Don't laugh (Sono-Fusion is BACK AGAIN) this time with a new experiment and new participants

[kiloVolts]

Xposted to alt.eng.explosives, alt.war.nuclear for expert opinion.

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of TNT
will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.

According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure deuterium
yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT / gram deuterium.

Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

The quantity of neutrons generated would not be measurable at the time of
the event nor afterwards.

You do not know what you are talking about.

However, you are still a candidate for employment at a US nuclear weapons
lab. You have the right attitude. Keep up good work.

[Carey Sublette]

Post by kiloVolts
Xposted to alt.eng.explosives, alt.war.nuclear for expert opinion.

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to irradiate a 70
kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.

Of course, that is not an explosion.

An explosion would leave many neutron-activated isotopes behind.

[coonass]

Post by Carey Sublette

Post by kiloVolts
Xposted to alt.eng.explosives, alt.war.nuclear for expert opinion.

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not.  All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to irradiate a 70
kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.

And there were, in fact, problems with harmful neutron and gamma-ray
doses being generated by at least a few hobbyists using deuterium in
their home-built inertial confinement "Farnsworth Fusors." No
fatalities that I'm aware of but exposures > several rem (5 rem is
enough to burn you out for the year in the nuclear industry under
ALARA these days).

[kiloVolts]

On Jan 6, 7:31 pm, coonass Wrote

Post by coonass

Post by Carey Sublette

Post by kiloVolts

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to irradiate a 70
kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.

And there were, in fact, problems with harmful neutron and gamma-ray
doses being generated by at least a few hobbyists using deuterium in
their home-built inertial confinement "Farnsworth Fusors." No
fatalities that I'm aware of but exposures > several rem (5 rem is
enough to burn you out for the year in the nuclear industry under
ALARA these days).

Please see my parallel post.

My personal opinion is that no such research should be conducted outside of
the military/industrial complex (whatever is left of it), because it is
potentially dangerous.

[coonass]

Post by kiloVolts
On Jan 6, 7:31 pm, coonass Wrote

Post by coonass

Post by Carey Sublette

Post by kiloVolts

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not.  All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to irradiate a 70
kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.

And there were, in fact, problems with harmful neutron and gamma-ray
doses being generated by at least a few  hobbyists using deuterium in
their home-built inertial confinement "Farnsworth Fusors."  No
fatalities that I'm aware of but exposures > several rem (5 rem is
enough to burn you out for the year in the nuclear industry under
ALARA these days).

Please see my parallel post.
My personal opinion is that no such research should be conducted outside of
the military/industrial complex (whatever is left of it), because it is
potentially dangerous.

I respectfully disagree.

Using the example you cite in which the death of a researcher working
with a D2O electrolysis cell was attributed to explosive recombination
of deuterium and oxygen over the cell, the radiological and chemical
explosive hazards were of similar magnitude - not very high, but in
this man's case unusual circumstances combined to cause his death.

There's nothing magic about the class of radiological hazards that
surround inertial confinement fusors that make these hazards worse
than the high voltage hazards which surround their normal operation
regardless of what feedstock goes into the reactor. You could use
hydrogen or boron vapor and get significant energy out of the system
with no radiological hazard at all, but still have a quite deadly high
voltage hazard from the grid voltage, a chemical detonation hazard
from the hydrogen if that is the feedstock, or an inhalation toxicity
problem from any gaseous form of boron used (about 80% of natural
boron supports a fusion reaction energetic enough that it has been
proposed as a fuel for commercial inertial confinement fusion power
generation).

Going back in electronic hobbyist history, you could adjust many older
types of color television tubes so that they created hazardous x-ray
flux. I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that operation of
color CRT monitors be restricted to the military-industrial complex
because while the hazard is a real one and could with the old design
of CRT have been created with a trivial adjustment of two or three
circuits, it was also a hazard that was of a low level of propagation
- no more than a handful of people would have been exposed to the
problem even had it existed in any particular case.

So it is with inertial confinement fusors - the radiation field
generated by what we might consider the worst plausible case - use of
D-T fuel as a feedstock in an IEC fusor - would be relatively small,
brief in duration, and no neutron activation products of any
importance would be generated over the span of operation of such an
IEC fusor.

The people at risk from this mode of operation would be limited to the
operator and any bystanders within a few dozen yards, and the
resulting hazard could be mitigated by enforcement of current legal
restrictions on civilian possession of tritium and education of
hobbyists and other researchers as to the nature of the hazard and how
it might be prevented. In any case, the magnitude of the hazard is
not significantly worse than the fire or electrocution hazards posed
by normal operation of an inertial confinement fusor with no feedstock
or a feedstock which causes no hazardous radiation output (e.g.
hydrogen-1).

