News about Woodford and Industrial Heat

  • Is someone saying hot fusion doesn't work? Doesn't exist?


    http://www.sonicbomb.com/modul…ontent&pa=showpage&pid=20


    SOT in French is a good descritption... The above mentionned nuclear process is the so called Lithium fusion/fission bomb. Has nothing to do with hydrogen fusion. As a consequence of this long time hidden knowledge the US still controlls all nuclear data related to LIthium. They also force IAEA to publish wrong data about e.g. Lithium nuclear radius.

    Thanks to Sachrow we know most details about the Lithium (aka hydrogen) bomb.

  • Quote

    SOT in French is a good descritption... The above mentionned nuclear process is the so called Lithium fusion/fission bomb. Has nothing to do with hydrogen fusion. As a consequence of this long time hidden knowledge the US still controlls all nuclear data related to LIthium. They also force IAEA to publish wrong data about e.g. Lithium nuclear radius. Thanks to Sachrow we know most details about the Lithium (aka hydrogen) bomb.


    And people accuse me of not reading. By the way I think where you wrote "Sachrow," it's Sakharov you're thinking of. Great man. Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov .


    No hydrogen fusion in fusion bombs? That would be news to the people who worked on Project Ivy in the 1950's and more particularly, Ivy Mike which used pure liquid deuterium as fusion fuel and yielded >10 megatons. In retrospect, a good part of that yield was fission occurring in the 5 ton natural uranium "tamper" and additional fission in the plutonium "sparkplug" at the center. But about 1/3 of the yield was deuterium-deuterium fusion, chosen for its comparative ease of analysis. https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ivy.html


    When I was younger the story of the Teller-Ulam weapons fascinated me. So much power in so little volume. And large amounts of cryogenic temperature liquid deuterium, no expense spared, in Ivy Mike. In fact. there is a fascinating, personal, stark, and beautifully written one page story about "Mike." It's written by the person responsible for maintaining and pumping the huge quantity of liquid deteurium required for "Mike" and what the very unique machine that did the job was like. The story is found here and I recommend it highly: http://www.as.utexas.edu/~wheel/writing/sleet_sue.text


    If you don't want to be an object of ridicule, Wyttenbach , get your facts together before you insult someone. And I am sure I will be the one to be regularly be accused of never reading anything.

  • Project Ivy

    For those who are fascinated by bombs .. the Russians had the biggest

    The sausage was not a bomb..it was an 80 tonne experiment300px-Russian_Bear_%27H%27_Aircraft_MOD_45158140.jpg

    The shrimp was a bomb of 10 tonnes, made of lithium deuteride

    The Tzar bomba was a bigger bomb, 27 tonnes.

    It needed a specially designed Bomber to carry it

    The Sausage device used liquid deuterium fuel which made for an incredibly huge and complex machine.

    The “Sausage” device detonated on Nov. 1, 1952 at Bikini Atoll during Operation Ivy.

    It weighed 82 tons and required a small chemical plant to fuel it.

    The 10-and-a-half-megaton explosion produced a mile-wide crater and a 20-mile-high mushroom cloud.

    But the Sausage was a physics experiment, not a working weapon.

    During the next Pacific nuclear test series, America tried out its new lithium-based bomb fuel.

    The Shrimp weighed only 10 tons and was roughly the size of a deployable weapon.

    The lithium deuteride within its armored innards, derived from natural lithium compounds, consisted mostly of lithium-7.


    The Tzar bomba was a demonstration to the USA that

    Mother Nature the USSR could screw you royally. (adapted from SOT)

    The three-stage thermonuclear weapon was primarily boosted by deuterium-tritium

    and believed to have used Lithium-deuteride fuel for fusion stages.

    9

  • He used to work for that notorious counter-cultural fringe group, the U.S. Army.

    There is some truth in that joke, like engineers and even more, the military guys (and ladies) have a strong tendency to value facts and risks more than theory and social opinions. When the stakes are great, they just make the job, because their life, our nation life, is at stake. They also depend less on other's opinion, more on facts. Coporate engineers, are nor far, as their company's survival is always at stake.

    I hear many conspiracy/lobby theory against LENR by big oil, but from Amoco to Shell, from Toyota to MHI, from BARC to LANL, ENEA and CEA, I see the engineers have done the job, but were blocked by academic or political politics.

  • I hear many conspiracy/lobby theory against LENR by big oil, but from Amoco to Shell, from Toyota to MHI, from BARC to LANL, ENEA and CEA, I see the engineers have done the job, but were blocked by academic or political politics.


    Managers, investors and sometimes inventors are very simple minded as the believe: The winner takes all.


    This is prehistoric evolutionary tactics invented by brainless mammals or even goes back to bacteria.



