The device tested in 1945 had a 20 kiloton yield, meaning it had the explosive force of 20,000 tons of TNT.Within 20 years, the US and USSR tested nuclear weapons larger than 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. For scale, these weapons were at least 500 times as strong as the first atomic bomb.Los Alamos National LaboratoryTo put the size of history's largest nuclear blasts to scale, we have used, a tool for visualising the terrifying real-world impact of a nuclear explosion.In the following maps, the first ring of the blast is the fireball, followed by the radiation radius. In the pink radius, almost all buildings are demolished and fatalities approach 100 percent. In the grey radius, stronger buildings would weather the blast, but injuries are nearly universal.In the orange radius, people with exposed skin would suffer from third-degree burns, and flammable materials would catch on fire, leading to possible firestorms.11 (tie). Soviet Tests #158 and #168On August 25 and September 19, 1962, less than a month apart, the USSR conducted.Both tests were held over the Novaya Zemlya region of Russia, an archipelago to the north of Russia near the Arctic Ocean.No film or photographs of the tests have been released, but both tests included the use of 10-megaton atomic bombs.These blasts would have incinerated everything within 1.77 square miles of their epicentres while causing third-degree burns up to an area of 1,090 square miles.10. Ivy MikeOn 1 November 1952, the US Ivy Mike over the Marshall Islands. Ivy Mike was the world's first hydrogen bomb and had a yield of 10.4 megatons, making it 700 times as strong as the first atomic bomb.Ivy Mike's detonation was so powerful that it the Elugelab Island where it was detonated, leaving in its place a 164-foot-deep crater.

Call of duty 2 torrent. The explosion's mushroom cloud traveled 30 miles into the atmosphere.9. Castle RomeoRomeo was the second US nuclear detonation of the Castle Series of tests, which were in 1954.All of the detonations took place over Bikini Atoll.

Intro to Chemistry, Basic Concepts - Periodic Table, Elements, Metric System & Unit Conversion - Duration: 3. Mar 15, 2018  Different Alu elements across the HEXA gene. The most prevalent Alu element across this gene are the AluS class, mainly AluSx. As seen, the possible mechanism for the deletion of exons 6–10 is recombination between AluSz6 in intron 5 and AluJo in intron 10.

Castle Romeo was the third-most powerful test of the series and had a yield of 11 megatons.Romeo was the to be tested on a barge over open water instead of on a reef, as the US was quickly running out of islands upon which it could test nuclear weapons.The blast would have incinerated everything within 1.91 square miles.8. Soviet Test #123On 23 October 1961, the Soviets nuclear test #123 over Novaya Zemlya. Test #123 used a 12.5 megaton nuclear bomb.A bomb of this size would incinerate everything within 2.11 square miles while causing third-degree burns in an area of 1,309 square miles.No footage or photographs of this nuclear test have been released.7.

Castle YankeeCastle Yankee, the second-strongest of the Castle series tests, was on 4 May 1954. The bomb was 13.5 megatons.Four days later, its fallout reached Mexico City, about 7,100 miles away.6. Castle BravoUS Department of EnergyCastle Bravo, detonated on February 28, 1954, was the first of the Castle series of tests and the largest US nuclear blast of all time.Bravo was anticipated as a 6-megaton explosion. Instead, the bomb a 15-megaton fission blast. Its mushroom cloud reached 114,000 feet into the air.The US military's miscalculation of the test's size in the irradiation of approximately 665 inhabitants of the Marshall Islands and the radiation poisoning death of a Japanese fisherman who was 80 miles away from the detonation site.3 (tie). Soviet Tests #173, #174, and #147From August 5 to September 27, 1962, the USSR conducted a series of nuclear tests over Novaya Zemlya. All stand out as being the fifth-, fourth-, and third-strongest nuclear blasts in history.All three produced blasts of about 20 megatons, or about 1,000 times as strong as the Trinity bomb.

A bomb of this strength would incinerate everything within 3 square miles.No footage or photographs of these nuclear tests have been released.2. Soviet Test #219On December 24, 1962, the USSR Test #219 over Novaya Zemlya. The bomb had a yield of 24.2 megatons.A bomb of this strength would incinerate everything within 3.58 square miles while causing third-degree burns in an area up to 2,250 square miles.There are no released photos or video of this explosion.1.

Spacecase,I'm an intermediate level analyst so the advice I offer may be trumped or further refined by the many here which have more experience than I.One thing about tet meshes is that you will typically end up with a model that has significantly more DOF's than you would with a hand built hex mesh. This is something that you'll want to keep in mind when you have a project which may push the limits of your computational resources (whatever they may be).There is no reason why second order tets shouldn't produce what you consider to be acceptable results with the appropriate mesh. As with anything new you will want to err on the side of caution, test analytical solutions against experimental and theoretical solutions, and refine your mesh to the point where you see a mesh convergence in your models. Over time you'll gain the first hand knowledge of what is or isn't a satisfactory mesh for your application.Hope this helps,-Brian RE: Hex vs Tets (Aerospace) 14 Apr 06 03:22. You will use tet elements to mesh complex geometry imported from CAD that is impractical and too time consuming to mesh with hex elements.

CAD geometry in all probability will have many hidden 'nasties' that are not immediately visible or obvious, by nasties I mean sliver faces and faces with very acute angles. If this geometry is meshed 'as is' then you will generate elements with very poor shape quality.

Increasing mesh density can improve element quality on sliver faces but no amount of mesh refinement can stop bad elements being created at a sharp angle. However refining the mesh on every sliver face can very quickly lead to a model being generated of colossal proportions. This is probably the primary issue when using tet meshes, the elements themselves are fine and in tests which compare them against hex elements on simple geometric models they perform very well, (provided you don't use linear four node tets!!).

Tet elements that are highly contorted and squeezed to fit the geometry will produce spurious results (despite the claims of some vendors!). It is best to use a mesher that can either 'jump over' the slivers or one that can remove and clean up difficult geometry before the meshing takes place.There are plenty of analysts about who still insist on hex meshing everything, but with the abundance of available CAD geometry they are a dying breed.RE: Hex vs Tets (Structural) 14 Apr 06 08:46. In principle there should be no difference in the numerical accuracy and reliability of the hex meshes relative to the tet meshes. In practice (unfortunately I have as yet not found mathematical proof of this), hex meshes seem to work better numerically (better convergence rates, fewer wiggles or anomalies in the engineering data such as stresses) then tet meshes. All things being equal, I normally mesh as much as possible with hex elements, while trying to use as few tets as possible (preferably for low stress regions, such as occur on crack faces, but not near crack tips).Also in practice, you can just as easily goof up the analysis with hex meshes as with tet meshes.

RE: Hex vs Tets (Automotive) 14 Apr 06 19:40.