[kiloVolts]

Post by coonass

Post by kiloVolts

Post by coonass

Post by Carey Sublette

Post by kiloVolts

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to
determine
if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one
gram
of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to
irradiate a
70
kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.

And there were, in fact, problems with harmful neutron and gamma-ray
doses being generated by at least a few hobbyists using deuterium in
their home-built inertial confinement "Farnsworth Fusors." No
fatalities that I'm aware of but exposures > several rem (5 rem is
enough to burn you out for the year in the nuclear industry under
ALARA these days).

Please see my parallel post.
My personal opinion is that no such research should be conducted outside of
the military/industrial complex (whatever is left of it), because it is
potentially dangerous.

I respectfully disagree.
Using the example you cite in which the death of a researcher working
with a D2O electrolysis cell was attributed to explosive recombination
of deuterium and oxygen over the cell, the radiological and chemical
explosive hazards were of similar magnitude - not very high, but in
this man's case unusual circumstances combined to cause his death.
There's nothing magic about the class of radiological hazards that
surround inertial confinement fusors that make these hazards worse
than the high voltage hazards which surround their normal operation
regardless of what feedstock goes into the reactor. You could use
hydrogen or boron vapor and get significant energy out of the system
with no radiological hazard at all, but still have a quite deadly high
voltage hazard from the grid voltage, a chemical detonation hazard
from the hydrogen if that is the feedstock, or an inhalation toxicity
problem from any gaseous form of boron used (about 80% of natural
boron supports a fusion reaction energetic enough that it has been
proposed as a fuel for commercial inertial confinement fusion power
generation).

If you wish to make any engineering progress in boron-11 + H-1 fusion you
need to move beyond the energy density restrictions of the gas phase. You
need to work in the liquid phase.

For a similar reason, ITER D-D or D-T fusion is a $9 billions boondoggle.

Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

"the fusion of about 0.5 g of deuterium/tritium mixture in its approximately
840 m^3 reactor chamber."

You've got a ginormously expensive tank that has less energy density than it
would have if it was 10% filled with biodiesel.

Of course ITER will not work. Of course LHC is a total write off. Europeans
and Middle Easterners are a class of morons. Talk about a conspiracy of
dunces. Groupthink is a weapon of mass stupidity.

What were you saying about the Novochuck agents?

Watch the movie "Jacob's Ladder" about 3-quinuclidinyl benzylate. It is a
true story about a weapon of mass brain damage.

Post by coonass
Going back in electronic hobbyist history, you could adjust many older
types of color television tubes so that they created hazardous x-ray
flux. I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that operation of
color CRT monitors be restricted to the military-industrial complex
because while the hazard is a real one and could with the old design
of CRT have been created with a trivial adjustment of two or three
circuits, it was also a hazard that was of a low level of propagation
- no more than a handful of people would have been exposed to the
problem even had it existed in any particular case.
So it is with inertial confinement fusors - the radiation field
generated by what we might consider the worst plausible case - use of
D-T fuel as a feedstock in an IEC fusor - would be relatively small,
brief in duration, and no neutron activation products of any
importance would be generated over the span of operation of such an
IEC fusor.
The people at risk from this mode of operation would be limited to the
operator and any bystanders within a few dozen yards, and the
resulting hazard could be mitigated by enforcement of current legal
restrictions on civilian possession of tritium and education of
hobbyists and other researchers as to the nature of the hazard and how
it might be prevented. In any case, the magnitude of the hazard is
not significantly worse than the fire or electrocution hazards posed
by normal operation of an inertial confinement fusor with no feedstock
or a feedstock which causes no hazardous radiation output (e.g.
hydrogen-1).

[kiloVolts]

Post by Carey Sublette

Post by kiloVolts

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to irradiate a
70 kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.
Of course, that is not an explosion.
An explosion would leave many neutron-activated isotopes behind.

Given that assertion, 70 LLNL employees must have screwed up their neutron
activation analysis during the investigation of the death of Andrew Riley.
Riley died as a result of an explosion while electrolyzing heavy water using
palladium/platinum electrodes. The explosion was so vigorous that bits of
his flesh adhered to the debris. The brisance or shattering effect of an
explosion is determined by kinetics. Rileys's death was claimed to be due
to explosive recombination of deuterium gas and oxygen. The kinetic isotope
effect is discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect

Where it is implied that the deuterium isotope effect retards reaction by a
factor of 6 to 10. What is really important to consider in the case of Riley's
death is the flame propagation speed of an H2/O2 mixture versus a D2/O2
mixture. Such data is a bit harder to come by. For H2/O2 flame propagation
velocities, I found this document:

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~jeshep/SOAR/AppA.PDF

For deuterium flame propagation I found this:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1950/naca-rm-e50c10.pdf

but there may be others. This 1950's NACA document appears to be a vetted
document and it may have been overlooked by the LLNL investigators. This
NACA document discusses deuterium flame velocity retardation from the slower
diffusion rate of the deuterium ion/radical.

