The problem with Cold Fusion and How small can a nuclear reaction be?

Another must-read piece from Jeff which fills in an important gap in the public's knowledge of just what is possible in the field of small yield nuclear explosives and the implications this has on the controversial scientific field of research into Cold Fusion for energy production

Uranium filled Crooks/Geissler tube - German cold fusion experimentation in the 1920s

Uranium filled Crooks/Geissler tube – German cold fusion experimentation in the 1920s

One of the great secrets of the two world wars is the theft from Germany of countless of billions of dollars worth of intellectual property. We are slowly discovering, as time goes by, that a lot of the technology taken from Germany by the victorious allies was suppressed. I have written before about the German atomic experiments and how the widely known programme lead by Heisenberg to build a reactor in order to produce weapons grade plutonium was far from the only research project in Germany at that time that was aimed at developing atomic explosives. Here, Jeff explains why the German atomic explosives research has returned to the forefront of modern nuclear science and why cold fusion research has long been suppressed; in short, cold fusion devices will eventually blow up in an atomic explosion and it is not at all difficult to do, therefore the powers that be do not want anyone messing with this stuff.

__________
by Jeff Smith

The problem with Cold Fusion and How small can a nuclear reaction be?

How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely low yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of “several Pounds of TNT.” .018 kt was unveiled in 1961 and in 1996, the Tamalpais test with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified:

OPERATION HARDTACK II.

HARDTACK II was the continental phase of Operation HARDTACK. The oceanic phase, HARDTACK I, was conducted in the Pacific from 28 April through 18 August 1958. Phase II, conducted at the Nevada Test Site from 12 September through 31 October 1958, consisted of 19 nuclear weapons tests and 18 safety experiments. 

Hardtack II

This program produced the following information for a regular 0.01 kt yield, air ignition: Fireball max light radius = 25.4 meters, Max time light pulse width = 0.011 seconds, Max fireball air burst radius = 10.6 meters, Time of max temperature = 0.0032 seconds, Area of rad. exposure = 0.12 sq. miles; Blast wave Effects: Overpressure = 5 lb/sq. inch (160 mph) radius = 0.09 km, 1 lb/sq. inch radius = 0.26 km; Underground ignition: Crater diameter = 56 feet with a Richter magnitude of 3.52.

note that this declassified video has been ‘sanitised’ and portions still classified (1997) were removed.

Thermal radiation damage range is significantly reduced by clouds, smoke or other obscuring materials. Surface detonations are known to decrease thermal radiation by half. A neutron bomb produces much less blast and thermal energy than a fission bomb of the same yield by expending it’s energy by the increase in the production of neutrons.

Even the older neutron bombs produced very little long-term fallout, but they made considerable induced radiation in ground detonations. The half-life of induced radiation is very short and is measured in days rather than years for a neutron bomb.

According to the work of Walter Hermann Nernst, 1929, Zeitschrift magazine, Germany. “Hydrogen will dissolve into cretin metals as if the metal was acting like a dry sponge absorbing water.” (The cold fusion debate circa 1929).

Walter Nernst (1864-1941) | Winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1920

Walter Nernst (1864-1941) | Winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1920.

If Uranium is electrically charged with deuterium (a form of hydrogen) and it is properly dissolved into the metal. Beyond a certain point a critical threshold will occur and it will explode causing a controlled nuclear {fission-fusion} reaction.

1929……. This was known by the Germans in 1929. Bohr knew it too. This is why they stopped cold fusion. Mini-nukes………

If you place a uranium shield around an explosive core that is properly tampered and compress it, the radiation produced is no longer a secondary effect imposed by the need of a critical mass but it becomes a primary effect.

These small new weapons have a very limited radiation effect so they load down the outer layer with extra uranium that increases the explosive effect. These new devices eliminate the need for a critical mass. (Ted Taylor, PHD, DOE) The Curve of Binding Energy. 1973.

As you can see the concept of the mini nuke dates back to 1973 or even earlier. There is no more need to form a critical mass in order to make a small cheap nuclear weapon under 3kt. in blast effect.

The problem with cold fusion is that all metals will absorb hydrogen, some much better than others. Uranium and other fissile materials will absorb it uncontrollably and at some point it will explode with a force greater than what a molecular explosive of the same mass will produce.

This is the problem with cold fusion; runaway explosive force that cannot be stopped. It is not a matter of if but when.

At first you get a simple catalytic reaction but once it reaches a critical threshold it will explode; you cannot stop the reaction from occurring and it can happen with any metal not just fissile material.

This is the fundamental principle that takes place in a hydrogen bomb but on a much grander scale. The hydrogen plasma attacks the fissile material in a very rapid nuclear reaction, producing fusion on a grand scale. Cold fusion just does it on a much smaller scale.

