Record Yield from Fusion Experiment

Dean Hoffman snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

We did the master timing system and the beam modulators. The NIF people were great to work with. If the darned stuff would just start breaking, maybe we could sell them replacements.

Or they could buy something that worked better.

As ironically stated by the John Doe snipped-for-privacy@message.header troll in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me who has posted yet another incorectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 24 Aug 2021 02:12:46 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sg1kiu$1hf$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

As ironically stated by the John Doe snipped-for-privacy@message.header troll in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me who has posted yet another incorectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:24:17 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sg1op1$ooe$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

Fusion will not work. You will never get the power needed for a city.

Use technology that has already worked. Liquid Thorium Molten Salt.

Bill Gates has a couple extra dollars in his pocket. There are plans to build a nuclear power plant on the site of a retired coal power plant in Wyoming.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could your tech be used for triggering a compact nuclear weapon ? Well, you see, there are all these " towel head" Arabs that just got real lucky recently. Uncle Joe just gave them a big nod.

In the interests of free trade of course......

........ Phil

Are review and funding talks pending?

An odd claim, when there is a great big fusion reactor at the centre of the solar system, which has provided all the power that keeps every city going.

And produces nasty radioactive waste, which we still haven't worked how to dispose in a way that is tolerated by people who live anywhere near the waste dumps.

Thorium waste may not be as nasty U-235 waste, but it is still pretty nasty.

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Aug 2021 06:44:08 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony William Sloman snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

If all fails dump it here:

That is precisely what LLNL gets its funding for.

I hope any future recipients of an H-bomb are thankful to JL and send their acknowledgments for his valuable contribution to their demise.

You might want to calculate the amount of energy required to cancel the waste's orbital velocity around the sun - about 19 miles/second if I recall correctly. You have to do that (or very nearly) in order to put the waste into an orbit which will actually intersect the sun.

Get rid of too little orbital velocity, and you turn the waste into the equivalent of an Earth-crossing asteroid. It won't stay "gone" that way, and the return visit might be unpleasant to those alive at the time.

And, of course, that's after you expend the energy needed to hoist it out of Earth's gravity well.

Then, compare the total energy required to Get Rid Of The Waste, with the amount of energy you harvest from the reactor(s) which generated that much Waste.

'Tain't economical.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 25 Aug 2021 01:44:38 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sg47a6$1d3$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

I don't know how a modern implosion bomb is detonated. I think there are a lot of detonators embedded in explosive lenses. They were originally exploding wires, then exploding thin films, maybe now lasers. They have to be timed right, so I guess our digital delay generators could do the timing. They have been used for something very similar.

Nowadays, a few FPGAs could do the timing. They need something like 1 ns resolution I think, which a slow SERDES can do easily.

This was done with tubes in 1945!

Not to mention the considerable risk of the launcher blowing up. All in all, a ridiculous idea.

Jeroen Belleman

On 2021-08-25, John Doe snipped-for-privacy@message.header was wrong and tried to bury it:

no he's right, rocket to the sun is very expensive.

With solid fuel reactors, you are right.

However, with molten salt reactors, the situation is completely different. You get nearly 100% burnup, you can burn high-level waste from conventional solid reactors, you only need to store the residual waste for 300 - 500 years instead of thousands of years, and you get useful products from the reaction besides energy. For example:

xenon - used in satellite propulsion

neodynium - used in electric cars

zirconium - malleable and ductile, forms stable compounds. It is also highly resistant to corrosion

molybdenum - ductile and highly resistant to corrosion, one of the highest melting points of all pure elements, essential in human diet

You might wonder if these products are radioactive. In the case of neodynium and molybdenum, the radioactivity fades quickly.

From Wikipedia:

Isotopes of neodymium

Naturally occurring neodymium (60Nd) is composed of 5 stable isotopes, 142Nd, 143Nd, 145Nd, 146Nd and 148Nd, with 142Nd being the most abundant (27.2% natural abundance), and 2 long-lived radioisotopes, 144Nd and 150Nd. In all, 33 radioisotopes of neodymium have been characterized up to now, with the most stable being naturally occurring isotopes 144Nd (alpha decay, a half-life (t1/2) of 2.29x1015 years) and 150Nd (double beta decay, t1/2 of

All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are less than 12 days, and the majority of these have half-lives that are less than 70 seconds; the most stable artificial isotope is

The primary decay modes before the most abundant stable isotope,

Molybdenum-100 is the only naturally occurring isotope that is not stable. Molybdenum-100 has a half-life of approximately 1×1019 y and undergoes double beta decay into ruthenium-100. Molybdenum-98 is the most common isotope, comprising 24.14% of all molybdenum on Earth. Molybdenum isotopes with mass numbers 111 and up all have half-lives of approximately .15 s.[2]

Xenon 135 has a half life of 9.14 hrs:

You may like claiming this, but it doesn't seem to be true.

"A comprehensive study from the US Energy Department in 2014 found that waste from thorium-uranium fuel cycles has similar radioactivity at 100 years to uranium-plutonium fuel cycles, and actually has higher waste radioactivity at 100,000 years."