Fusion Microexplosion PropulsionThis method gives a theoretical Isp of up to ~ 1 million s (Schmidt et al. 2000).Winterberg's 2004 "Mini Fission-Fusion-Fission Explosion" design specifies 10 kg of high explosives to start the nuclear sequence. Methalox might serve here; LCH4 is miscible in LOX, forming a uniform methane / oxygen mixture (MOX). (image)Quote from: Blackwood et al. 2023MOX has been shown to be a high explosive with a TNT equivalence greater than that of C-4.Here MOX surrounds Winterberg's container, which is < 20 cm in diameter, holding shells of aluminum, beryllium, U238 / Th232, and D-T gas around < 1 gram of fissile core. In use, fusion delivers to the MOX:Quote from: Winterberg 2004...a gain of ∼ 10^3, releasing an energy equivalent to a few tons of TNT...Corresponding Isp is around 13,000 s (trading high native fusion Isp for high thrust).The design could utilize methalox ISRU, with LOX harvested from Earth's thermosphere and LCH4 possibly from Deimos. Also, fusion tankers could transfer Deimos LCH4 to Earth orbit. In this way, the crew tugs' most massive consumable (MOX) is stocked efficiently where needed. In effect, notional on-orbit ISRU methalox infrastructure is now integrated and repurposed within a newer fusion transport system.Proven fusion tech is of course another point in favor.Comparisons?Refs.Blackwood, J.M., Skinner, T., Harrison, S.J., Whitworth, B., Hays, M.J. and Wilde, P., 2023, May. An Interim Set of TNT Curves for LOX/LNG Explosions. In 12th International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS) Conference.Schmidt, G., Bonometti, J. and Morton, P., 2000. Nuclear Pulse Propulsion - Orion and Beyond. In 36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit (p. 3856).Winterberg, F., 2004. Mini fission-fusion-fission explosions (mini-nukes). A third way towards the controlled release of nuclear energy by fission and fusion. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A, 59(6), pp.325-336.
MOX has been shown to be a high explosive with a TNT equivalence greater than that of C-4.
...a gain of ∼ 10^3, releasing an energy equivalent to a few tons of TNT...
Quote from: LMT on 02/16/2024 12:44 amFusion Microexplosion PropulsionWinterberg's 2004 "Mini Fission-Fusion-Fission Explosion" design specifies 10 kg of high explosives to start the nuclear sequence. Methalox might serve here; LCH4 is miscible in LOX, forming a uniform methane / oxygen mixture (MOX)...How would the device hold together if its was made of liquid oxygen and methane? Some kind of tank is required. And how would you get explosive symetry?
Fusion Microexplosion PropulsionWinterberg's 2004 "Mini Fission-Fusion-Fission Explosion" design specifies 10 kg of high explosives to start the nuclear sequence. Methalox might serve here; LCH4 is miscible in LOX, forming a uniform methane / oxygen mixture (MOX)...
Quote from: lamontagne on 04/13/2024 03:16 amQuote from: LMT on 02/16/2024 12:44 amFusion Microexplosion PropulsionWinterberg's 2004 "Mini Fission-Fusion-Fission Explosion" design specifies 10 kg of high explosives to start the nuclear sequence. Methalox might serve here; LCH4 is miscible in LOX, forming a uniform methane / oxygen mixture (MOX)...How would the device hold together if its was made of liquid oxygen and methane? Some kind of tank is required. And how would you get explosive symetry? Posters grok spherical containers.You still have a skeptical 3F thermonuclear analysis to finish, or start. Regardless, physicists don't see issues with 3F; the methods aren't controversial or new. If you can't calculate any issue yourself, you should say so.
Quote from: LMT on 04/13/2024 03:45 amQuote from: lamontagne on 04/13/2024 03:16 amQuote from: LMT on 02/16/2024 12:44 amFusion Microexplosion PropulsionWinterberg's 2004 "Mini Fission-Fusion-Fission Explosion" design specifies 10 kg of high explosives to start the nuclear sequence. Methalox might serve here; LCH4 is miscible in LOX, forming a uniform methane / oxygen mixture (MOX)...How would the device hold together if its was made of liquid oxygen and methane? Some kind of tank is required. And how would you get explosive symetry? Posters grok spherical containers.You still have a skeptical 3F thermonuclear analysis to finish, or start. Regardless, physicists don't see issues with 3F; the methods aren't controversial or new. If you can't calculate any issue yourself, you should say so. It's not a calculation. It's just that I wonder how you can effectively mix the oxygen and methane. It's a practical problem, not a math problem.