This is why it will never be commercially viable. You can never predict when it will go bang.

It may be days, weeks, months or years but eventually it will go bang. Cold fusion is a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off and in some labs it has already.

This is why DOE shut down all unauthorized research into it. Home-made Mini nukes.

Most likely they will regulate the sale of deuterium next. You will need a license to have it.

Keshe knows this stuff and it is the basis for his so-called ‘Magrav’ home reactor technology.

Some old cold fusion experiments from 1920’s Germany

cold fusion 2

Uranium filled Crooks/Geissler tube - German cold fusion experimentation in the 1920s

Uranium filled Crooks/Geissler tube – German cold fusion experimentation in the 1920s

This Uranium filled Crooks/Geissler tube was an early prototype of the so called Farnsworth Fussier of the early 1960’s that use electrostatic confinement and compression of the gas plasma. The Germans were playing around with this stuff back in the late 1920’s early 1930’s etc. When they used a uranium target and deuterium gas it threw off massive amounts of neutrons. So the Germans in certain ways were more advanced than their WW2 US counterparts. With the US team it was “how big can we make it”. But with the German’s restricted resources it was “how small can we make it”.

Bohr even suggested this concept as the preferable route to making a weapon because implosion was too complex and plutonium production from reactors would be unnecessary for a small working weapon. As he said – how big does it need to be in order to be effective.

Making an A bomb by means of forming a massive critical mass and imploding it was the hardest and crudest way of splitting the atom that I have ever seen.

The German route was slower but from a pure physics stand point much more elegant and far simpler in it’s design. Being a hybrid fission fusion fission process it truly was the way to go. Now over 75 years later et voila – back to the future again.

Now this is the route to modern weapons design and not critical mass implosion of the 1940’s.

It’s funny how history repeats itself.


9-11 Syllabus and VT Nuclear Education Series – 2016

  1. The Problem with Cold Fusion and How small can a Nuclear Reaction Be?
  2. The B-61, the more Usable Nuke
  3. VT Nuclear Education: North Korea Fission-Fusion (Hydrogen bomb) Device Claim Doubted

______________

9-11 Syllabus and VT Nuclear Education Series – 2015

  1. The Secret of America’s Doomsday Waste
  2. VT Nuclear Education: The History of Nuclear Weapons Design 1945 to 2015
  3. VT Nuclear Education: The Uranium Hydride Bomb
  4. VT Nuclear Education: Subcritical and microfission explosives
  5. VT Nuclear Education – Freon and the Hohlraum
  6. The Secret Nazi role in Building the Atomic Bomb
  7. How the Nazi A-Bomb Worked
  8. VT Nuclear Education: Critical Mass
  9. VT Nuclear Education: Laser and Nuke Weapon Calculator
  10. VT Nuclear Education: Germany
  11. 9/11 Science: Craters and Explosive Damage
  12. Neutron Bombs and Other Toys
  13. NEO: Building Nuclear Case Against Saudis
  14. VT Nuclear Education: The Secrets of EMP Weapons
  15. VT Nuclear Education: Explosive Properties of Reactor Grade Plutonium
  16. Nukes on Yemen, Confirming Proofs: Yield Estimation from Illumination Time
  17. Nukes on Yemen, Confirming Proofs: Introduction to Nuclear Operations
  18. Nukes on Yemen-Confirming Proofs: Calculating Nuclear Blast Yield from the Flash
  19. How Israel Was Busted Nuking Yemen
  20. Saudis Have Israel Nuke Yemen for Them
  21. VT Warning of EMP Plot Confirmed by Guardian
  22. VT Nuke Education: Thorium Warnings
  23. VT Nuclear Education: CIA/Iran Trial and more disclosure
  24. NEO – CIA Torture Report Ties Cheney/Bout to 9/11 Nukes
  25. The DOE Defends Nuclear 9/11

______________

9-11 Syllabus and VT Nuclear Education Series – 2014

  1. Too Classified to Publish: Bush Nuclear Piracy Exposed
  2. Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed
  3. 9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers “Off the Scale”
  4. Doc Submitted By Russian Intel
  5. Constructing the Nuclear Child
  6. VT Nuclear Education Series
  7. Nuclear Education Series: Dimona Classified
  8. VT Nuclear Terrorism Education Series
  9. VT Nuclear Education: Undeniable Proof of 9/11 as a Nuclear Event
  10. VT Nuclear Education: As the Hammer Drops
  11. VT Nuclear Education: Mossad/N. Korea Links, MOX
  12. Nuclear Roundtable: America’s Nuclear Arsenal
  13. Officials Cite “Thermo-Nuke” in 9/11 Demo
  14. VT Nuclear Education: Fission Based Thermobaric Weapons
  15. IAEA investigators: Audit reveals US, not Iran the Problem

