Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Terminology:Nuclear, Atomic, Neutron
Message-ID: <1991Feb28.052457.10592@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 28 Feb 91 05:24:57 GMT
References: <1991Feb21.030902.12162@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb22.232819.4666@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb27.021040.21923@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 33
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)

In article <1991Feb27.021040.21923@cbnews.att.com> john%ghostwheel.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:

>Fission itself is a nuclear process, however
>80% to 90% of the kinetic energy of the fission fragments comes from
>the electrostatic repulsion of the nuclei.  Very little of the energy
>is derived from the nuclear forces.  So, while fission is nuclear, the
>energy of the weapon is derived mostly from atomic forces and hence the
>term atomic bomb.  
>

Are you using the term "atomic" to describe electrostatic repulsion?
This seems like something of a misnomer, since "atomic" is generally
applied to reactions involving the valence electrons.

The energy from a fission reaction, while evidenced after the fact as
the repulsion of high-Z like-electric fields, still comes from the
nuclear binding energy.  Fission is a weak nuclear process; the nuclei
involved are at the high end of the binding energy curve, where the 
first derivative is small compared to lower-end processes (e.g., fusion).
When you figure in energy as a function of mass, then the disparity 
between fission and fusion becomes all the more discernable.

The term "atomic" bomb was misapplied.  Some may recall an old H.G.
Wells story (c. turn of the century) in which there was a "nuclear
bomb" -- in actuality, this device derived it's energy from purely
atomic forces (as conventional high explosives). So, misapplication
of scientific terms is nothing new, even in the bomb business.

-shane