It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HED physics

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Everything I am doing on this site is part of an overall scheme for my future actions. Therefore, the answer is YES!

I realize that overtly "using" an international website for my own purposes may be seen by some as egotistical and overbearing, but since this is the site I felt would most suit my intentions, I have made a specialized effort to create an "information campaign," similar to the disinformation / misinformation efforts I assisted with earlier in my life.

There are specific revelations I have planned, along with the assistance I have provided to my former military officer friend who will have a "conspiracy" book that will be released later in the year. While I want to help promote his book, which I believe will blow people away, I have my own informational campaign planned.

Since I have now admitted to purposely having an agenda, hopefully all of the other posters out there will understand when I write the things I will write in the future. I have been told I have a good sense of humor, but that is not really planned to be used around here, because I am so serious about what I am doing here on ATS.

Check out my profile and I have now listed additional information and posted pictures to support my statements about my previous training and experience in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and NASA. Believe me, I have a whole slew of past orders, documents, and other supporting papers to verify I am who and what I say I am.

I, along with the author of the book I was mentioning, have even prepared "packages" of information to be released if, in the opinion of those persons who oversee those packages, either of us have met our ends in any suspicious fashions.




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Yes, i have viewed your credentials.

I look forward to reading your future posts and will follow with interest what you have to say.

Thanks for the information so far. It is all new to me and, although i live in the UK, the relevance of it has certainly not gone unnoticed.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
You are very welcome, SilverStar.

You might want to contact the people listed earlier that are protesting the Orion Laser Facility, and get their take on having this operation on UK soil. I am sure they will provide you useful information.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Silver Star,

Can you tell me the background of the photo from your avatar?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Sorry about that.

Here is a non-classified report:

High-Energy-Density Physics: With the advent of the current generation of high-power lasers, a high-energy-density environment can be routinely reproduced in a laboratory. Energy densities in excess of 1012 ergs/cm3 exist in the core of stars...

High-energy-density physics encompasses all the physics issues pertinent to the production, characterization, and utilization of plasmas in such a high-pressure environment...



No, I wouldn't be "worried", not by that. Well, you might worry that it's sort of underbuilt or that there's basic design flaws that will keep it from working and thus be a big waste of money instead of a medium sized one.

You might also worry that no-one would spend the money to do dense plasma research except the gubmint, and if they don't do it, we'll have big gaps in our understanding of plasma ignition. We're going to need to know that stuff soon.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Bedlam, that is a good point. We will need to know this eventually.

Look at the history of sub-atomic physics. There had been a lot of theory, research, and debate for decades. Then, WW II comes along, and it goes from theory to a fission bomb in four years, with the expenditure of huge sums of money. Later, as a side-effect, we also built fission nuclear power plants.

I may be overly cynical, but I don't expect the pure research to be limited to the peaceful use of this technology for the construction of future power plants, regardless of their overall benefit to society.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Basic scientific research frequently leads to multiple types of utilization, once the technology is developed.

There is a great potential for energy production. People have discussed "cold fusion" for decades, but it has never been proven, and according to our current level of knowledge, is impossible.

"Hot fusion" has been proven, but only in thermonuclear weapons. In fact, that is why they are called "THERMO"-nulear weapons. A fission weapon creates the heat required to allow the fusion part of the weapon to function.


Well, you can definitely DO it. Hot or 'lukewarm' fusion, that is. There's no question about that one. Give me a sack of money and I'll make you a nice one you can park in your game room. Heck, for that matter, you can buy neutron sources off the shelf that get their neutrons from fusion. At one time Daimler-Chrysler would sell you a "Fusion Star".



Always before, only the heat of a fission weapon can create a hot enough environment for fusion to occur on a significant basis. That is why HED physics is so unique. HED physics can create a localized temperature high enough to replicate the heat at which the fusion portion of a nuclear weapon kicks in. This, potentially, would allow a fusion weapon without the fission device. THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, because it could revolutionize future nuclear weapons.


No, no it doesn't. What it allows is for you to test your hydrocode results. It isn't a weapon in itself. I think this is where you're taking a left turn into the alfalfa. Both these systems are freakin' gigantic. They're not for making bombs with, even if you could, which you can't. They're for exploring the physics OF fusion weapons, since we can't make test shots anymore.