Quote from: lamontagne on 04/13/2024 03:16 amQuote from: LMT on 02/16/2024 12:44 amFusion Microexplosion PropulsionWinterberg's 2004 "Mini Fission-Fusion-Fission Explosion" design specifies 10 kg of high explosives to start the nuclear sequence. Methalox might serve here; LCH4 is miscible in LOX, forming a uniform methane / oxygen mixture (MOX)...How would the device hold together if its was made of liquid oxygen and methane? Some kind of tank is required. And how would you get explosive symetry? Posters grok spherical containers.
Quote from: LMT on 04/13/2024 03:45 amQuote from: lamontagne on 04/13/2024 03:16 amQuote from: LMT on 02/16/2024 12:44 amFusion Microexplosion PropulsionWinterberg's 2004 "Mini Fission-Fusion-Fission Explosion" design specifies 10 kg of high explosives to start the nuclear sequence. Methalox might serve here; LCH4 is miscible in LOX, forming a uniform methane / oxygen mixture (MOX)...How would the device hold together if its was made of liquid oxygen and methane? Some kind of tank is required. And how would you get explosive symetry? Posters grok spherical containers.To borrow a certain charming demeanor...you still have embarrassingly failed to answer the original question: how would you get explosive symmetry? do you even "grok" explosive lenses? or are you unable to comprehend fundamental facts about the subject?Winterberg's diagram shows a symmetrical implosion, not an explosion. you now demonstrate that you can't use even basic terminology correctly.you still have yet to answer the explosive symmetry question. your analysis is incomplete, or nonexistentI really wish you could realize — someday, somehow — how your writing improves dramatically without the blue crap Just go back and delete it as you're about to click [Post]. You won't regret it.
do you even "grok" explosive lenses? or are you unable to comprehend fundamental facts about the subject?
Method and apparatus for the preparation and usage of a cryogenic propellant or explosive system...a method and apparatus for remotely forming a mixture of liquid oxygen (“LOX”) and liquid methane (“LNG”), with the mixture commonly referred to as MOX, such that the LOX and LNG never contact each other until inside the container in which the mixture will be used. The method disallows contact between the LOX and the LNG in order to prevent the premature or inadvertent explosive combustion that can occur in a variety of ways. The method provides a way to deactivate the MOX mixture, even after the MOX mixture has been formed. The invention also contemplates various apparatuses that will allow the method to be practiced...By using knowledge of the various known properties of LOX, LNG and MOX mixtures, various embodiments of the present invention also include methods to remotely and safely control (1) the composition of the MOX mixtures, (2) the holding time for stable MOX mixtures and (3) the non-explosive termination of the MOX mixture. The present invention further includes means for remotely and safely forming a controllable mixture of MOX in a container at the final location of its desired application.
Method for making and storing cryogenic monopropellant...the present invention provides methods and assemblies for producing and storing liquid methane and liquid oxygen at a temperature and pressure which are in thermal equilibrium so that heat is not introduced when these components are mixed to form a monopropellant or explosive, i.e., a cryogenic mixture of liquid methane and liquid oxygen, and therefore vaporization does not occur. In this manner, MOX can be safely stored and used without any substantial loss thereof.
Quote from: Twark_Main on 04/15/2024 08:05 amdo you even "grok" explosive lenses? or are you unable to comprehend fundamental facts about the subject?The simple sphere works, amazingly. Notice that.If lensing were needed for max gain, it's a simple addition. I presented Rafique 2023 for design reference, with focusing theory and options. Did he miss something important?
For a nuclear implosion you need nothing less than perfect sphericality and uniformity, otherwise the core will just "blorp" out the side. Yes that is the technical term.
Quote from: Twark_Main on 04/22/2024 05:36 amFor a nuclear implosion you need nothing less than perfect sphericality and uniformity, otherwise the core will just "blorp" out the side. Yes that is the technical term. Imagine such text in a letter to Dr. Winterberg himself. Oho.-Of course, Winterberg 3F works with simply "uniform and homogenous" high explosive, which a MOX sphere surely is. His radius sizings prevent Rayleigh-Taylor implosion instability, yes? Have other fusion-drive concepts struggled with instability?And we see how Mach stems perfect focus, simply with spaced detonations. Do you suppose Winterberg knows this trick? Maybe posters can find more examples.
