Re: Heavy Lift Design for Mining/Cargo Propulsion

On Apr 22, 6:51 pm, American <samuelran...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:16 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I gave a lot of detailed information and it seems to have
disappeared.

But I will repeat briefly;

: Its not semantics its physics.  That you think its semantics
: shows that you are STILL clueless despite my efforts.

Uh, therefore we must conclude that there are no semantics
of physical systems.

????? You do NOT want to look at the physics! Why is that?

No,

Well, that's the advantage of science isn't it? Reality doesn't
change because of a definition - you define your terms at the outset.
You have a specific hypothesis, a specific experimental procedure and
a specific result - that anyone can replicate anywhere in the
universe. Pretty much leaves semantics out of it doesn't it?

So, if you're used to weaseling your why out of commitments, and out
of stuff generally by being imprecise and fuzzy - well, physics isn't
for you! lol.

But I'll let you hold your own
water for now...

Dude - have you ever taken a science course? You know, an
introductory course to science? Science is greek for knowledge - it
is to distinguish it from other sources of knowledge. The Scientific
Method was proposed as a way to observe the natural world in order to
gain sure knowledge about it. No semantics, no variable definition of
terms. When you talk to a physicist about Newton's laws of motion -
Maxwell's laws of electromagnetic propagation - he/she knows PRECISELY
what you're talking about. No weaseling your way out of things no
semantics - just a body of experimentally verifie results that anyone
anywhere anytime can replicate by following the precise procedure
described in the experimental record.

So, you might think you're giving me some sort of thing I don't
deserve by taking a false superior position about semantics - which is
asinine cause it shows you for the absolute *** you are - but
remember this - we're not talking about philosophy or rhetoric or
debate - we're talking about physics - which is a different kettle of
fish altogether.

You would do well to read up on it and understand it a little bit.

How the hell can you design a rocket and not understand the scientific
method?

.
: Also, Martha, please understand that before you build the tech-
: nology you must first understand the physics.  Otherwise you waste
: a lot of time and effort learning the physics all over again.

: As far as the comments about patents.  The patent office assigns
: rights to ideas so one may have a limited lifetime right to use
: a new idea.  This has little to do with physics - though the office
: won't give you rights to things that don't comport with physical
: laws if they can help it.

Patents are only good for collecting royaltee fees from the licensee.

Or keeping people from manufacturing a product you are manufacturing
giving you exclusive access to the market for your product.

The same thing can be achieves by a notorized business agreement,
as a "user fee", as long as the "inventor" and "user" don't require
a patent status,

?? Why would anyone do that ?? I suppose this is the equivalent of
a trade secret. Sure, Coca Cola licenses the use of its formula that
way. Again, what's this have to do with anything?

I mentioned the patent office because you did to make a point. You
foolishly tried to say that because the patent office has a different
classification for injectors and pumps you calling you calling a
device that inserts propoellant into an operating combustion chamber
makes it different than a pump and therefore doesn't have the same
energy relations as a pump.

Definitions seem very important to you - and perhaps you also
foolishly believe words and minds are infinitely plastic. Fact is,
physics isn't defined by words, or thoughts, its defined by natures
response to a specific set of experiments. So, whether you call
something that inserts propellant into an operating combustion chamber
Aardvark - it doesn't change the fact that when you multiply a force
times a distance you're going to expend work. It doesn't change the
pressure on the reaction chamber wall no matter what its made of. It
doesn't change the relationship between exhaust speed of the rocket
and the chamber pressure - so the scaling laws that apply to all
rockets - apply to your rocket you freaking moron.

Now, you don't get that. You want to argue patent law and the best
way to commercialize intellectual property. You're changing the
subject. Why? You think you're superior here too your freaking
jerk!? haha.. how many patents do you own? HJow many companies have
you started? How many millions have you made commercializing your
IP?

The quickest surest way to crate wealth with IP is to build a company,
sign a big customer, and sell the company - you make tens of millions
of dollars in a few years that way.

