From: Forrest Bishop (forrestb@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Sep 03 1997 - 14:50:52 MDT
>> 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.
Forrest:
>> ***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:
http://www.speakeasy.org/~forrestb
Forrest
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:48 MST