  • One thing we have to do to sort this mess is stop saying "google" research. It was University of British Columbia at Vancouver who got money from google to do some research. It is google-funded and labs were coordinated by google, but each lab was an independent university lab. This is a fact, and something we should hang on to, since there are so few facts.

    It is the skeptics who first characterized this using the "google" word as if it was actually a google campus project. It was not. Let's not fall for it!
    Don't let Internet meme's direct our vocabulary.


    The independence of the laboratories involved is key. They decided what was ultimately to be done. The University lab made the experiments.


    I speculate that being new to this science, they wanted fresh eyes, they thought they could do it easy enough, and they didn't consult previous Fails to prevent re-inventing disaster, which they have clearly done.


    I speculate: The UBC lab had no Idea Nature would pounce like that, (although I believe that someone had to - and whoever that was let it slide). They are still thinking like seven of twenty, that information and rationality will make everybody happy that a revolutionary new energy source that's going to change the living arrangements on Earth is welcome in all sectors. It is not.


    The fact is UBCVancouver came out with negative results, without showing how they did it. So right there, you have the pathoskeptic wetdream to project all over on.


    Nevetheless, I'm getting my script together to start explaining this. I'm keepin it simple, and short, and then I just walk away, because I know, true information doesn't convince in this situation. This battle is lost, but I am still hopeful of winning the War.

  • Quote

    Time to get back on topic, this is not a thread about 'the bomb'.


    I think the issue was that Wyttenbach was saying that H-H fusion (or in Ivy Mike, D-D and D-T fusion) doesn't occur. Or at least can't make a bomb. I think that is what he was saying. Anyway, it's what I responded to. And just to finish off the topic, robert bryant , there was in fact a flyable bomb design based on Ivy Mike.


    Quote

    Due to its physical size and fusion fuel type (cryogenic liquid deuterium), the Mike device was not suitable for use as a deliverable weapon; it was intended as an extremely conservative proof of concept experiment to validate the concepts used for multi-megaton detonations. A simplified and lightened bomb version (the EC-16) was prepared and scheduled to be tested in operation Castle Yankee, as a backup in case the non-cryogenic "Shrimp" fusion device (tested in Castle Bravo) failed to work; that test was cancelled when the Bravo device was tested successfully, making the cryogenic designs obsolete.

    (Wikipedia on Operation Ivy Mike)

  • I speculate: The UBC lab had no Idea Nature would pounce like that, (although I believe that someone had to - and whoever that was let it slide). They are still thinking like seven of twenty, that information and rationality will make everybody happy that a revolutionary new energy source that's going to change the living arrangements on Earth is welcome in all sectors. It is not.

    Perhaps UBC will be circumspect about publishing in Nature from now on..

    or make sure any publication is not accompanied by political commentary.


    Is Nature worried about declining revenue?

    Their traditional publishing powerbase has been upset by the Internet


    but do they really need such twitter marketing.

    As for Curtis Berlinguette ..retweeting... an experienced chemist but

    a babe in the woods as concerns 'politics'

    maybe he should done a few social science papers

    in his undergraduate time.

  • From today's Guardian.



    FCA intervention follows questions about oversight despite rush of withdrawals from troubled flagship fund

    Kalyeena Makortoff , Julia Kollewe and Phillip Inman

    Tue 18 Jun 2019 17.56 BSTFirst published on Tue 18 Jun 2019 13.41 BST

    Neil Woodford

    Neil Woodford’s Equity Income Fund was suspended on 3 June after clients rushed to withdraw their cash. Photograph: Troika/Alamy

    The City regulator has launched a formal investigation into the suspension of Neil Woodford’s flagship investment fund amid criticism that the regulator was asleep at the wheel.

    In a new blow to the one-time star fund manager, the Financial Conduct Authority chief executive, Andrew Bailey, revealed the investigation in a 10-page letter to Nicky Morgan, the Treasury select committee chair and MP.

    The MP had asked the regulator to provide details of its contact with the embattled stock picker before his £3.7bn Equity Income Fund was closed to withdrawals on 3 June, and questioned the FCA’s “alertness to the problems”.

  • Link’s decision to continue with the suspension of investor dealing in the Equity Income fund is to ensure investors’ interests are protected. It affords Neil and the team the required time to execute the investment strategy that will deliver the best possible outcomes for you, our investors.

    We understand the frustration, inconvenience and anxiety that the suspension of the LF Woodford Equity Income Fund is causing you. Many of you have raised questions regarding the suspension and this update includes a Q&A style video where Neil addresses the most frequently asked and pressing questions we have received from clients and investors.

    We will continue to keep you updated on the progress Neil is making on repositioning the fund for reopening. In the meantime, please keep sending us your questions.