The point is that, deuterium flame propagation would be an order of
magnitude less than that of a hydrogen flame. Careful study of the
literature shows that Riley was the only person to ever die during
electrolysis of water and that water was heavy water. There has been one
report of deaths due to an explosion of an industrial chlor/alkali cell but
Cl2/H2 is much more reactive energetically and kinetically than H2/O2 or
D2/O2.

I think that if the LLNL were to take these facts into consideration and
access documents that I cannot access, they would come to a revised
conclusion .

[Richard Schultz]

In sci.physics.fusion kiloVolts <***@3bsij.com> wrote:

: Rileys's death was claimed to be due
: to explosive recombination of deuterium gas and oxygen. The kinetic isotope
: effect is discussed here:
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect

In case anyone was still unsure whether spf's loudest coward has a clue.

: The point is that, deuterium flame propagation would be an order of
: magnitude less than that of a hydrogen flame. Careful study of the
: literature shows that Riley was the only person to ever die during
: electrolysis of water and that water was heavy water.

That was because P&F's apparatus chose to explode over a weekend when no
one was in the lab (and in any case was inside a hood).

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

[kiloVolts]

Post by Richard Schultz
: Rileys's death was claimed to be due
: to explosive recombination of deuterium gas and oxygen. The kinetic isotope
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect
In case anyone was still unsure whether spf's loudest coward has a clue.
: The point is that, deuterium flame propagation would be an order of
: magnitude less than that of a hydrogen flame. Careful study of the
: literature shows that Riley was the only person to ever die during
: electrolysis of water and that water was heavy water.
That was because P&F's apparatus chose to explode over a weekend when no
one was in the lab (and in any case was inside a hood).
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

Richard, are you still claiming to be an employee of the Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel? There is no evidence that
you are a current employee there. There is evidence that you held a
sessional instructors position there at one time, but Bar-Ilan University
has disavowed any knowlege of you.

Do you watch American TV reruns in Israel? Are you on some kind of "Mission
Impossible".

"Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it, is... As usual, should
you or any member of your I.M. Force be captured or killed, the secretary
will disavow any knowledge of your existence. This tape will self-destruct
in five seconds. Good luck, Jim."

Is your name really Richard Schultz? Or is really Jim Something Or Other.

Oh BTW, seven citations for your greatest scientific publication is a real
achievement. You are head and shoulders above Archimedes Plutonium.

[Richard Schultz]

In sci.physics.fusion kiloVolts <***@2csij.com> wrote:

: Is your name really Richard Schultz?

Is your name really kiloVolts? If you can't figure out whether or not
my name is really Richard Schultz, then you are even dumber than you appear
from your posts to s.p.f.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <***@world.std.com>

[David Kerber]

In article <q_V8l.31241$***@newsfe23.iad>, ***@3bSiJ.com
says...

Post by kiloVolts

Post by Carey Sublette

Post by kiloVolts

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to irradiate a
70 kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.
Of course, that is not an explosion.
An explosion would leave many neutron-activated isotopes behind.

Given that assertion, 70 LLNL employees must have screwed up their neutron
activation analysis during the investigation of the death of Andrew Riley.

In what way? Can you explain this assertion?

....

[kiloVolts]

Post by David Kerber
says...

Post by kiloVolts

Post by Carey Sublette

Post by kiloVolts

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to irradiate a
70 kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.
Of course, that is not an explosion.
An explosion would leave many neutron-activated isotopes behind.

Given that assertion, 70 LLNL employees must have screwed up their neutron
activation analysis during the investigation of the death of Andrew Riley.

In what way? Can you explain this assertion?

Fuck you moron. You don't snip my explanation and then ask for a new
explanation. I will not take guff from morons like you. Go fuck yourself in
the ass.

[David Kerber]

In article <tO39l.69256$***@newsfe06.iad>, ***@4mSiJ.com
says...

Post by kiloVolts

Post by David Kerber
says...

Post by kiloVolts

Post by Carey Sublette

Post by kiloVolts

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of
TNT will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure
deuterium yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT /
gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.