It could, potentially, create a selective-yield weapon that could be tuned-up or tuned-down to allow a selective yield, depending on the target being selected. It could even allow a "small" fusion device, perhaps as low as a 500 kt yield, or even less. The lower the yield, the more likely it is to be used!


We already have dial-a-yield fusion weapons. USAF's favorite, the B-61, has four settings, the lowest of which is 300kT. IIRC, that's pretty much all we have in the European theatre at the moment, and most of them oddly enough are hidden in Belgium for some ungodly reason. When I was in, there was a lot more variety, but in 1989 about the time I got out of the Army, they started decommissioning most everything but the B61.



Because it would be a fusion device, it would be a "clean" nuclear weapon, and as such, a weapon that could be functionally used on a battlefield, rather than as a massive weapon that would NOT be useful, if you had your own troops in the area.


The term 'clean' has a different meaning for a weapon designer than for the typical layman or most certainly the usual movie writers and directors. It doesn't mean "no radiation or fallout", it's the percentage of fissionable material that actually fissions.

There are several problems with your statement. I'll hit a few of them. First, the research being done doesn't end with a weird laser triggered fusion bomb, so the entire 'OMG NIF is pure evil thing' is off base.

Next, let's say for the sake of argument that you have a fairy-made fusion device that has no Teller-Ulam holraum at all, just a chunk of Li6D or whatever you're imagining. It magically goes 'boom'. What do you get? A very low explosive yield, but what you do get is a crap load of very energetic neutrons. Essentially, a pure fusion device is a neutron bomb. And you'll get neutron activation of everything in range. You'll get relatively short-lived neutron activation of light elements on the ground, and you'll get long lived fallout sort of neutron activation from bomb residue, because the flux will be high enough to cause a different sort of neutron activation there - you can pick up a second neutron before you've had a chance to do beta decay. That produces very long lived activation products.

If you want your magic fusion bomb to go 'bang' with some enthusiasm, you'll have to do what we do now - wrap that puppy in U238. Most of the 'bang' in a modern thermonuke comes from the U238 being fissed by the fusion secondary's neutron output.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Look at the history of sub-atomic physics. There had been a lot of theory, research, and debate for decades. Then, WW II comes along, and it goes from theory to a fission bomb in four years, with the expenditure of huge sums of money. Later, as a side-effect, we also built fission nuclear power plants.


I don't want to get in trouble, so I won't say much. It's a lot worse than you think.

While WW2 was happening, physics kept a'goin' faster than you know, and THAT is the real conspiracy theory that most of the 'good ones' rotate around, from the Philadelphia Experiment to 'triangles'.

I'll say there's no reason to expect that in the last 60 years, all we've gotten out of science are bigger or more oddball nukes. And like Forrest Gump, that's about all I want to say about that.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 

My avatar is an acoustic locator dish that was built in Kent, England in (i think!) 1928. The photo has been touched up somewhat.

It was a precursor in many ways to radar, again a technology that was pushed through due to WW2, which is a little ironic.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Again, Bedlam, you make some very interesting and accurate points, and you are obviously highly trained in this area. While this will be beyond what most people would understand, think of the difference of whether your device created Sr-89 instead of Sr-90. This is the type of change from a fission device to a fusion device that could make it more attractive.

Obviously, the NIF is not, in any way, related to a functional bomb system. However, the nuclear pile under the stadium at the University of Chicago appeared to be so large that nothing it could do, in any way, could produce a functional device - except for the theories it was confirming. Yet only with those theories confirmed could the other teams work toward making their "gadget," based upon those very confirmed theories. By proving the theories at NIF, that would allow other teams elsewhere to do what they intend to do.

Hopefully I'm not too far out there in the alfalfa.

Edited for clarification

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Truth1000]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Silver Star
 


I had that suspicion. Those devices were used to locate the directions of the sounds of aircraft formations. Then, by using simple mathematical formulas, they could roughly triangulate the location of the incoming aircraft to produce a likely intercept point.