Your statements here reveal you to be the small time narrow minded
thinker you are. The course of action you are recommending is a
course of action of someone who wants others to do the work for next
to no dollars.

because the duplication and underwriting

??? again you're going after the small end of the market... and if
this is your approach, you're a freaking loser. People have no
problem buying revenue streams at multiples of projected revenues.
Also, you have absolutely no appreciation of strategic analysis. Some
things are impossible to duplicate exactly. Coca cola's formula -
which is why the don't patent it - they don't have to teach it. Same
thing with certain chemicals or catalysts or recipes. The management
of IP is a very sophisticated art, no simple rules apply - unless you
want to lose your freaking shirt! lol. Making anything if you look
at it in detail, involves IP at several levels. You sound like a guy
who sits in an armchair and thinks of something and then tries to
convince someone to pay him for it. Then worries if he'll ever get
his $10,000 back that he paid his patent attorney! lol.

IP is most valuable to an operating business that has a good product
and a good idea. Some things are patented, some are trade secrets.
ALL IP adds to the value of the whole operation.

When I invented the computer based cash-register, I did all that and
built up tremendous value and sold my company. Same with the color
changing golf ball. and so forth. Even so, I think I sold short on
a lot of them.

You build a company that implements a vision in a market. You come to
be an important player in that market. You build up your IP around
what you do - the same way you might mend fences on a ranch. Then,
once you have a defensible revenue stream and growth figures, if you
want, you sell out for fair market value.

Buyers aren't cutting costs - they're buying a freaking revenue
stream. sheez.
.
of all
supporting technologies to their invention also don't require the
needless attorney fees up front for an unpatented invention.

HAHAHAHAHA! I KNEW IT!!! The $10,000 you paid your attorney for one
freaking patent is a deal breaker for you! Idiot. If you have a
good idea, say a credit card scanner for a gas pump, - now this is an
idea you've GOTTA sell out, because there's only two makers of gas
pumps and they have a lock on the market - very complex deal - anyway,
I was manufacturing cash registers at the time, and selling a shitload
of backoffice systems making themcomputer based. I worked with the
limited early on. You have three stores, one sells a red dress and a
blue dress one sells a red dress and a green dress and one sells a red
dress and a yellow dress. None of the stores know the red dresses are
hot and the black dresses are dogs. But by combining them, you can
increase the price of the red dresses, and order more, lower the price
of the black dresses and cancel orders - like right now - and in this
way TRIPLE SALES. Now, what's that idea worth? Do you build
equipment and write software and sell it at a 20% margin? HELL NO!
You say look, put my *** in your store, I'll train everyone, we'll
establish a baseline in 3 months - and then I'll turn on the magic -
All I want is 10% over the baseline. If there's no increase - you
keep the equipment and I'll even service them for three years. THAT'S
a deal that you cannot bypass. Now all of a sudden you're worth 10%
of the value of every freaking store your in. You want to sell
that? If the company is publicly traded, you can point to the market
cap of all the stores you're in. Sheez. THAT's the way to make money
with technology bub.

Same with the credit card scanner. You don't even tell customers HOW
you do a thing - you just tell them THAT you will do it. Put my ***
in your store, and you will increase your sales. period. They put
your *** in their store - you establish a baseline - by not turning
the magic on - THEN - you turn the magic on - voila' their sales
increase. They gotta pay you the money. But the patents and the
trade secrets work together to create the impression you're actually
doing something magical - that makes you special in your customer's
eyes - and they WILLINGLY fork over cash to keep the magic going. You
get a coupla big customers - and voila' - you've got a pretty
persuasive argument that your company is worth 10% of the sum of all
the market caps of all the companies who are your customers.

THAT's the way to make money with IP.

- Besides, attorneys are lawyers, not engineers.

: Please note that I'm making a point about the physics of a rocket
: engine not what you call things (semantics) or what the patent
: office says or how it classifies things.

Too many patents actually become "stolen" at the patent office.

