Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I happened to hear people saying that the nuclear fusion bomb tests could set the atmosphere on fire. I have some serious doubts about that - but I have no facts.
Nuclear fusion reaction requires $15*10^{6}$ kelvins to start. If we produce such temperature in "open air" would the atmosphere become a fuel for further fusion? Shouldn't the whole thing just be torn apart by its terrible pressure?

share|improve this question
6  
This questions was taken somewhat seriously while the first fusion explosives were being designed and built. I believe the fear was that the explosions would ignite nitrogen burning (i.e. chemistry) in the atmosphere and that this would prove to be self sustaining. Given that fusion bombs have been detonated in the atmosphere quite a few times the experimental answer seems to be "no". –  dmckee May 28 '13 at 20:49
    
Regarding Nitrogen burning, does that release enough energy to be self-sustaining? If we could produce a bomb with enough energy to get it started would it actually chain reaction? It seems like if a fusion bomb can't start the process then there is no way enough energy could be released to sustain it. –  Brandon Enright May 28 '13 at 21:04
2  
@BrandonEnright - As far as I remember, kinetics of nitrogen-oxygen reactions are very interesting - many species, dependence on high (around 2000-4000K) temperature. With the explosion (again, AFAIR) the main impediment to exothermic oxidation of nitrogen is the short time scale during which the necessary conditions hold. (Hope that someone from Chemistry SE would clear up the confusion.) –  Deer Hunter May 28 '13 at 21:26
1  
AFAIK, the concerns early in the Manhattan Project all dealt with the initiation of a nitrogen nuclear fusion reaction, referred to figuratively as nitrogen burning. The OP seems to refer to this case; other comments seem to discuss chemical burning. –  User58220 May 29 '13 at 0:25
    
@dmckee I love that historical note. There are numerous texts from throughout the early and mid 20th century that hint at the concerns of runaway atmospheric burning (e.g. work by Akira Sakurai). I don't know if I feel relieved that there were scientists worried about that kind of thing; or concerned that it doesn't seem to have gotten that much attention... –  zhermes May 29 '13 at 1:04

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

From what I have read in "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" Teller was the first one to express this concern before the Trinity test. Also quoting from: http://www.sciencemusings.com/2005/10/what-didnt-happen.html

Physicist Edward Teller considered another possibility. The huge temperature of a fission explosion -- tens of millions of degrees -- could fuse together nuclei of light elements, such as hydrogen, a process that also releases energy (later, this insight would be the basis for hydrogen bombs). If the temperature of a detonation was high enough, nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere would fuse, releasing energy. Ignition of atmospheric nitrogen might cause hydrogen in the oceans to fuse. The Trinity experiment might inadvertently turn the entire planet into a chain-reaction fusion bomb.

Robert Oppenheimer, chief of the American atomic scientists, took Teller's suggestion seriously. He discussed it with Arthur Compton, another leading physicist. "This would be the ultimate catastrophe," wrote Compton. "Better to accept the slavery of the Nazis than run a chance of drawing the final curtain on mankind!"

Oppenheimer asked Hans Bethe and other physicists to check their calculations of the ignition temperature of nitrogen and the cooling effects expected in the fireball of a nuclear bomb. The new calculations indicated that an atmospheric conflagration was impossible." Bethe apparently then convincingly showed that the atmosphere would not be set on fire by a nuclear bomb.

share|improve this answer
1  
But this reference, sciencemusings.com/2005/10/what-didnt-happen.html makes it clear that the concern was nitrogen fusion, not burning. –  User58220 May 30 '13 at 0:23
1  
OK fair enough, I am using a less technical term but I will edit it make it more accurate. –  physicsphile May 30 '13 at 1:44
    
+1 for a really cool story that I hadn't heard before. –  Mike May 30 '13 at 2:39
    
@physicsphile My concern was that throughout these comments, there is confusion about whether nuclear fusion of nitrogen, or chemical burning of $N_2$ and $O_2$, is the actual subject. The OP clearly is interested in fusion, as were Oppenheimer et al... –  User58220 May 31 '13 at 0:32
    
I don't think anyone is suggesting chemical burning, they are just using casual/descriptive language when they say "set the atmosphere on fire". –  physicsphile May 31 '13 at 11:32

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.