Quote from: LMT on 04/22/2024 12:55 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 04/22/2024 05:36 amFor a nuclear implosion you need nothing less than perfect sphericality and uniformity, otherwise the core will just "blorp" out the side. Yes that is the technical term. Imagine such text in a letter to Dr. Winterberg himself. Oho.-Of course, Winterberg 3F works with simply "uniform and homogenous" high explosive, which a MOX sphere surely is. His radius sizings prevent Rayleigh-Taylor implosion instability, yes? Have other fusion-drive concepts struggled with instability?And we see how Mach stems perfect focus, simply with spaced detonations. Do you suppose Winterberg knows this trick? Maybe posters can find more examples.I think everyone struggles with fusion instabilities. NIF certainly does:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6587/ab49f4/meta#artAbsthttps://lasers.llnl.gov/news/improving-understanding-of-nif-implosion-instabilitiesGeneral Fusion also struggles with stability.https://generalfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/aps-2018-magnetized-target-fusion-overview.pdfUnfortunately, the military applications of these technologies have limited the available information. Or perhaps fortunately, depending on your point of view.
Quote from: lamontagne on 04/22/2024 04:38 pmQuote from: LMT on 04/22/2024 12:55 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 04/22/2024 05:36 amFor a nuclear implosion you need nothing less than perfect sphericality and uniformity, otherwise the core will just "blorp" out the side. Yes that is the technical term. Imagine such text in a letter to Dr. Winterberg himself. Oho.-Of course, Winterberg 3F works with simply "uniform and homogenous" high explosive, which a MOX sphere surely is. His radius sizings prevent Rayleigh-Taylor implosion instability, yes? Have other fusion-drive concepts struggled with instability?And we see how Mach stems perfect focus, simply with spaced detonations. Do you suppose Winterberg knows this trick? Maybe posters can find more examples.I think everyone struggles with fusion instabilities. NIF certainly does:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6587/ab49f4/meta#artAbsthttps://lasers.llnl.gov/news/improving-understanding-of-nif-implosion-instabilitiesGeneral Fusion also struggles with stability.https://generalfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/aps-2018-magnetized-target-fusion-overview.pdfUnfortunately, the military applications of these technologies have limited the available information. Or perhaps fortunately, depending on your point of view.More on Rayleigh-Taylor instability there, yes. Winterberg explained why 3F avoids that, and we see above that Mach stem implosion can avoid that.What can you say, factually, about Winterberg's overlooked instability statement? You didn't calculate any 3F issue, correct? Some fact-check is needed there.Image: simulated Rayleigh-Taylor instability, LLNL.
I can't really comment on it, as I am neither a nuclear physicist or a weapons designer. I can notice that there are no mini nukes around, despite the fact that these might be a handy weapon. I also notice that no one seems to be pursuing this as a power source, despite the fact that it would be a useful process to generate heat, at a much smaller scale that what was studied in the past. A gain of 250 is nothing to sneeze at.From the principle of mediocrity, my assumption would be that it doesn't work, or else someone would have done it by now. An interesting question is why doesn't it work. Unfortunately, I don't have the tools to answer that.
Quote from: lamontagne on 04/22/2024 11:42 pmI can't really comment on it, as I am neither a nuclear physicist or a weapons designer. I can notice that there are no mini nukes around, despite the fact that these might be a handy weapon. I also notice that no one seems to be pursuing this as a power source, despite the fact that it would be a useful process to generate heat, at a much smaller scale that what was studied in the past. A gain of 250 is nothing to sneeze at.From the principle of mediocrity, my assumption would be that it doesn't work, or else someone would have done it by now. An interesting question is why doesn't it work. Unfortunately, I don't have the tools to answer that.You "can't really comment", or calculate an issue, or show contradicting research, but... No. 3F just surprised you.
Quote from: lamontagne on 04/22/2024 11:42 pmI can't really comment on it, as I am neither a nuclear physicist or a weapons designer. I can notice that there are no mini nukes around, despite the fact that these might be a handy weapon. I also notice that no one seems to be pursuing this as a power source, despite the fact that it would be a useful process to generate heat, at a much smaller scale that what was studied in the past. A gain of 250 is nothing to sneeze at.From the principle of mediocrity, my assumption would be that it doesn't work, or else someone would have done it by now. An interesting question is why doesn't it work. Unfortunately, I don't have the tools to answer that.3F was a surprise. When the Soviets saw it, they certainly did consider weaponization, as Winterberg himself noted. But prospective commercial value is for fast fleets; a novel need, thanks to SpaceX. The company that perfects safe and cheap 3F mass-production could have some real IP. Who makes, say, precision cryogenic plastics?