This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
So it's a type of thermobaric weapon. It's composed of magnesium hydride, which holds hydrogen more effectively than pressurized gas tanks, and it releases that hydrogen when detonated by a primer charge. It then ignites all that released hydrogen mixed with air to make a very impressive fireball.
A better name than "non-nuclear hydrogen bomb" exists, but would probably be longer and more specific. Hydride thermobaric bomb maybe.
This is incredibly misleading. A "hydrogen bomb" generally refers to a thermonuclear fusion weapon. This is not that. It's just a "regular" chemical explosive.
The article makes it sound like this is a modified version of what's known as a hydrogen bomb, but without a fission-based detonator. It is not. It's a chemical bomb that yields flammable products so you get a fireball.
Also explosions aren't better because they last long lol, the whole point of an explosion is to be fast. By these metrics a log of wood is an even better bomb
Given that the title literally non-nuclear in the title, there's absolutely nothing misleading about it.
I dunno to me it's really weird that "hydrogen bomb" is used throughout without explicitly explaining the difference.
I mean that's why you read the article? 🤷