Again, you have a microscopic view of things that cause you to miss
the big picture. You create magic in the world - IP is only part of
it. I'm working in the alternative energy business right now. There
are about half a dozen key ideas I'm getting patented. There are a
dozen other key ideas that are trade secrets. Anyone who tried to
steal my patented IP - wouldn't even have a clue as to WHY that
particular patent is important - unless they saw the whole picture.
Then, there's the practical aspects. For example, we need big ass
pressure vessels of a certain size. There is only one fabricator who
can build this sort of thing at the cost we need. We buy that
fabricator. THEY have a another whole set of IP and most of that is
not available - people don't even know the first thing. This is
called supply chain management. I'm not spending $10,000 on a
freaking single idea - I'm spending about $100 million to gain
critical control of a supply chain, and another $100,000 on
patents,every year and $1,000,000 per year on IP management and
protection. In that environment, you best not *** with me dude, you
get your nuts handed you. And you don't get much anyway,if you do
slip through the cracks, because if you're going to compete with me
where I live you gotta come to me for the pressure vessels, the
catalysts, and a host of other things - and when you do show up at my
doorstep, you don't even know you're dealing with me - and not only do
you NOT get what you wanted, you get my negative attention instead.

Antonio Meucci, NOT Alexander Graham Bell, was the inventor of
the telephone - but Alexander Graham Bell was rich and knew
more people of "status" than Meucci - besides, the name "Alexander
Graham Bell" has a much better "ring" to it, don't you think?

Bell didn't copy the telephone from meucci, Bell biult a practical
telephone and built a business that created huge value for society
while Meucci built a less practical variety. Bell instituted a
laboratory system that focused on constant product improvement
spending 20% of his revenues on R&D - Meucci never got out of the
lab. You make it sound like Bell was a creep. Bell was a visionary
who knew how to take an idea and run with it. Meucci had a good
idea. Bell had the same idea, and the vision to change our lives with
it.

Bell did not steal Meucci's idea - but you seem to be saying that. Of
course, anything to avoid the fact that you are absolutely and
fundamentally wrong when you try to ignore the power your 'injector'
will need to feed propellant to your combustion chamber.

Other stolen patents include the electro-meter (Mathison), the
wet-suit (Hugh Bradner), the steamboat (William Symington, NOT
Robert Fulton), the COMPUTER (John Vincent Atanasoff), THE
INTERNET (Philo Farnsworth), the Levitron (magnetic levitated
train - Roy Harrigan), celluloid (Alexander Parkes), etc., etc.

Bull*** - none of these involved any interference of rights. These
were all developed in parallel, and the ones we identify as the
inventor were the first to execute profitably the vision inherent in
the idea. Baird may have built the first TV in scotland, but it
wasn't until Farnsworth made an all electronic version that the idea
of television as we accept it today was possible. And by the way
that's the only one I would have credited as actually being stolen is
one you didn't put down - Farnsworth's invention of the television and
it being stolen through a whole host of shenanigans by RCA's Zworkin.
You didn't even mention it.

Ah, back to rockets and my misguided attempt to educate a freaking
know it all on the basics. sheez.

: Here is what happens in all rockets;

: You have a reaction - be it chemical, nuclear, matter-anti-
: matter annihilation -

: it is sustained by energetic propellants - chemicals, nuclear
: materials, antiprotons -which are fed into the reaction - this
: takes energy and equipment to achieve.

: those propellants react to produce reaction products - which
: exert pressure in the reaction volume

: those reaction products are collimated into a stream - which
: produce thrust in a direction opposite the stream.

: This is a rocket.- there are variations that are more compli-
: cated than this, but lets get the basics first.

For neodymium glass, a deuterium-Tritium (DT) fuel pellet with
a radius of 0.4mm absorbs 54K joules (in 5 to 10 pulses, with
each pulse lasting between .05 and 5 nanoseconds). The power
density per fuel pellet becomes 2.685 x 10^6 J/cm2, which is
delivered to the pellet by 12 neodymium glass lasers with an
energy density limit for each laser of 20 x 10^9 J/cm^2.

Yeah, you got this out of a descriptoin of an inertial confinement
fusion mechanism - this has nothing whatever to do with pumping
propellant into a reaction chamber - you know that right? lol.
Obviously NOT.