OTOH 2.6 nanograms of D-T generates enough neutron energy to irradiate a
70 kg man with 1000 rads, quite lethal.
Of course, that is not an explosion.
An explosion would leave many neutron-activated isotopes behind.

Given that assertion, 70 LLNL employees must have screwed up their neutron
activation analysis during the investigation of the death of Andrew Riley.

In what way? Can you explain this assertion?

Fuck you moron. You don't snip my explanation and then ask for a new
explanation. I will not take guff from morons like you. Go fuck yourself in
the ass.

You only gave an explanation of why deuterium/oxygen burning wouldn't
have given that powerful of an explosion. You didn't say anything about
why you thing the neutron activation analysis was wrong.

[David Kerber]

In article <0GR8l.30186$***@newsfe21.iad>, ***@3bSaD.com
says...

Post by kiloVolts
Xposted to alt.eng.explosives, alt.war.nuclear for expert opinion.

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of TNT
will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure deuterium
yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT / gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.
The quantity of neutrons generated would not be measurable at the time of
the event nor afterwards.

It's not the neutrons themselves you're looking for, but rather the
activation products produced by the neutron flux.

....

[kiloVolts]

Post by David Kerber
says...

Post by kiloVolts
Xposted to alt.eng.explosives, alt.war.nuclear for expert opinion.

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not. All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of TNT
will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure deuterium
yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT / gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.
The quantity of neutrons generated would not be measurable at the time of
the event nor afterwards.

It's not the neutrons themselves you're looking for, but rather the
activation products produced by the neutron flux.

Hey moron. They buried Andrew Riley's electrolyis debris products for six
months before analysis. Who killed JFK? It was you and I. Why did Columbia
go down? American incompetence. We live in a bullshit society and it has
gone global. Good luck with sonofusion.

[B***@hushmail.com]

Post by David Kerber
says...

Post by kiloVolts
Xposted to alt.eng.explosives, alt.war.nuclear for expert opinion.

I don't know who Andrew Riley is, but it's very simple to determine if
an explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction (either fusion or fission)
or not.  All you need is a couple of radiation detectors.

What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of TNT
will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.
According to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ, fusion of pure deuterium
yields 82.2 kT/kg. That implies a yield of 82.2 tonnes TNT / gram deuterium.
Now, 1 gram TNT = 0.000001 tonnes TNT. That implies that fusion of
1.21654e-8 grams ~ 12 nanograms of deuterium will kill a man.
The quantity of neutrons generated would not be measurable at the time of
the event nor afterwards.

It's not the neutrons themselves you're looking for, but rather the
activation products produced by the neutron flux.

Hey moron. They buried Andrew Riley's electrolysis debris products for six
months before analysis. Who killed JFK? It was you and I. Why did Columbia
go down? American incompetence. We live in a bullshit society and it has
gone global. Good luck with sonofusion.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Fuck that. We've been living in a bullshit society since WWII. In
Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, the state carried the burden of
disinformation under propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. With the
advent of Western economic progress, disinformation is made to turn a
profit by Hollywood, the print media and now electronic media. There
is nothing new under the Sun. What goes around comes around.

[Richard Casady]

Post by kiloVolts
What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of TNT
will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.

Any number of people, drunks fishing for example, have had a stick of
dynamite go off in their hand. Half a pound, half nitroglycerine.
Nitro has 25% more energy per weight than TNT, by the way. Only
injuries apart from the hand are from flying finger bone. Nobody has
died yet.

Casady

[Me]

Post by Richard Casady

Post by kiloVolts
What you say is not true. The explosive force equivalent of one gram of TNT
will likely a man, nearby; 50 grams with certainty.

Any number of people, drunks fishing for example, have had a stick of
dynamite go off in their hand. Half a pound, half nitroglycerine.
Nitro has 25% more energy per weight than TNT, by the way. Only
injuries apart from the hand are from flying finger bone. Nobody has
died yet.
Casady

Actually there hasn't been 50% Nitroglycerine Dynamite around for quite
a while. The highest percentage, in normal trade, is the venerable
RedCross40 Ditching Powder, and it is getting harder to find, all the
time. Nitro Based powder is a thing of the past, in modern Energetic
Materials Science. There are much better powders available, with much
better Safety Records, Stability Parameters, and prices.

Me

[Richard Casady]

Post by Me
There are much better powders available, with much
better Safety Records, Stability Parameters, and prices.

Well. ANFO is much cheaper, and less sensitive. Nitro is volatile, and
some people are so sensitive to it you might as well call it an
allergy. I heard that nitromethane can be detonated with a blasting
cap. If that is true, I am somewhat surprised nobody ever detonated a
55 gal barrel at the drags. AA cars burn 5 to 7 gal/sec so there is
plenty of it around. Or maybe someone has and I failed to read about
it.

