Talk:Exploding-bridgewire detonator

''This comment was moved by me from the article page to the talk page. The person originally asking this was Ahseaton. --capnez 07:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)'' This potent electrical source must've been something of a challenge in a deliverable bomb, however. Anyone know about it?

This article is heavy on technicalities but doesn't provide a good explanation as to how this device solves the timing issue. --Yath 8 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)


 * They had very large batteries which could only be kept charged for a few hours. Very cumbersome, very problematic, very ad hoc; from what I understand of it. --Fastfission 21:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, a power source was already required to drive the neutron generator (as well as all detonation timing circuits —- the same power source charged the capacitors and closed the bridge wire circuits at time=0.  Nuclear weapons commonly contain a chemical battery to fulfill all electric demands, this battery is initiated as the last phase before deployment of the weapon...it powers the detonation timer, and/or altitude sensors, etc. also.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.187.251.101 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In the final section: It would be recommended to check the value of the mentioned capacitor, as its energy is at least one order of magnitude too low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.201.240 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

someone might add this picture where it applies... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SlapperDetArea.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.49.247 (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Use in nuclear weapons
I think it should read "very low tolerance applications" or "very high precision applications". --Cancun771 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In engineering, "High tolerance" is a synonym for tighter, more precise tolerance. "Low tolerance" is a synonym for looser, less precise tolerance.  The statement is technically correct as written.  I can see how it might confuse you, but it's being used properly here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is contradictory.
The article is contradictory. On the one hand it says:
 * "EBW detonators are much safer than regular electric detonators because unlike regular detonators EBWs do not have primary explosives."

and on the other hand it says:
 * From the available explosives, only PETN at low densities can be initiated by sufficiently low shock to make its use practical in commercial systems as a part of the EBW initiator.

and
 * If the current rise rate is lower, the bridge may burn, perhaps causing deflagration of the PETN pellet, but it will not cause detonation. PETN-containing EBWs are also relatively insensitive to a static electricity discharge. Their use is limited by the thermal stability range of PETN.

So what counts now? 84.140.194.92 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)