Re: Better not put this in your HPR!

I personally think the construction of micro or nano-nukes is a positive step forward......what better way to take out a specific city block? or a cave? or a bunker? and I always wanted some nano nukes so I could nuke antz hills.....can you say teeny tiny mushroom clouds are your friends?

Anyway on a more serious note, I wonder if this gamma radiation could somehow be harnessed as a rocket propulsion force instead? for space travel?

shockie B)

Could be considered a warhead. Should be considered a warhead. > >
formatting link
> While you're at it, you shouldn't put it in your pants pocket either..... > > -Fred Shecter NAR 20117 > > -- > ""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply. > >
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Loading thread data ...

forward......what better way to take out a specific

I could nuke antz hills.....can you say teeny tiny

be harnessed as a rocket propulsion force instead?

Read "Project Oriobn" by George Dyson (Freeman Dyson's son). The use of high yield, smallsized, "focused" nuclear weapon detonantion as a propulsion method was considered and explored. It is possible that this developement is related/inspired by the work done on Orion. The following link is to the book on Amazon

formatting link
Mark A Palmer

TRA 08542 L3

Reply to
Mark A Palmer

MAKE THAT "PROJECT ORION"...I hate these fat fingers I have....

Mark Palmer

by George Dyson (Freeman Dyson's son). The use of

formatting link

Reply to
Mark A Palmer

Well, stimulated emission of radiation is easy enough for electrons above the ground state... why not nuclei too?

Reply to
john k

No. Just ask them.

How does Brian McDermott relate to Buzz McDermott?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

"The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved."

Why not use this new thing for a positive, like generating super cheap Electricity? (If I read this right, sounds almost like perpetual motion .)

HDS

Reply to
HDS

Because the energy needed to create the isotopes in the first place, exceeds what comes out? I think the quote above refers only to the final triggering process that releases the stored energy.

Reply to
BB

Look back at that statement in context. I read that as releasing 60 times the 'triggering' energy, not 60 times the original 'pumped in' energy. If I light a bonfire with a match, the bonfire releases 1000's of times the triggering energy.

Reply to
DaveL

Don't forget, folks -- this thing, used as a weapon, is in the same category as depleted uranium. That is, a UN-banned radiological weapon. Oh, well.

As a fuel source it might be cool, but think of the cost! NOT an alternative to hydrazene (-zine, whatever).

Reply to
Marty Schrader

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.