Has any nation on Earth developed or trying to develop a carbon fusion bomb ?

Question

Theoretically assuming such a bomb could be developed how powerful would it be ?

Could anyone shed more light on Kunal's response ?

Answer 1

HONOLULU--Carbon on the surface of an ultradense star detonated in a 3-hour thermonuclear explosion, according to a report at a meeting here last week of the American Astronomical Society's High Energy Astrophysics Division. If confirmed, the burst would be the first known cosmic explosion fueled solely by carbon rather than hydrogen or helium and could verify or revise models of carbon combustion.

AMERICA(WHICH IS NOT SURPRISING!!) IS TRYING TO DEVELOP IT.......

Answer 2

I doubt it. Maybe a few physists looked at the issue from a purely scientific stand-point, but it doubt anyone actually took any steps towards developing such a weapon.

Carbon fusion does not generate significantly more energy than fusion hydrogen into helium. Hydrogen fusion generates about 25 MeV per helium nucleus. Carbon fusion generates about 27 MeV per helum nucleus. Per mass, it is almost no difference in energy output over hydrogen fusion and one could easily just build a bigger hydrogen bomb. Considering the costs of development -- and that you need a hydrogen bomb to actually reach the 15 million degree temperates needed to fuse carbon -- it would seem more viable just to build multiple hydrogen bombs.

There is also no need for such a weapon. Russia tested a 50MT nuclear device in 1961. They gave up on it and went to smaller devices. It is generally believed that most nations with the hydrogren bomb could make a 100-200MT device using 1960s technology and possible more today. However, there is no known or potential target on Earth requiring a device of such yields. Transport, storage, delivery, inablity to test, risk of accident, fallout, environmental damage, affecting neighboring nations, etc. of such large devices also makes them rather impractical.

Finally, building such a device would be a clear sign of insanity. It would appear that all other nations would be compelled to try to stop someone intend on causing near global scale distasters.

Answer 3

No

and theoretically, such a bomb would be less powerful than the process used to turn lead into gold.

The more protons in the nucleus, the more energy you need to force two nuclei together in a fusion process.

Answer 4

No nation even thought about a carbon bomb. Simply because it is by far less effective than a fusion bomb based on hydrogen. Up to now Carbon fusion takes place only in the inner of aged stars

Answer 5

There is no real advantage to develop such a fusion process.
Besides, bomb development is not a way to make humans evolve towards the Good and repent of their folies.

Answer 6

The Rag head chief has already mentioned that they should start up an Armageddon international ending variety international conflict so as that a a million,000 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous Prophet that fell in a nicely can upward thrust back and rein preferrred over what's left of the international. you have any doubt on your techniques that this manner of ideology would even question utilising something at their disposal to end their dream?? USMC 60-sixty 8

Answer 7

Causing a fusion reaction between carbon nuclei requires much higher temperatures than fusion with hydrogen, so there is no reason to try this nor has anyone attempted this based on anything I have read.

Answer 8

no, have't heard of it at all...

heard of this

The fusion reactions that occur in stars are not the same as the ones that occur in thermonuclear weapons or (laboratory fusion reactors). The somewhat complex catalyzed fusion cycle in stars that converts light hydrogen (protium) into helium is extremely slow, which is why the lifetime of the Sun is measured in billions of years

Answer 9

The cost of Al Gore's carbon credits would put the country in the poor house.

Answer 10

it is building it self up
we need to find a way to stop it (not develop it)