On the "non-nuclear hydrogen bomb"

But there is no such thing as a "non-nuclear hydrogen bomb"!

Today, look at another story that the South China Morning Post reported on April 23.

Title: China tests non-nuclear hydrogen bomb, science paper shows

Subtitle: The weapon generates a white-hot fireball that lasts 15 times longer than TNT’s fleeting flash

Chinese researchers have successfully detonated a hydrogen-based explosive device in a controlled field test, triggering devastating chemical chain reactions without using any nuclear materials, according to a study published last month.

The 2kg (4.4lbs) bomb generated a fireball exceeding 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 degrees Fahrenheit) for more than two seconds – 15 times longer than equivalent TNT blasts – without using any nuclear materials, it said.

Developed by the China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s (CSSC) 705 Research Institute, a key player in underwater weapon systems, the device uses a magnesium-based solid-state hydrogen storage material.

This material – a silvery powder known as magnesium hydride – stores considerably more hydrogen than a pressurised tank. It was originally developed to bring the gas to off-grid areas, where it could power fuel cells for clean electricity and heat.

When activated by conventional explosives, the magnesium hydride underwent rapid thermal decomposition, releasing hydrogen gas that ignited into a sustained inferno, the researchers said in a peer-reviewed paper published in the Chinese-language Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance.

“Hydrogen gas explosions ignite with minimal ignition energy, have a broad explosion range, and unleash flames that race outward rapidly while spreading widely,” said the team, led by CSSC research scientist Wang Xuefeng.

“This combination allows precise control over blast intensity, easily achieving uniform destruction of targets across vast areas.”

The hydrogen bomb can cause extended thermal damage because the white-hot fireball it produces – sufficient to melt aluminium alloys – lasts much longer than TNT’s fleeting 0.12-second flash, according to the paper.

……

The report has spread afar in English, mainly by Indian media and defense news outlets such as The Economic Times, Times of India, The Indian Express, India Today, NDTV, Firstpost, WION, Anadolu (the Turkish state news agency), Asia Times, RealClearDefense, The National Interest, etc.

Just to give you a taste of the explosive effect:

Domestically, in China, many "self-media” or social media accounts operated by non-legacy media also got high on the dose:

The SCMP report is solely based on the Chinese-language paper 爆炸强冲击对镁基固态储氢材料的能量激活反应试验研究 Experimental Study on the Energy Activation Response of Magnesium-based Solid Hydrogen Storage Materials under Strong Explosion Impact published in the Chinese mainland Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance.

I’ve extracted the full paper from a Chinese database, which you can now download.

Magnesium Based Solid Hydrogen

1.25MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

As you can see from the PDF, the Chinese paper includes an English-language Title and Abstract, which I have pasted it:

Title: Experimental Study on the Energy Activation Response of Magnesium-based Solid Hydrogen Storage Materials under Strong Explosion Impact

Abstract: To study the energy activation characteristics of magnesium-based solid hydrogen storage materials under strong explosion impact, the explosion activation mechanism experiment of 130g MgH2 and the activation response experiments of 2kg MgH2 with different explosion impact strength were carried out. The energy activation process of MgH2 and the influence of impact strength on the high temperature fireball and the shock wave were analyzed though high-speed photography and overpressure experimental results. Results show that the strong explosion shock promoted the hydrogen liberation process of MgH2. Compared with the free field explosion of equal mass TNT explosion, the high temperature fireball could last longer, and the peak value of shock wave overpressure could be smaller in the energy activation reaction of MgH2. With the increase of impact strength, the energy response of MgH2 activated by strong explosion impact was more sufficient, and the peak of shock wave overpressure increased. Under the response mode of 2kg MgH2 activated by strong explosion impact, the duration of high temperature above 1000°C reached 2s, which was much longer than that of TNT explosion with similar mass. Compared with 2kg MgH2 activated in free field, the peak of shock wave overpressure at 2m was increased to 1.63 times by directional activation under shell constraint, and was increased to 4.69 times by continuously reducing the impact distance. The maximum overpressure peak reaches 39.7% of the equal mass TNT explosion in free field.

Keywords：Explosion impact; Magnesium hydride (MgH2); Energy activation response; High temperature fireball; Shock wave.

In the week since the SCMP story, some Chinese mainland comentators have discussed the report. You may recall that in the April 5 analysis, it was purely me doing the fact-checking.

This time, I’ll not make one single comment but show you what others have said on the “non-nuclear hydrogen bomb.”

