Talk-Polywell.org

*

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... WMwegltEaw

*

No mention of the type of device.

Wouldn't that be ironic.

This thought made me literally LOL:

Does North Korea have a FOIA?

It would be very ironic if they were doing Polywell or DPF type experiments.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1104a ... usion.html

Experts, however, doubted the North's claim.

"Nuclear fusion reaction is not something that can be done so simple. It's very difficult," said Hyeon Park, a physics professor at Postech, a top science and technology university in South Korea.

Park, who conducts fusion research in South Korea, said the North may have succeeded in making a plasma device and produced plasma, a hot cloud of supercharged particles - only one preliminary step toward achieving fusion.

He said outside experts need to know the scale of the experiment and method of generating plasma to assess the details of the North's claim.

Hmm, I have my doubts about North Korea's claims about revolutionizing the world's power generation. Let's all remember what the North Korean 'revolution' looks like so far, from space:

Does North Korea have a FOIA?

Yes, but over there it stands for Fire On Individual Asking.

TallDave wrote:

Does North Korea have a FOIA?

Yes, but over there it stands for Fire On Individual Asking.

No, it's "Fire On Idiot Asking."

Remember, international experts think D-T and have no job security in return for producing fusion before 2030, let alone putting DEMO online.

NK, however, seems to have a lot to gain by making an aneutronic DPF work, since that's the cheapest and possibly the fastest set of experiments.

Aeronaut wrote:Remember, international experts think D-T and have no job security in return for producing fusion before 2030, let alone putting DEMO online.

NK, however, seems to have a lot to gain by making an aneutronic DPF work, since that's the cheapest and possibly the fastest set of experiments.

Yes, from my limited understanding of what Learner is doing, the demonstration of at least near breakeven P-B11 fusion in a DPF can be pursued on a shoe string budget, both in cost and resources needed. Of course pursuing this to a useful product is another matter. But, N. Korea certainly is capable of focusing on a project and does not suffer from competing viewpoints getting in the way. And, N. Korea certainly likes to brag and that motive alone is enough for them to try something*.

The statement from the S. Korean 'expert' is silly. Plasmas are exceeding easy to create. All you need is fluorescent light, or a grape and a microwave oven. And brief perusal of the fusor community demonstrates how easy it is to do real fusion with deuterium. And, despite it's shortfalls, N. Korea has succeeded (with outside help) in accomplishing the difficult task of developing an atomic bomb.

*The pursuit of something for bragging rights is not necessarily a bad thing. It drove the Space race in the 1960's and it is what athletes do every day.

Dan Tibbets

Actually N. Korea is still very far away from producing a nuclear bomb, they did some enrichment, but their last nuclear tests was not even near the power of a nuclear bomb, but more near to a "dirty" bomb.

Than, like you said, bragging about something will push them or someone else to prove or disprove what they brag about, and any tiny help to push the interest on alternate fusion systems is something that is wellcome.

As vague as their statements are, everything they claim would be consistent with them building a Hirsch Farnsworth fusor. I am certain this is well within their capabilities. It would prove they are technologically on par with high school students in the free world.

Ouch!

Giorgio wrote:Actually N. Korea is still very far away from producing a nuclear bomb, they did some enrichment, but their last nuclear tests was not even near the power of a nuclear bomb, but more near to a "dirty" bomb.

Than, like you said, bragging about something will push them or someone else to prove or disprove what they brag about, and any tiny help to push the interest on alternate fusion systems is something that is wellcome.

What are you smoking. They certainly have tested a fission bomb, twice at least, so far.

I agree they haven't produced a fusion bomb yet.

IntLibber wrote:

Giorgio wrote:Actually N. Korea is still very far away from producing a nuclear bomb, they did some enrichment, but their last nuclear tests was not even near the power of a nuclear bomb, but more near to a "dirty" bomb.

Than, like you said, bragging about something will push them or someone else to prove or disprove what they brag about, and any tiny help to push the interest on alternate fusion systems is something that is wellcome.

What are you smoking. They certainly have tested a fission bomb, twice at least, so far.

I agree they haven't produced a fusion bomb yet.

Success of the tests is subjective.
They have built devices and attempted full yield. Percentage of yield seems to be the issue. Strong fast fizzles? Muted Pops? Not sure how you would classify it.

IntLibber wrote:

Giorgio wrote:Actually N. Korea is still very far away from producing a nuclear bomb, they did some enrichment, but their last nuclear tests was not even near the power of a nuclear bomb, but more near to a "dirty" bomb.

Than, like you said, bragging about something will push them or someone else to prove or disprove what they brag about, and any tiny help to push the interest on alternate fusion systems is something that is wellcome.

What are you smoking. They certainly have tested a fission bomb, twice at least, so far.

I agree they haven't produced a fusion bomb yet.

First - You are confusing between a nuclear TEST and a nuclear BOMB.
Something is building a device able to create a suitable environment for a nuclear fission, something else is having the knowledge, the technicians and the equipment to reduce it to fit inside a bomb.
A quick google search should help you to clarify this difference.


Second - There is no proof until now that the two test explosions was produced from a nuclear fission, the odds are that it was standard explosive:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 934/1499-a



Third - Even if (and that is a big IF) it was a nuclear fission detonation, the estimated yield (from the seismic activity monitoring stations) gave indications of less than 1 KTon for first test and a couple of KTon for second test.
This is way off the 20Kton yield of the Hiroshima event.


Fourth - I do not smoke, it's not healthy.