Re: H bombs

Randall R Randall (
Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:16:24 -0500

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 22:55:17 -0800 (PST) John K Clark <>
>On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 Eugene Leitl <>

> >>Me:
> >>the foam further from the fission trigger must receive weaker X
> >>and explode with less power, this would compress the fusion
> >>unevenly making a dud.
> >Maybe that's why they took polymer foam instead of polymer
> >and adjusted the geometry accordingly to compensate for that.
>Maybe, but then the design would be inefficient because if the foam
>was that ephemeral then most of the X rays energy would pass
>through all the foam and be wasted, it would not be available to
>compress the fusion cylinder.
>Why not use radiation pressure?

Because they had no good way to make high-energy X-rays
turn a right angle? The geometry of the device seems to
forbid anything except good X-ray mirrors, which would have
been used, I'm sure, if any had been available. If I understand
it correctly, the major reason we don't have X-ray lasers now
is that no mirrors exist for X-rays, so you need an extremely
high intensity source...a nuke, for instance.

> >There's a reason thermonuclear devices are so difficult to
>I wonder, are they difficult to build? Over 100,000 of the damn things
>been made and several hundred have exploded in tests, some with very
>designs, and yet there has not been one dud and most turned out to be
>powerful than expected.

Well, none we *know* about, anyway...:)

Wolfkin. | ICQ: 3043097
On a visible but distant shore a new image of man,
The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.
| Johnny Clegg

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]