Re: "Mr. Fusion" (was Re: NANO: Nanonukes (Was: Goo prophylaxis))

Forrest Bishop (
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:50:52 -0500 (CDT)

>> Eliezer wrote:
>> >Inertial confinement only operates on a single pellet, the fuse. (Ha ha!)
>> >The problem with inertial confinement is delivering enough energy.
>> >Quantum-well lasers are something like 10 to 100 times as efficient, and I
>> >believe they aren't difficult to construct given nano. Englobe the whole
>> >pellet with lasers instead of using one. Then fire. I think that you could
>> >probably deliver at least 1,000 times as much energy as in modern inertial
>> >confinement. It'd take a gigajoule to set the thing off, sure, but then you
>> >have a fusion explosion and you can use it to set off arbitrarily larger ones.

>> ***Very, very good Mr. Yudkowsky.***
>> What you have started to describe is a device I
>> conceived several years ago and have not published, called "Mr Fusion". This in
>> fact constitutes the first public disclosure. And yes, it is very much like
>> current laser inertial confinement, except the EMP front is vastly more
>> structurally refined. Each laser is individually addressable. It may be possible
>> to convert some portion of the released energy directly to electric by using the
>> QM well as receivers.
>> See "The Optical Assembler" interview at the NanoTechnology magazine website for
>> a description of a similar array

>"Shotgun creativity... a way of life." (*) I hope this excuses all the missed pellets.

I dismiss much of your writings as the itchy trigger finger of youth. Please
try not to shoot from the hip online, it detracts from your credibility...

>And thanks for the compliment.

I appreciate original thinking, 'specially when it's mine!

>But, by the by, where is the NanoTechnology magazine?

I think. You can reach it from my links: