Page 3 of 3

Re: Review article on beam/accelerator driven fusion?

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:17 pm
by David Kunkle
"Can be found in the part The Physics of Successfull Fusion." Already looked at that. The biggest things that are a red flag for me are:

One: He spends an awful lot of time trashing accepted physics and mainstream efforts at fusion for my taste. The difficulties and problems facing physics today are no secret- including the chasm between relativity and quantum mechanics. Trashing them infers those clowns are all barking up the wrong tree, but look at my great sounding theory- it must be right.

Two: Maybe if he spent as much time with details on his own theory, it would be a little more palatable. For proof, he claims a few experiments back up his theory- yet absolutely no details or references there! Apparently he has no experimental evidence of his own that any of his theory is sound either.

Three: Probably most important- the proof is always in the pudding. He hasn't so much as built a working prototype for proof of concept, yet he seems to have a sales pitch already. The reactors are completely scalable, completely safe (no radiation), have direct conversion to electricity and near 100% efficient, dirt cheap for the homeowner to purchase, and electricity from them will cost 1/800th of what the utilities are charging. And he has a cute name for it that's already trademarked. If that isn't putting the cart before the horse...I don't know what is.

He claims they will be for sale by 2001. And the copyright on the site is 1997; so 20 years have passed and still, apparently nothing so much as some experimental proof that there is something to his theories. Frankly, it all sends the needle high on my BS meter. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, it is on those who would posit theories and make outrageous claims. I see nothing resembling proof in the entire site to think that he's onto something important- all indications point to the opposite.

Re: Review article on beam/accelerator driven fusion?

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:55 pm
by Sven Andersson
Sven Andersson wrote:The great eye opener in my case was reading Cagle's theory on how a fusion bomb really works. Can be found in the part The Physics of Successfull Fusion.
Below are two schematic drawings of H-bombs. In both of them can be seen a grey plate between primary and secondary. What's it for? It transforms gamma rays from the primary to soft X-rays. It is something like 10-15 centimeters thick and made of a high-Z element such as Uranium. It is immediately heated to millions of degrees and is then a completely dissociated plasma that is transparent to soft X-rays, because there are no ions, atoms or molecules in it to absorb such radiation. But there is an awful lot of electrons. They will undergo Compton scattering with the gamma rays from the A-bomb. The thickness of the plate is exactly designed, through simulation and calculation to produce, soft X-rays in the other end. In comes gamma rays and out comes soft X-rays. When they fall on the LiD, there will be a big boom.

Why is this info on the Internet? That is, the pictures I posted. The people who built or today maintain the bombs have such a hazy understanding of how the weapons work that they don't understand that the 'grey plate' is a great secret!
h-bomb.gif
schematic.gif
schematic.gif (9.47 KiB) Viewed 5385 times

Re: Review article on beam/accelerator driven fusion?

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:58 pm
by Andrew Haynes
@Sven Andersson
The U-238 taper is for shape charge, explosive wave propagation, the styform is the high cross section which turns to plasma, the U238 reflector is Pyrex

Re: Review article on beam/accelerator driven fusion?

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:01 pm
by Sven Andersson
Andrew Haynes wrote:@Sven Andersson
The U-238 taper is for shape charge, explosive wave propagation, the styform is the high cross section which turns to plasma, the U238 reflector is Pyrex
The smokescreen is thick indeed, and won't be lifted anytime soon...

Re: Review article on beam/accelerator driven fusion?

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:34 am
by Dennis P Brown
I personally would prefer that these types of posts be avoided; wiki has all one needs to build real bombs in its far too accurate details and frankly, I find this stuff unprofessional to post here at a fun, educational fusor forum. Yes, my opinion and not policy in any manner here. But I feel that these types of posts tend to make the site look weapons related and such posts have absolutely no relevance to fusors. Certainly crackpot sites with their ludicrous claims on energy fusion does have a place to be discuses here but pulling in weapon related issues have zero relevance, in my opinion.

Re: Review article on beam/accelerator driven fusion?

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:18 pm
by Richard Hull
I agree with Dennis. Let's stick to amateur fusion efforts and not do some sort of hunt for the mysteries or oddball science theories within weapons.

Richard Hull