Thanks, Silver Star!



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Again, Bedlam, you make some very interesting and accurate points, and you are obviously highly trained in this area.


Your tax dollars at work, I'm afraid. In theory, we were supposed to be ready to give our all in the Fulda Gap back in the Army days. After college, my first job was with someplace you've heard of out west, not at design level, a bit below. Think of it as "unscheduled repair".



Yet only with those theories confirmed could the other teams work toward making their "gadget," based upon those very confirmed theories. By proving the theories at NIF, that would allow other teams elsewhere to do what they intend to do.

Hopefully I'm not too far out there in the alfalfa.


I do know that Sandia has done some - ahem - interesting work on small stuff in the fission arena as part of the "zero maintenance" contract they got.

As far as fusion, the pesky part is that it doesn't want to. You've got that radiation problem, the one where it wants to cool down as the 4th power of the temperature, and tends to radiate away all the heat you apply, the more, the faster. There's a way to make that go without fission, maybe, and that's not easily done, and it also falls into a sort of poorly understood plasma physics, which is what I guess you're talking about.

On the other hand, have you been apprised of where that comes from these days? It's one of those things not many people have been exposed to. They get really unhappy about discussing it. My view on it is - might as well skip the fusion bomb part and go right for...the other. It goes bang very nicely.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam


No, I wouldn't be "worried", not by that. Well, you might worry that it's sort of underbuilt or that there's basic design flaws that will keep it from working and thus be a big waste of money instead of a medium sized one.

You might also worry that no-one would spend the money to do dense plasma research except the gubmint, and if they don't do it, we'll have big gaps in our understanding of plasma ignition. We're going to need to know that stuff soon.


"Going to need to know that stuff, soon"

Can you elaborate on

a) "that stuff" (dense plasma?)
b) "going to need"
c) "soon"

Please continue to discuss actual physics.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Bedlam,

Were you with the Cav in the Fulda Gap itself, or more in the regard of supporting the halt of the FOF? I was over in the 3rd ID (Rock of the Marne), and we were guarding the southern section of the Inter-German border. I was in Germany from 84 - 87. Was that similar to your support timeframe?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Now the NIF has changed their tune - from "Look, we're making energy!" to "Don't look - nothing to see here!"

Very interesting for only an energy program. BUT, it would be expected if there is a potential use that is not to be publicly explained!!!



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
What is being alluded to here?

You seem to be supporting each others experiences and suspicions but the physics and abbreviations are obviously going over my head!

It is intriguing though.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Just like before WW II, there had been speculation about how the atomic theories could be transformed into a weapon of amazing power, in recent decades, there have been some very interesting physical theories of some particular components of sub-atomic structures that could be as big of a step forward from the weapons we have as the atomic bombs were to the conventional bombs of their day.

Many aspect have seem unfeasible, but as technology advances, things that were always impossible before can eventually become feasible. Years ago, I was told by some extremely knowledgable guys that if we could just make a few certain breakthroughs, some of these impossibilities could become possible. To this end, Bedlam seems more knowledgable in this field than me, so I would defer any further answers to his expertise.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 

Thanks for that.

I hope i havent interrupted your discussion but i needed a bit of 'dumbing down' to help me follow the thread.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Can you elaborate on

a) "that stuff" (dense plasma?)
b) "going to need"
c) "soon"

Please continue to discuss actual physics.


a) energetic plasma physics as relates to fusion
b) we're going to need a deeper understanding of it
c) in order to pursue fusion power as a viable resource

d) I have been.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Bedlam,

Were you with the Cav in the Fulda Gap itself, or more in the regard of supporting the halt of the FOF? I was over in the 3rd ID (Rock of the Marne), and we were guarding the southern section of the Inter-German border. I was in Germany from 84 - 87. Was that similar to your support timeframe?


Was there from '85 to '89, when the base started relocating. I had just finished my commitment, stuff was changing and there was a rumored stop-loss that hit in 91, IIRC. I didn't want to go through the relocation, and I had been offered the Gramm-Rudman 3 month early or 3 years more deal and was afraid of the stop, with good reason - lots of my buddies got caught and did the whole 20.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join