Random Quote Generator
The earth does not belong to us we belong to the earth

THE POET AS SCIENTIST

THE POET AS SCIENTIST, THE POET AS SCIENTIST

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source

The Geek's Raven
[An excerpt, with thanks to Marcus Bales]

Once upon a midnight dreary,
fingers cramped and vision bleary,
System manuals piled high and wasted paper on the floor,
Longing for the warmth of bedsheets,
Still I sat there, doing spreadsheets:
Having reached the bottom line,
I took a floppy from the drawer.
Typing with a steady hand, I then invoked the SAVE command
But got instead a reprimand: it read "Abort, Retry, Ignore".

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source

Form input - by Günter Born

Monday, October 03, 2022

How "clean" can powerful, high-yield H-bombs be made?

I was thinking of the advantages for civilian applications of H-bombs -- space propulsion, energy production -- if they weren't dangerously radioactive. Now, I realize fusion created by inertial confinement is clean, but, it uses more energy than it creates, unfortunately. So I was thinking in terms of conventional H-bombs -- initiated by a small A-bomb -- but constructed in a way to absolutely minimize dangerous radiation or primary radioactive waste. First of all, I suppose, it would be desirable to make the A-bomb trigger or fuse as small as possible, since fission bombs must inevitably cause dangerous radiation and primary radioactive waste. Just how small can the A-bomb initiating an H-bomb explosion be, in practical terms? That said, as far as I can determine, the remaining fusible material in all conventional H-bombs still is consumed in fission reactions to a large degree -- nowhere near 100%, or even 90% of fusible material in conventional H-bombs is actually consumed in nuclear fusion. Much of it is consumed in nuclear fission. Is there any way to bring pure fusion in H-bombs up to near 100%?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home