Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You are an idiot. For CONTROLLED use here, we use a pellet.
And it does put out quite a lot of heat. So much that much of the heat and subsequent power it produces is required to contain it.
So of course it is a small mass. It puts out far more than the laser impingement required to bring it critical. The containment of the reaction is what costs.
And as far as "scaling that up", we most certainly could, because we are NOT spending ANY energy on containment for an explosive yield device.
Do try to keep up, child. Your "all we can do" is about as far off-the-mark as it gets.
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you have been going off about stupid shit for days now.
A pure
that
You said "fusion device".
pod.
Trader4. So is a lump of rock.
.
at
tent
ay
that fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-l ooking argument, without having enough sense to do it right.
action
keeps on failing to get the point
understanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.
more extreme than those required for the conventional deuterium?tr itium (D-T) nuclear fuel cycle. "
olds the patents of UNSW's theoretical physicist Heinrich Hora and develops a two-laser driven fusion energy technique with an avalanche reaction offe ring a billion time increased fusion yield improvement compared to other pr evious inertial confinement fusion systems."
To theoretically create fusion in a tiny pellet of material, not the un-contained explosion of a bomb, stupid.
cticable. Getting the money together to buy the bits is what spin-offs are all about.
Yes, I can see how that could be a problem, given that after having spent trillions of dollars over half a century on the far simpler version of fusion, we still have nothing remotely approaching anything viable for power production. And this novel method, per your own genius source, requires conditions far more extreme.
than trader4 - who doesn't - and might beg to differ, if they didn't have b etter things to do with their time.
ld be working in 2025 and get serious - if brief - power generation by 2035 . It's still a proof of principle machine, but big enough to make the next step an actual power generator.
We're talking about a bomb, not electric power generation, stupid.
body who claim that physics makes fusion impossible without fusion, when we 've been doing it for years (albeit on a small scale) really doesn't know w hat he's talking about.
That's another lie. I didn't say physics makes fusion impossible without fusion. I didn't say physics makes fusion impossible without fission. What I said was that with our current level of understanding of physics a FUSION BOMB is impossible without fission, stupid.
riments that are going on at the moment.
That's obvious stupid and wrong.
You've got to scale up the process massively, but the fact that the equipm ent doesn't have to survive the energy release makes it a very different de sign problem, with different opportunities.
Yes he did. It's just that now you and your butt buddy want to lie and try to spin it into something else.
You chose to understand that his fusion device was a conventional fission-f usion-fission hydrogen bomb, which was and is entirely idiotic, and you sti ll haven't realised that you'd set up a straw man.
ed in the first place, this would be dishonest, but it's just idiotic.
understanding what has been posted and you are much too dumb to ever realis e that it's you've got thewrong end of the stick.
he's now accusing me of claiming it did!
.
Then why did your butt buddy propose using a fusion bomb, because he claime d fusion bombs didn't emit radiation or contamination? And why didn't you point that out to him? No, instead you joined him in his hole of ignorance .
There are risks involved in getting a dirty bomb into space, so a clean bom b would be more attractive.
pid to realise that you have - as usual - misunderstood what was said.
re some very stupid people around, a few with a totally unrealistic idea of their own competence. Public-spirited citizens have an obligation to ident ify these dangerous lunatics, and we've been doing our duty.
Yes, I'm sure the world feels much safer knowing that a stupid kangaroo humping lib is online to save them.
Now you're beginning to understand. That's right, to start that fusion and keep it going, the containment necessary to create a tiny hot plasma is extreme. And for a bomb, you can't provide containment. Therefore all the whining about controlled fusion by you and Bill is meaningless. Capiche? BTW, you are 100% wrong, none of the subsequent power produced has been used to contain anything. We've never produced any actual usable power period. The power for containment has come from the grid.
Duh! Which is what makes it irrelevant for a bomb.
Fool, you have to contain it to create the conditions for the fusion reaction! If you start a small reaction, lose containment, it stops. Hell, that's one of the things that proponents of fussion reactors point out. That they CAN'T EXPLODE! Which is why for a BOMB, they use a fission reaction to provide the radiation that creates the conditions for fusion, so quickly that the rest of the bomb, the fusion material gets irradiated, but has not gotten blown away yet. Capiche?
Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Yes, you did 'say' that. And you are 100% wrong.
Fission initiated fusion bombs are made that way because we need the compact, easily manufacturable, low yield devices. It is about logistics, not technical prowess in physics.
We absolutely know how to make a fusion reaction (and bomb) of any size without the use of a fussion initiator.
We do not, however, as we as a nation honor our treaties and agreements regarding such developments.
Get back to us when you have an accounting. Whatever the total, it's a huge amount of money.
And it still doesn't work and about this, you're bragging?
If it was possible to "move to power production", that is what we'd be doing stupid. We can't because it still doesn't work, isn't feasible, etc. But you and Bill want to use a fusion process that even Bill's source says requires far more extreme conditions than that which we already can't do. And regardless, it won't work because all of the above is for a contained fusion, not a massive, uncontained explosion. And then in the next post you say radiation and contamination would not matter, so why then did you bring avoiding radiation and contamination?
I never said that. I said we can't make power because we can't even sustain and control a small fusion reaction, can't get more power out than we put in.
That's a lie. If we knew how to make it and scale it, we'd be deploying it. And any scaling is for a controlled fusion reaction, not a bomb.
You have to provide containment with any of the experimental fusion processes, which is why all your BS, all Bill's BS is wrong. You don't provide containment for a fusion bomb, which is why they use a fission reaction to create the instantaneous massive radiation to set off the fusion.
It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this case the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to allow the universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation at about 4000K).
It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's photosphere where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but nothing like as heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red shifted since the photons do have to climb out of the sun's gravitational field.
They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.
The usual formulation is to treat them as having energy and momentum. That can be demonstrated by the photoelectric effect for energy and a real Crooke's radiometer or a solar sail for momentum.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.