Also, do you understand that 54 kilojoules - is about 5.4x the amount
of energy needed when using a Hydrogen/flouride laser operating at a
different wavelength with a different sort of compression mechanism?
lol.

I'm trying to make a simple point - which an intelligent person would
get and concede and end all this baloney you keep trotting out. you
are clearly not an intelligent person.

However, for fusion propulsion, a "pellet repetition rate"
is required to produce a minimum of 3.04 x 10^14 joules/sec per
thruster.

Wait a minute, the data reported in the declassified Air force
document, which describes the physics by the way, uses a hydrogen
flouride chemical laser that initiates fusion with 10 kilojoules using
a slightly different approach. This releases 112 gigajoules for the
smallest pulse unit I've described - a multiplcation of 11 million to
1. NONE of the energy is supplied by the reaction - and most
importantly - the energy to detonate the pulse unit is INDEPENDENT OF
THE SIZE OF THE PULSE UNIT! That's my whole point bub. If I had to
inject or pump propellant into a reaction volume, I'd have to drive it
against the pressure within the reaction volume, and that scales with
the size and power of the engine.

duh.

Power density for neodymium glass "maxes out" because

So? You searched up something on inertial confinement fusion and
trotted it out here because they use sort of the same freaking
words. I never said one thing about neodymium. i said specifically
hydrogen flouride chemical lasers and gave yo ua pointer to it.
Sheez.

Besides, you prove my point. Compressing a deuterium tritium pellet
until it achieves fusion doesn't change with the size of the secondary
you ignite with it. Pumping fusor material into an active fusion
reactor takes energy that scales with the size and power of the
reactor.

the pellet repetition rate not only exceeds the capacity rate
of fuel pellet injector for 0.4mm radius pellets - (7,449/sec)
but falls short of providing the energy required for fusion
propulsion - (3.04 x 10^14joules/sec).

Since the pulse unit requires no external power source in my design,
your comments don't make any sense.

So, what the hell are you talking about? You think you can pull
numbers out of your ass - or the internet - and just copy them without
any freaking logical connection to what i said? You are more than
stupid. you are dishonest.

You have no reference to the physics involved.

You are quoting figures for a Neodymium laser,
I'm quoting figures for a hydrogen flouride laser.

You are quoting figures for an open design for an inertial confinement
fusion program.
I am quoting figures based on a formerly classified air force
program.

You are saying that 54 kJ is needed by your system to initiate
fusion.
I am saying that 10 kJ is needed by my system.

Your system is powered by an external power source and is about 0.1%
efficient. My system is powered by a supply hydrogen and flourine and
is 3% efficient.

Now, in my system 2.25 grams of hydrogen and flourine create the 340
kilojoules of optical energy that converts to 10 kilojoules of
directed laser energy in the Fabrey perot etalons in my laser
design.

This combine with the theta-pinch device - ignites the deuterium
tritium primary - which in turn ignites a lithium-5-deuterium
secondary of arbitrary size - 4.6 grams in this instance - producing
112 GJ. - so 2.25 grams of hydrogen flouride fuse 4.6 grams of Li6D.
since there is no external power required, repetition rate is fixed by
the physics of momentum and heat transfer in the thrust chamber.

However, if the pellet
size is increased, so must the useable energy that is delivered
to the target to maintain the power density of 2.685 x 10^6
J/cm^2. Yet, even if the energy density limit for neodymium
glass lasers is used to predict pellet size, delivery rate,
energy delivered to the target, etc.,

I didn't mention neodymium lasers at all. that comes from a specific
inertial confinement program. And while what you say is true of the
system you searched up. It is not true of the system I am descrbing.
You MUST know this. So, the fact you bring it up and make such bogus
statements paints you as a freaking con artist.

I gave you pointers to the teller ulam design. i referenced that
design precisely because of what it says about the size of the primary
and secondary. . That's WHY you have a secondary dude. You have a
itny primary, and that size stays fixed and with it your laser
energy.

The primary sets off the secondary - the secondary can be any size in
princple. That's what Tsar bomba proved
.
the absolute limit rep-
resents only one in 1,270 the energy required for propulsion.

