Talk:Underwater explosion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M4llware.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Todo list

I've added a todo list with some initial thoughts about improvements to this article. Alan Pascoe 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Deep Subsea (-4990 feet below MSL) detonations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.151.137 (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wilson Cloud

Hmm. Not sure if I agree with the explanation of how the wilson cloud formed. I always thought that the condensation clouds formed as a direct result of the rarefaction zone behind the shockwave allowing water vapor to condense. Any thoughts on the matter? Ops101ex 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The precise wording in the source (on page 49) is: "This dome is caused by the velocity imparted to the water near the surface by the reflection of the shock wave and to the subsequent breakup of the surface layer into drops of spray." If your wording better reflects this statement then feel free to change the article. If you think the source is wrong then change the article but provide an alternative source. Alan Pascoe 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that quote is referring to the spray dome caused directly by the displacement of water. I was referring to the large condensation clouds in the atmosphere propagating outward behind the shockwave. However, I have not found a good source other than a page from Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapon Archive, in which it was just briefly mentioned. Ops101ex 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Baker image? Ncalvin 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

another image

ASROC test, 1962

Here's another underwater nuclear test image if anyone thinks it would add to the article. I have no information on the depth of the nuclear depth charge at the time it detonated. Tempshill 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

The section on the effects of deep-water explosions claimed that the same techniques used to analyze tsunamis and meteor-generated waves were applicable to underwater nuclear tests. I read the source, which contradicts this. The book says that while we initially thought explosion-generated waves were like tsunamis (and thus could be used as a weapon against coastal populations), recent analysis shows that they're actually a very different type of wave, and expend most of their energy before reaching the shore.

I rewrote the paragraph. There might be other sections that cite the book incorrectly, though. --MillingMachine (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Incompressible?

"Water is incompressible" is what it says in the "underwater nuclear explosions" section. I beg to differ. While that may be true for 'everyday' kinds of pressures, consider that in the very ignition of a nuclear device, even solid metals like plutonium and uranium become very compressible indeed. The initial pressure released by the ensuing nuclear detonation is a lot greater still, although it dissipates quickly with increasing distance as it is not directed inward, unlike the conventional implosion in the ignition. In any event, gut feeling says that close up to the nuke, water will compress nicely. Would anyone care to do the math?--Cancun771 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The phrase in question reads:

"Mass and incompressibility – water has a much higher density than air, which makes water harder to move (higher inertia). It is also relatively hard to compress (increase density) when under pressure in a low range, say up to 100 atmospheres. These two together make water an excellent conductor of shock waves from an explosion."

Commonly in physics and in academic use, the phrase "is non-compressible" is shorthand for "is only microscopically compressible", particularly as compared to gases. Yes, it is inexact and sloppy, but it's been termed that way for so long that it gets propagated anyway, one in a plethora of absolute statements that are nearly but not exactly true. It is easier to say than "the compressibilities differ by 6-10 orders of magnitude", which they do between air and water. Water is quite comparable to solid granite in its compressibility. All materials compress; without it it would be impossible to transmit shock and sound, among other things.

But in this case, the explanation is made, and the point is that water transmits compressive waves quite well, a factor of 25 better than air. I think it can stand. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Prandtl-Glauert singularity

The "Shallow underwater explosion" section of this article states that in the Baker shot the water vapour in the air condensed as a result of a Prandtl-Glauert singularity. However, the page on Prandtl-Glauert singularity states that it is a theoretical concept which does not actually occur in reality. It doesn't appear to be correct to say that the condensation is caused by a singularity of this sort, but although the final section of the Prandtl-Glauert singularity page (on condensation clouds) describes a scenario that appears superficially similar, I lack the grounding to say whether it is relevant or not to the topic of this page. I'm hoping that someone with the required knowledge can take a look.194.75.37.250 (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Non nuclear explosions

The article nominally covers underwater explosions generally. But it has almost zero mention or coverage of anything but nuclear explosions. Nothing about

• civil explosions (demolition in water)
• explosions against ships (depth charges),
• large installations (operation Chastise/"dambusters")

Needs coverage to be balanced across the topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)