Casady

[Me]

Post by Richard Casady

Post by Me
There are much better powders available, with much
better Safety Records, Stability Parameters, and prices.

Well. ANFO is much cheaper, and less sensitive. Nitro is volatile, and
some people are so sensitive to it you might as well call it an
allergy. I heard that nitromethane can be detonated with a blasting
cap. If that is true, I am somewhat surprised nobody ever detonated a
55 gal barrel at the drags. AA cars burn 5 to 7 gal/sec so there is
plenty of it around. Or maybe someone has and I failed to read about
it.
Casady

There is a whole catagory of energetics called Cheddites that are based
around NitroAromatics. My favorite was Rack-a-Rock, but monoNitroMethane
isn't really Cap Sensitive, as in detonation, as a liquid, but certainly
volatile and Flammable.

Me

[Richard Casady]

Post by Me
There is a whole catagory of energetics called Cheddites that are based
around NitroAromatics. My favorite was Rack-a-Rock, but monoNitroMethane
isn't really Cap Sensitive, as in detonation, as a liquid, but certainly
volatile and Flammable.

Toluene is aromatic. but I didn't think TNT was a cheddite, so I did a
google. DNT plus chlorates for example.. Interesting. If you are
making DNT why not just add the third nitro and have done with it?

Casady

[Me]

Post by Richard Casady

Post by Me
There is a whole catagory of energetics called Cheddites that are based
around NitroAromatics. My favorite was Rack-a-Rock, but monoNitroMethane
isn't really Cap Sensitive, as in detonation, as a liquid, but certainly
volatile and Flammable.

Toluene is aromatic. but I didn't think TNT was a cheddite, so I did a
google. DNT plus chlorates for example.. Interesting. If you are
making DNT why not just add the third nitro and have done with it?
Casady

TNT isn't a Cheddite, it is a compound, and adding the third Nitro Group
isn't as easy as it looks.

Me One who knows about such things

[Richard Casady]

Post by Me

Post by Richard Casady

Post by Me
There are much better powders available, with much
better Safety Records, Stability Parameters, and prices.

Well. ANFO is much cheaper, and less sensitive. Nitro is volatile, and
some people are so sensitive to it you might as well call it an
allergy. I heard that nitromethane can be detonated with a blasting
cap. If that is true, I am somewhat surprised nobody ever detonated a
55 gal barrel at the drags. AA cars burn 5 to 7 gal/sec so there is
plenty of it around. Or maybe someone has and I failed to read about
it.
Casady

There is a whole catagory of energetics called Cheddites that are based
around NitroAromatics. My favorite was Rack-a-Rock, but monoNitroMethane
isn't really Cap Sensitive, as in detonation, as a liquid, but certainly
volatile and Flammable.

Since the 1970s, the commercial name for an explosive compound used as
an explosive primer for shotgun cartridges. It contains 90% potassium
chlorate, 7% paraffin, 3% petroleum jelly, and traces of carbon black.

{pasted from Wiki}

Those people are nuts. Chlorate primers have been gone half a century
and more. As they are highly corrosive, lead azide has replaced them.

Casady

[Me]

Post by Richard Casady

Post by Me

Post by Richard Casady

Post by Me
There are much better powders available, with much
better Safety Records, Stability Parameters, and prices.

Well. ANFO is much cheaper, and less sensitive. Nitro is volatile, and
some people are so sensitive to it you might as well call it an
allergy. I heard that nitromethane can be detonated with a blasting
cap. If that is true, I am somewhat surprised nobody ever detonated a
55 gal barrel at the drags. AA cars burn 5 to 7 gal/sec so there is
plenty of it around. Or maybe someone has and I failed to read about
it.
Casady

There is a whole catagory of energetics called Cheddites that are based
around NitroAromatics. My favorite was Rack-a-Rock, but monoNitroMethane
isn't really Cap Sensitive, as in detonation, as a liquid, but certainly
volatile and Flammable.

Since the 1970s, the commercial name for an explosive compound used as
an explosive primer for shotgun cartridges. It contains 90% potassium
chlorate, 7% paraffin, 3% petroleum jelly, and traces of carbon black.
{pasted from Wiki}
Those people are nuts. Chlorate primers have been gone half a century
and more. As they are highly corrosive, lead azide has replaced them.
Casady

Either Lead Azide or Lead Styphonate, which is more common in the last
two decades.

Me who did a lot of original Research in this area back in the 60's