UIsing a teller ulam two stage design - the amount of energy needed to
initiate fusion is independent of the size of the fusion blast. This
is not true of a pump used to inject propellant into the reaction
chamber of an operating rocket. Its not that hard to get, why are you
being so obtuse? Is it that important for you to appear to be
right? Well, understand that your efforts to lie, confuse, and cheat
your way out of this fact are actually doing the opposite. lol.

its really rather simple. The dynamic pressure on a the wall of a
reaction chamber goes up with performance - and the amount of
propellant goes up with thrust. Pumping propellant into a reaction
chamber against a pressure, takes work. That work subtracts from the
engine's output. It adds to the weight of the engine. this is true
no matter what kind of rocket you have.

A pulse detonation system escapes these limitations. You insert fuel
and oxidizer in a reaction chamber when the engine is switched off -
and then detonate it. This can be something simple like a stick of
dynamite with a fuse, or something complex like a micro-nuke. You are
attempting to confuse anyone reading this saying that the energy
needed to light the fuse scales the same as the energy needed to run a
pump. THAT IS NOT TRUE - why can't you get that? Its really very
simple. You'd rather rail about supposed inequity in the patent
system, and talk scathingly about semantics - than just get that it
takes energy to pump propellant against pressure into an operating
reaction chamber - while it takes nearly no energy to put propellant
into a non-working chamber - and set it off pulse fashion.

This factor is reduced by the addition of 8 times the number
of lasers as in the Livermore experiment to an absolute min-
imum of one in 159.

You pretend that you've done some analysis - but you are in the end
trying to fool a casual reader that the energy it takes to light a
fuse is the same as the energy it takes to pump propellant into a
working engine. This is not the case. As engine size and performance
increases, the energy needed by the pump - scales with that. The
enregy neede to light a fuse is independent of the size of the bomb
its attached to - if you use a bomb to detonate another bomb.
Notwithstanding that if you put 100 bombs with 100 fuses, you'd have
to light 100 fuses. So, you're trying to fool us in many ways. why
is that?

Therefore, a laser medium needs to be chosen that handles a
power density 159 times that of neodymium lasers.

All things being equal - but you have yet to show how this system
compares to the hydrogen flouride system used by the air force - and
why you are doing something so stupid as to use only a primary when I
specifically said, a tiny primary will set off a secondary of
arbitrary size?

Silica
glass lasers are capable of handling a higher power density

You understand don't you how the Fabrey Perot etalons work in a
chemical laser? The laser here self-destructs and is used only once.

than neodymium because of its' higher melting point - 1600
degrees C vs. 1010 degrees C for neodymium glass.

You are assuming the laser system will be used more than once. It wil
not.

According
to my sources, 'fused silica wedge optics' can deliver 3.6 x
10^6 J per 'mirror' to a target - usually a hohlraum contain-
ing a frozen pellet of hydrogen - releasing a much larger
amount of fusion energy. In this state-of-the-art laser op-
tical medium the energy distribution for an 0.4mm radius DT
fuel pellet would be 2.685 x 10^6 J/cm^2.

Again, why are you assuming the survival is of any concern after it
pumps out its femtosecond pulse of laser energy? It doesn't. So,
its much easier to design, and quality control isn't a problem after
firing.

: Lets look at some examples of your basic rocket...

: Hydrogen and oxygen combust in a chamber that is then exhaus-
: ted through a nozzle to produce a jet of steam and hydrogen
: to produce thrust.

: Plutonium fission reactions in a magnetic chamber produce
: actinide series products which are exhausted through a magnetic
: nozzle at high speed.

: Hydrogen fusion reactions in a more powerful magnetic chamber
: produces helium which is exhausted through a more powerful mag-
: netic nozzle at higher speed.

I prefer Boron 11 + Hydrogen -> Helium 4 (3 atoms), using a fuel

This is an interesting reaction. I mentioned it below. The specific
energy though is 1/3 that of Li6-D - so, exhaust speed is 57% - this
is the figure of merit.

density of ~3 x 10^4 gm/cm^3 (upon implosion) yields only 1
neutron -

The aneutronic - boron 10 - plus protium - is preferred for this
reason.

the most safe of all reactions @ 30% laser efficiency.

