements produced, Kim says. North
>> Korea does not publicize the depth of its tests, although the
>> material at the test site in Punggye-ri is thought to be hard
>> granite.
 
Everybody has known this for days now, spamming shit head.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#543722

On 1/7/16 2:38 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Everybody has known this for days now, spamming shit head.



   Now, now, jimp, there you go again, you're outta control, your
   language is inappropriate, and your absolute contempt and total
   disgust are addressed in these Anger Management classes. You, jimp,
   need these services:
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes


Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-confusion-the-data-suggest-north-korea-s-h-bomb-isn-t/

 > Researchers can estimate the yield of a nuclear explosion based on
 > the amplitude of the seismic waves it creates. Data collected at a
 > Global Seismographic Network Station in Mudanjiang, China, however,
 > suggest roughly a 3.4- to seven-kiloton blast, says Won-Young Kim, a
 > senior research scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont–Doherty
 > Earth Observatory. (A kiloton is equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.) Kim
 > calculated this yield based on the magnitude 5.1 body waves the
 > detonation sent rippling through Earth. This was more powerful than
 > North Korea’s previous nuclear test, a 2.2- to four-kiloton blast in
 > 2013 that set off waves equivalent to a magnitude 4.5 to 4.7
 > earthquake, but not nearly enough to confirm the use of a
 > thermonuclear bomb.
 >
 > Researchers have difficulty quantifying the exact size of North
 > Korea’s nuclear detonations because the depth of the explosive
 > device, properties of the rock surrounding the explosion and other
 > factors influence the seismic measurements produced, Kim says. North
 > Korea does not publicize the depth of its tests, although the
 > material at the test site in Punggye-ri is thought to be hard
 > granite.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#543744

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/7/16 2:38 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Everybody has known this for days now, spamming shit head.
> 
> 
> 
>   Now, now, jimp, there you go again, you're outta control, your

Fuck off and die, cut and paste, spamming shit head.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#543811

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:CYCdnR29mKQvVRPLnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com...
> Nuclear Confusion: The Data Suggest North Korea's "H–Bomb" Isn't
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-confusion-the-data-suggest-north-korea-s-h-bomb-isn-t/
>
>
>> Researchers can estimate the yield of a nuclear explosion based on
>> the amplitude of the seismic waves it creates. Data collected at a
>> Global Seismographic Network Station in Mudanjiang, China, however,
>> suggest roughly a 3.4- to seven-kiloton blast, says Won-Young Kim, a
>> senior research scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont–Doherty
>> Earth Observatory. (A kiloton is equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.) Kim
>> calculated this yield based on the magnitude 5.1 body waves the
>> detonation sent rippling through Earth. This was more powerful than
>> North Korea’s previous nuclear test, a 2.2- to four-kiloton blast in
>> 2013 that set off waves equivalent to a magnitude 4.5 to 4.7
>> earthquake, but not nearly enough to confirm the use of a
>> thermonuclear bomb.
>>
>> Researchers have difficulty quantifying the exact size of North
>> Korea’s nuclear detonations because the depth of the explosive
>> device, properties of the rock surrounding the explosion and other
>> factors influence the seismic measurements produced, Kim says. North
>> Korea does not publicize the depth of its tests, although the
>> material at the test site in Punggye-ri is thought to be hard
>> granite.
>
hanson wrote:
Jiji Press and Yonhap News Agency reported that they
see on their local Seismometers the signals of a "fast burn"
(detonation) of 5 kilotons buried TNT, sans any nuke fusion
nor fission indicators.
Also, Caltec and USGS withhold further judgment until
the results from respective air samples are in.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web