# Talk:Tamper (nuclear weapon)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tamper (nuclear weapon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for knocking this one up, much appreciated in light of my comments elsewhere!  I think there's a little bit of assumed jargon here, which we could probably resolve at GA by linking, so apologies if I'm asking for a few more phrases to be linked...
Link critical mass?
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thermonuclear weapon can also be linked.
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"for special purposes" could you allude to one such "special" purpose?
Y Sure. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Link neutron.
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
And chain reaction.
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"about 25 kg, while that of plutonium would be about 5 kg" converts?
An odd thing about the old measurements: weights of base metals are in avoirdupois ounces, precious metals in troy ounces, fissile metals in grams. Hence,no conversion required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"17.5 cm and a thickness of 11.3 cm, for a mass of 317 kg" same.
Y Converted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"Tungsten carbide has ..." you previously told us this was WC, why not use that?
Dislike using chemical symbols when names are available. The symbol tells you its composition, without having to check out the other article, which is why I included it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Link depleted uranium.
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"are obvious advantages" delete obvious.
Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Uranium-238 linked?
Y Is now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"megaelectronvolts" consider linking this too, not exactly a common unit.
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"is 14.1 kg, compared with 52.5 kg in " convert.
"the W-88 warhead" neither the image or linked article hyphenates W88.
Y Image does. De-hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"an atomic weight nearly" overlinked.
Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Link boron(-10).
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
And plutonium(-239).
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"and ionizes at" first mention of "ionize" since the lead and you didn't link it in the lead.
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we link British nuclear tests at Maralinga?
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
That's it, it's a very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have liked to link to an article on diffusion theory, but it redirections to Radiative transfer equation and diffusion theory for photon transport in biological tissue - the very problem (redirects going to inappropriate places) that caused me to write this article in the first place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The introduction seems undecided on this question. The following sentence suggests that a "tamper" has both functions: "It is used in nuclear weapon design to reduce the critical mass of a nuclear weapon and to delay the expansion of the reacting material through its inertia." Whereas this next bit suggests that "tamper" is specific to the inertia function: "Due to its inertia it delays the thermal expansion of the fissioning fuel mass, keeping it supercritical longer. Often the same layer serves both as tamper and as neutron reflector."
Then, the bit about lightweight beryllium suggests more emphasis on neutron reflection (with X-ray transparency), and then the block-quote suggests that the name comes from the inertia function. Then there's even mention that the tamper can enhance yield if it's made of fissionable material. 
From all this, I'm getting the vibe that the "tamper" is defined not by its specific effect, which varies between designs, but simply as "the material surrounding the core which engages in physics during supercriticality to enhance yield" (/efficiency?). To test this definition: if it were found that wrapping the core in a layer of tin foil, or NaCl, or fish, caused more nuclear fissions/fusions via new physics, then would that layer be a "tamper" regardless of the specifics? SSSheridan (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, reading in the "Nuclear weapon design" article, phrases like "reflector/tamper" and "pusher/tamper" make it sound like the inertia is what makes it a "tamper." If that's the case, then this article should be revised to clarify that. Presumably the lightweight beryllium reflector would still also function as a tamper, but a less effective one. And if wrapping the core in fish increased yield via new physics, it would get a new name.
Obviously, there's no official organization policing these definitions, which is why I can't do the edits myself without input from someone who's familiar with the open-source literature. SSSheridan (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The name comes from its inertial properties, akin to the tamper used with conventional explosives. Neutron reflection is an important property, as it reduces the critical mass. Other materials surround the core but are not considered part of the tamper. Aluminium is often used to provide a gentler transition between the plastic explosive and the dense tamper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)