It isn't clear what you're referring to here.

If we assume that the energy distribution on the surface of
a pellet remains constant for different size pellets,

No, are missing the boat. You must achieve Lawson criterion for any
reaction you contemplate - so this varies.

D+T - has the lowest set of pressures temperatures and densities i.e
the lowest energies.

This sets your energy density across your pellet surface.

A pellet of boron 10 + protium if you were so foolish as to use it in
your primary - requires hundreds of times the intensity for a given
pellet size. And laser energy scales with pellet size. this has
nothing to do with pump pressure - since you're not reacting against a
dynamic pressure. this is all just initiator physics.

That's why its damned foolish to use a single primary - that's why I
use an easy to light primary - of a smaller size - to generate VERY
VERY INTENSE GAMMA RAYS - that are then directed to a secondary - that
creates a propagating reaction wave that easily meets the Lawson
criteria for even hard to fuse elements - which can be of ANY SIZE -
as the Tsar bomba tests proved.

The pellet size of the primary is constant. The size of the secondary
is rather large.since a gamma ray blast from a deuterium-tritium
fusion is more then sufficient to light off any fusor - and the light
from THAT fusion can be used to propagate into a fusor medium of any
size.

then
3.6 x 10^6 Joules requires a pellet of radius 0.3265 cm. to
achieve an equal energy distribution of 2.685 x 10^6 J/cm^2.

Totally bogus numbers derived from totally bogus analysis. You
haven't a clue of the fundamentals. Please understand that pushing
propellant into a rocket chamber that has a dynamic pressure given by
that chamber's reaction condition, is quite different than lighting a
fuse. Now, you are trying to convince everyone that lighting a fuse
is energeetically the same as running a pump. this is not the case.
you are further compounding your error by trying to convince us that
the fuse scales with the bomb - while it is possible to build fuses
that way it is not a requirement. finally, you don't seem to get that
some bomb materials are harder to light off than others. think of a
match head. you've got an easy to light tip, and a harder to light
sulfur head. Think of the D+T as the tip, the sulfur as the Li6-D and
the the laser as the striker pad.

D3He pellets require an energy density of 1.847 x 10^9 J/cm^2,

Only for certain sized pellets illuminated by certain colors of
light. You really are not talking about fundamentals. In fact, where
are you getting these numbers? You haven't given a source, nor have
you given a rationale.

Now when you take something and squeeze it quickly, its temperature
and pressure rise according to charles law. It takes energy to
squeeze an object. You seem to understand pressure, but you don't
seem to understand pressure times distance - haha - which is work.
And that's why it takes 54 kJ in the experiments you cited (without a
pointer) an 10 kJ in the experiments I sited - details count.
Coupling efficiency, pellet size - fusor medium. these are all
important factors. To really understand how to do engineering with
this, you must really understand the physics.

Suffice to say, that an efficient fusion bomblet has a constant
detonation energy independent of the size of the secondary the primary
lights off. Not so with the pump of an active rocket engine.

which is at least 261 times the energy currently provided by
state-of-the-art 'silicon wedge' lasers. So, in order to ach-
ieve minimum ignition conditions for D3He, two possibilities
become apparent: Either we decrease the pellet size to a
radius of .0124 cm. along with increasing the pellet repeti-
tion rate to 6.3046 x 10^6 Hz (This alternative has to be
thrown out because of the impossibility of designing a pellet
injector with these performance characterisitics), or we in-
crease the power to the pellet by increasing the number of
lasers (and increasing the power from each laser).

These numbers are all bogus - they don't relate to anything I said,
and they ignore several key factors that are important in a real
analysis.

I get the impression you're trying to look to me the way I must look
to you. You miss a critical factor- you don't know what the hell
you're talking about - I do.

If a one millimeter diameter laser compressed sphere of DT
requires 1.8 x 10^9 J/cm^2, then for generating 10 times
the energy supplied to the lasers, we're still at 1/2 of
it that is radiated out into space, yielding a lower "5"
times the energy supplied for propulsion.