This is an April 23 analysis of Liu Yadong, founding dean of School of Journalism and Communications, Nankai University and former Chief Editor of the Science and Technology Daily, the official newspaper of the Ministry of Science and Technology

请远离"无核氢弹"的流量陷阱

Stay Away from the “Non-Nuclear Hydrogen Bomb” Clickbait

By Liu Yadong

The recent viral concept of the “non-nuclear hydrogen bomb” circulating online is a blatant mix-up of ordinary hydrogen-air detonation and strategic nuclear weapons. This is a prime example of misinformation in science communication, akin to “calling a deer a horse” in the scientific realm. This media frenzy reflects two harsh realities: in an ecosystem driven by clickbait, fundamental scientific knowledge is systematically distorted, and the public’s lack of understanding of the nuclear deterrence system has become a breeding ground for pseudo-scientific narratives.

In essence, the idea of a “non-nuclear hydrogen bomb” is a paradox in itself. A hydrogen bomb, also known as a thermonuclear weapon, derives its explosive energy entirely from nuclear fusion. Under extreme temperatures and pressure, light atomic nuclei such as deuterium and tritium overcome Coulomb repulsion to fuse into helium nuclei, releasing vast amounts of energy in the process, according to Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²). The explosive power of this fusion reaction is measured in megatons of TNT, capable of destroying an entire metropolis with a single detonation. On the other hand, a so-called “dihydrogen bomb” is simply a chemical explosion, where the energy comes from the breaking and reformation of molecular bonds, a process that differs by orders of magnitude from nuclear energy conversion.

Behind this conceptual confusion lies the nihilism of science driven by the “clickbait economy.” Certain social media outlets have been packaging “hydrogen gas detonation experiments” as “new strategic weapons,” deliberately blurring the essential difference between chemical and nuclear energy. They use technical terms like “hydrogen” and “fusion reactions” to create a misleading narrative, yet completely omit critical details like the 100 million degrees Celsius temperature required for nuclear reactions and the quantum tunneling effect. This “de-contextualized” narrative strategy mirrors the marketing tactics of health product sales, where the concept of “quantum” is misused to sell insoles or water bottles. When a clip from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster documentary is cut to suggest a “non-nuclear hydrogen bomb test,” or when a picture of the Hiroshima mushroom cloud is superimposed over footage of a chemical plant explosion, scientific facts are shattered under the influence of algorithms.

Even more concerning is that this spread of pseudo-science is undermining the seriousness of the nuclear deterrence system. The hydrogen bomb, as the ultimate card in the strategic balance of major powers, should have its technical principles clearly explained by authoritative sources. However, the trivialization of the “non-nuclear hydrogen bomb” concept not only weakens the public’s understanding of the catastrophic potential of nuclear war but also plants the seeds for dangerous ideologies like the “harmlessness of tactical nuclear weapons.” When comments in online forums celebrate the ease of making a hydrogen bomb, or when military discussions explore “how to build a homemade mini hydrogen bomb,” we are confronted with a painful truth: the achievements of nuclear safety education over the past half-century are being consumed by the black hole of clickbait.

To resolve this issue, we need to build an “immune system” for science communication. Popular science communicators should take the lead in setting the agenda, using visual tools such as “3D animations of hydrogen bomb principles” or “nuclear explosion simulators” to clearly illustrate the vast energy gap between thermonuclear reactions and chemical explosions. Educational systems should reinforce basic physics education, ensuring that high school students can grasp the magnitude difference between the mass-energy equation and molecular bond energy. Moreover, online platforms must establish fact-checking mechanisms for scientific truths, reducing the algorithmic prominence of anti-science concepts like “non-nuclear hydrogen bombs” or “room-temperature fusion.” Only by returning science to rationality can we prevent Prometheus’ fire from being reduced to electronic fireworks in the hands of clickbait merchants.

Interestingly, even the social media account under Lu Kewen, an ex-assembly line worker turned media sensation, has got invovled in this episode.

That account has been criticized by the 新京报 Beijing News as “为了流量，为了煽动情绪，完全不顾事实 completely disregard the facts and sensationalize reports for the sake of internet traffic.” Still, it also blasted this SCMP report.

I can’t believe I am quoting content from Lu Kewen’s account with some sort of approval, but here are extracts from his WeChat blogpost, which has been read 100k+ times, and retweeted over 8k times.

To restore the facts, let’s take a look at how the original source, the South China Morning Post, reported it.

The English headline of the SCMP article was:

China tests non-nuclear hydrogen bomb, science paper shows

The subheadline read:

The weapon generates a white-hot fireball that lasts 15 times longer than TNT’s fleeting flash

The content of the article is actually quite straightforward. It reports that a paper published last month in the Chinese-language journal Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance indicated that the 705th Research Institute under China State Shipbuilding Corporation developed a 2-kilogram bomb. Upon detonation, it produced a fireball exceeding 1,000 degrees Celsius that lasted more than two seconds—15 times longer than the fireball from an equivalent TNT explosion—and no nuclear materials were used throughout the entire process.

