Also there is a huge difference between a nuclear chain reaction and a bomb so I have no idea why you are even trying to drag that into our conversation.
Wow.
Simply.
Wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
That you would even attempt to claim that a nuclear chain reaction has nothing to do with a nuclear weapon is simply mind boggling.
I don't know where you are from, what your education is or why you persist in exposing your ignorance but please, stop embarrassing yourself. At this point, I really have to consider that I should disengage from this because it is fundamentally unfair to engage in a battle of wits with the witless.
REALLY? no connection between a nuclear chain reaction and a nuclear bomb?
REALLY?
Yeah really. Take that boot out of your ass and tell me what is so scary about a helium nuclei resulting from radioactive decay hitting another atom and triggering another decay. I do not know about you but we did that in basic physics class and I dont remember any mushroom clouds.
It is not the nuclear chain reaction that is the scary part. Its the mass to energy conversion better known as E = MC^2
When will you get this through that thick skull of yours. Perhaps I should make a wikipedia page for you?
Yeah!!! You actually took a physics class!!!
Did they convince you that Einstein built nuclear weapons? 'Cause so far, everything posted here states that his involvement was about as much as the inventor of the wheel had to do with the automobile.
BTW, the concept you are reaching for is Mass Defect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
If you paid attention in that physics class you would have noted that a graph of mass defect versus isotope shows Helium to be remarkably unsuited as a nuclear fuel.
Omg do you not even know that a helium nuclei is what they call Alpha radiation as in the thing that makes Nuclear chain reactions happen? There is a HUGE difference between a helium NUCLEI and a helium ATOM.
Also if you actually decided that your head is more then something to store a hat ontop of you would probably realize that there are few English words in a text book from another country. "mass defect" Does not exist. In fact there is not even a native word for it because its a redundant word. We just call it nuclei energy. So do my lack of linguistic knowledge about a useless term as "mass defect" reflect poorly on me or is it you who cant even figure out that two languages are not the same?
I am just going to proceed to bang my head against this wall. Its more productive by far.
English board >> english terms >> mass defect.
Alpha particles are not useful for sustaining nuclear reactions in bombs or nuclear power plants. Neutrons are the driving force behind sustaining criticality (nuclear reactors) or super criticality (nuclear bombs).
"Suppose you have four cookies: A gamma cookie, a neutron cookie, a beta cookie, and an alpha cookie. You have to eat one, put one in your pocket, hold one in your hand, and throw the other away. Which do you do with each, and why?"
Correct answer is here:
http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/12/suppose-you-have-four-cookies.html
Since when did "Nuclear fuel" become "Bombs"? I think i should have been notified of this in advance since well.. I am the one you are talking to.
Anyway back on topic. Albert Einstein and the Manhattan project. Put down the ground work and the possibility for the research into nukes to exist, driving force behind the programs creation, personal connections with other major people etc.. etc.. etc..
I wonder what would have happened to the project if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter. Would the allies simply have rejected it or perhaps not taken it seriously at all? Who knows. All i know is its like Einstein invented electricity and they made a battery.