Again you seem to understand pressure - and you got the size down some
- but you should really study isentropic flows and see that to
compress a ball of gas or plasma - to the first order - requires a
specific amount of energy - to attain a specific temperature and
pressure called for by lawson. You don't understand this. You read
some technical side note on a popular science description of an
experiment - and without any fundamental understanding go running off
citing numbers out the wazoo because I gave you some real freaking
numbers. lol.

An electron beam accelerator was developed way back in 1972
that discharged 20 x 10^9 J pulses longer than 100
billionths of a second. So, according to the above
1.8 x 10^9, which is about equal to fusion for a diameter of
a one millimeter laser compressed sphere, this would amount
to at least 10 times the area of a larger non-laser com-
pressed sphere - or 10 cm^2, or about 3.33 cm. diameter,
which is close to the 3.94 cm. diameter being designed.

Read up on the farnsworth fusor. you do understand do you not that
electrons are all negatively charged and tend to repel one another?
That means in addition to the plasma or gas pressure of a pellet,
you've got to over come this self charge. Why don't you work out how
that scales to smaller units and then tell me what the advantage of
using tiny lasers are over using tiny electron beams?

Are you up to that challenge?

You just told us that its easy to make electron beams. True. But
then you went on to tellus that its easy to concentrate electon beams
to produce high pressures on pellets. Well that depends on a lot of
details. Not the least of which is the number of other electrons
around - and youfailed to mention how much it increases the energy to
have to overcome the self charge of all those electrons as you
compress the pellet. see? Once you get the idea that force times
distance equals work - then not only do you understand why a pump
power scales with rocket power - but also, why when you're squeezing
tiny pellets - you use lasers instead of electron beams.

With a higher quantity of these lasers (10 times the number)
installed around the perimeter of the blast dome for single
pellet ignition, you'd end up with 200 x 10^6 J over a ~100
cm^2 area or 10 cm. dia. sphere. The advantage of laser com-
pression over ignition is that the energy needed to compress
hydrogen is only 1% of the energy required to heat DT to
ignition. Therefore laser implosion offers stellar perfor-
mance over the other fuel-derived "ignition" methods.

Making any initator re-usable in a fusion system is asking for trouble
- since every fusion blast will tend to tear the initiator apart.
that's why it makes sense to make dispsable lasers that are used only
once like old time flashbulbs.

One point though - Since these lasers cost $14.5 million
back in 1972, they'd probably be closer to $145 million
today -

Depends on how much is invested in improving the fundamentals.
computer power costs less today than it did in 1972- because Moore
outlined the fundamental cost drivers and everyone focused on R&D to
lower costs. If the same thing were done for lasers, or anything,
costs need not be higher today - despite inflation.

so you're multiplying this cost by 10X to get 1.45B.
IMO, this is not a very "feasible" thing to do.

You are an idiot. There is no freaking reason to use permanent lasers
or ion beams or electon beams wen a small disposable single use laser
is shown to be perfectly adequate.

: Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen annihilates in a magnetic chamber
: and produces gamma rays which are reflected by a powerful mir-
: ror to produce thrust.

Where do you get your gamma ray mirror? You are totally clueless.

: Type:  Chemical reaction
: Propellant:  Hydrogen and Oxygen
: Exhaust:  Steam and hydrogen
: Jet Speed:  4.5 km/sec

: Type:  Fission reaction
: Propellant:   Plutonium
: Exhaust:  Actinide Series Products, neutrons, working fluid
: Jet Speed:  10,000 km/sec - 30,000 km/sec

: Type:  Fusion reaction
: Propellant Hydrogen
: Exhaust: Helium, hydrogen, working fluid
: Jet Speed  30,000 km/sec - 90,000 km/sec

A actual fusion photograph taken with high speed exposure
showed the advance of an isotherm of 7.5 micrometers in just
4 picoseconds, or .004 nanoseconds, which figures out to be
7.5 x 10^-6 meters / 4 x 10^-12 seconds = 1.875 x 10^6 m/sec,
or 1,875,000 m/sec, or 1875 km/sec.