It sounds quite impressive, but the problem is that when it comes to many key technical details, the news report is vague and unclear.

First, is this thing even a hydrogen bomb?

We first need to clarify a basic concept: what exactly is a hydrogen bomb?

According to the official definition, a hydrogen bomb is a nuclear weapon that uses the explosive energy of a nuclear fission device to trigger a self-sustaining fusion reaction of light nuclei such as deuterium and tritium, instantly releasing an enormous amount of energy. It is also known as a fusion bomb or a thermonuclear bomb.

In other words, the term “hydrogen bomb” specifically refers to a nuclear weapon. It cannot be used loosely. If it is truly a hydrogen bomb, it must involve nuclear reactions. So where does this talk of “non-nuclear” come from? If it’s non-nuclear, then it definitely isn’t a hydrogen bomb!

Combining “non-nuclear” and “hydrogen bomb” in the same phrase—well, even Einstein wouldn’t dare to imagine such a thing. Only people in the news industry could come up with that.

So what exactly exploded this time? It’s very simple: hydrogen gas.

But when I finished reading the paper, I realized—it has absolutely nothing to do with a hydrogen bomb!

A hydrogen gas explosion is purely a chemical reaction! How could it possibly be linked to a nuclear reaction?

If this kind of hydrogen gas explosion could be considered a hydrogen bomb, then wouldn’t the hydrogen gas explosion experiments we did in middle school chemistry class also count as hydrogen bombs?

Would the explosion of hydrogen balloons sold by street vendors also count as hydrogen bombs?

……

Second, how powerful is it really?

In many interpretations circulating around, there are rumors that this so-called “hydrogen bomb” is 15 times more powerful than TNT and that the temperature reached 1,000 degrees Celsius. It sounds incredibly impressive—as if China has developed a high-energy explosive comparable to nuclear weapons! And without any nuclear radiation, meaning you could bomb whoever you wanted!

But after reading through the entire Chinese paper, I couldn’t find any mention of “15 times.”

Finally, after much effort, I found a clue regarding the explosion duration.

The paper states that under the reaction mode activated by a strong shock on 2 kilograms of magnesium hydride, the high temperature above 1000°C can last for up to 2 seconds. In comparison, 2 kilograms of TNT can maintain a temperature above 1000°C for only 0.12 seconds during an explosion.

Dividing 2 by 0.12 gives about 16 (that is, 15 times longer), which is where the South China Morning Post got its claim that the fireball from a magnesium hydride explosion lasts 15 times longer than that of an equivalent TNT explosion.

……

Even more ridiculous is that many clickbait accounts started treating “an explosion temperature exceeding 1,000°C” as a measure of explosive power. Perhaps in their eyes, 1,000 degrees is considered extremely high.

But allow me to share a fun fact: the black powder invented by our ancestors centuries ago could already achieve explosion temperatures over 1000 degrees Celsius.

Modern explosives like TNT generate explosion temperatures ranging from 2000°C to 4000°C. In comparison, a 1000-degree explosion is simply insignificant.

……

Third, does magnesium hydride have any value as an explosive?

It does, but its range of application is very limited.

We all know that during an explosion, if the speed of gas expansion exceeds the speed of sound, it generates a powerful shockwave. This enormous energy can then be used to strike people or buildings. The stronger the shockwave, the greater the destructive power.

But what about magnesium hydride?

The paper contains a key sentence: at a distance of 2 meters, the maximum overpressure peak of the shockwave reaches only 39.7% of what 2 kilograms of TNT would produce in a free-field explosion.

In simple terms, the explosive pressure of magnesium hydride is only about 40% that of an equivalent weight of TNT.

In the field of explosives, this level of power is clearly not acceptable.

Finally, let me reiterate that my cricitism, including this one, is specifically targeted a very small number of science stories at the paper. I think I was very careful in my April 5 post reviewing 9 reports in the past year, using “some” in the headline, and “a distinct genre of science stories” in the main text, to remind my readers that I was not painting with a broad brush.

Plus, I spent many sentences at the very top, acknowledging the hardwork, success, and influence of the 122-year-old Hong Kong paper of record. I also recognized the challenging circumstances that the SCMP journalists face.

If it were not crystal clear then, now I’m willing to unequivocally stipulate that 99% of the science stories at SCMP are fine ones.

I just wish it could do better in the remaining 1%, where it went too far.