You really ought to read with understanding what you search up.
You understand do you not that the shock wave which is what an
isotherm is.has little to do with the speed of the reaction products?

(I'm thinking here that the
average velocity is somewhat higher for magnetic confinement -

Why?

but there's nothing here to suggest that confinement is being
included in this particular design.

Do you even know what you're talking about? I would guess obviously
not.

When I light a fuse it burns at a certain rate. when the blast cap
goes off, the shock wave that sets of the dynamite, travels at a
certain rate through the dynamite. When the dynamite explodes in all
directions, the air slows it down, but in vacuum it would travel at a
speed determined by its specific energy.

the numbers I gave above are based on specific energy - and a range of
10% to 100% of that energy ending up moving the reaction products.
Its damned hard to get that wrong.

You searched up some reference to a shock wave - what the shock wave
is, we cannot really tell based on your bogus description because you
have no rationale for quoting it, nor any logical connextion with
anything i've said. But please understand, that the shock wave speed
you cite, has nothing whatever to do with the kinetic energy of the
reaction products possessed by a rocket's exhaust due to the specific
energy contained in the propellants. sheez.

: Type:  Anti-matter annihilation
: Propellant:  Hydrogen anti-hydrogen
: Exhaust:  gamma rays
: Jet Speed:   300,000 km/sec

: Now in all cases, you've got to feed the reaction.

I'm using feed lines that charge in amp-webers, or teslas/m^2,
with phi = [N(i)(alpha)(mue)] / L, where "phi" is the magnetic
flux, equal to 48,332.1946(i) webers, or teslas/m^2.

This is totally meaningless bull*** which hides the fundamental
physics I'm explaining to you.

Any reaction in your rocket chamber has a dynamic pressure. Anything
you insert against that pressure requires you use a force over some
distance - this requires work. that work scales with the rate at
which you insert propellant (thrust) and with the pressure (velocity)
- that is with the energy of the engine.

Magnetic force is measured in Oersteds, so there is some
popular value of "mue" available for the "Oe" that I've
decided to use, which amounts to some number in the thousands.

More meaningless bull***. You can use magnetic force, electrostatic
force, mechanical force, dynamic force - none of this changes the fact
that

W = f x D

work equals force times distance

and

f = 1/2 rho V^2

where force equals 1/2 density times velocity square.

and

Ve = function(V)

so, when you have a continuous reaction inside some sort of chamber
that exhausts some sort of stream - to feed the reaction takes energy
which converts to a power level for a given thrust and mass flow rate
- that scales with the size of the engine.

The only way to overcome this is to operate the engine pulse fashion
and feed it when its not running. That's what pulse engines do.
Continuous engines don't do that and require more powerful pumps as a
result.

: Pump hydrogen and oxygen against the chamber pressure into
: the reaction chamber to maintain the reaction.

: Insert plutonium against the pressure inside the magnetic
: chamber to maintain the reaction.

: Insert hydrogen against the pressure inside the magnetic
: chamber to maintain the reaction.

All of the DT pellets are spherical, self-contained, and laser
tuned and ignitable frozen "bomblets",

That's true. Compressing these pellets to ignite them is eqiuvalent
to lighting a fuse. They do not work until they blow up. then they
are working only during the time of the blast. After the blast you've
got to blow up another one. This is known as a pulse engine.

Where are the ookamaks you were talking about before? lol. You read
an article on 1970s ICF experiments and you lost track of tokamaks?
lol.

that don't get triggered
until just after leaving the fuel cell and injector.

that's a good thing otherwise they'll destroy those things.

Its not clear what the hell you're talking about any more. are you
saying you now have a design that uses a pulsed detonation? In that
case you're agreeing with my original point - which you originally
disagreed with.

: Insert anti-matter against the pressure inside the annihil-
: ation chamber to maintain the reaction.

Where do you get anti-matter and how much do you need and how much can
you make and what does it cost?

What the hell do you have against hydrogen and flourine? I'm just
wondering.

: Force times distance equals work.  It takes energy to lift
: water ...


I made myself clear. You unfortunately have not.

.