VT Supporting Material on 9/11, Nuclear Physics and Disclosure Issues

  1. VT Nuclear Education: Anti – gravity
  2. NEO – Mini Nukes and M16: The Economy of War (must read)
  3. VT Nuclear Education: Nukes in Iraq, Confirmation UPDATED
  4. VT Flexing Its Nuclear Muscle (must read)
  5. Nuclear 9/11 Revealed: Theories and Disinformation, the Misguided and the Inhuman (must read)
  6. VT Nuclear Education: Tactical Nuclear Warfare (must read)
  7. VT Nuclear Education: Early Reactors
  8. IAEA investigators: Audit reveals US, not Iran the problem (must read)
  9. VT Nuclear Education: History of Mini-Nukes (must read)
  10. VT Nuclear Education: Answering the Hype (must read)
  11. VT Nuclear Education: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Atom Smasher (must read)
  12. VT Nuclear Education: LENR Neutron Distribution
  13. Einsteins Theory on Magnetic Buoyancy
  14. VT Science: Fuel Cell Technology
  15. VT Science: The Farnsworth Fusor
  16. VT Science: HAARP
  17. Fusion: Junk Science For Rubes
  18. NEO – Nuclear Threats Enter the Mainstream (must read)
  19. VT Science: NASA’s Low Energy Fusion VooDoo/DooDoo
  20. The Connection Between Aurora and Black Triangles (Redux)
  21. Jeff Smith on Upcoming Able Danger Leak
  22. VT Nuclear Education: Japan
  23. VT Nuclear Education: Detonations and Deceit
  24. 9/11 Hokum: Deconstructing Christopher Bollyn and Steve Jones
  25. Why are the Commanding Generals being Sacked?

Related Posts:



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on May 31, 2016, With 8663 Reads Filed under Investigations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

8 Responses to "The problem with Cold Fusion and How small can a nuclear reaction be?"

  1. nawlins  June 8, 2016 at 6:37 am

    Keep in mind that the ultimate purpose, outside of making things that go BOOM, is the use of this technology to create useful electrical power. Also keep in mind, that the best fission tech provides us with is still nothing more than a bloody steam engine. A very fancy, very expensive, and very dangerous, steam engine. All we did was replace an oil boiler for a nuke boiler. This new process is supposed to generate electrical energy directly from the “reactor”, instead of going through all the intermediary stuff to harness steam in a turbine with turns a generator to get the same electricity. Keeping in mind the ultimate “peaceful” use for this technology is the generating of electrical power, it is important to not abandon other tech that will do the same thing without the problem of going BOOM. By all means, keep at it with this stuff, as it could provide ultra compact, lightweight delivery. Just don’t forget the other stuff out there right now.

  2. kaho  June 3, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    I agree with Kirby that the pressure P inside a bubble should be inversely proportional to the bubble radius R. But this relationship is only valid for classical — i.e. macroscopic — bubbles under conditions of static equilibrium. In fact one has that the pressure P multiplied by the area pi x R^2 has to be equal to the surface tension sigma multiplied by the circumference of the bubble, and one thus obtains the equation P x pi x R^2 = sigma x 2 pi X R, from which the relationship P = 2 sigma / R results. But this relationship is no longer valid when the bubble has a size comparable to the intermolecular distance. At best on might then postulate a smaller value for the surface tension. One should then realize that the value of sigma approaches zero together with R.

  3. kaho  June 3, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    A more accurate title would have been “How small can a nuclear chain reaction be?”
    Because all nuclear explosions are chain reactions. Or at least, that is what I have picked up over the years.

    A chain reaction is like an avalanche that begins with only a small snow ball, that creates additional snowballs in its track as it moves towards the valley. Each secondary snowball then creates a certain number of tertiary snowballs, that in their turn create quaternary ones, et cetera …

    The avalanche stops when all the snow has reached the valley, and its magnitude depends upon the amount of available snow.

    For the nuclear chain reaction the concept of “mean free path” is important. This is the distance that a neutron can move on the average without hitting another atomic nucleus, and thereby cause a nuclear reaction that releases more neutrons. There is a good analogy with shooting arrows in a forest : “How far can an arrow travel in a forest without hitting a tree?” Considering this question, one will realize that most arrows shot in a small forest will not hit any tree at all. But in a big forrest all arrows will hit a tree sooner or later. Thus one arrives at a good understanding of what the concept of “critical mass” means.

  4. joetv  June 2, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    All the equations have their place. Mini-nukes exist, and it appears they have been used many times, from NYC 911, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq maybe China. Anyone with evidence of the use of such weopons should share it.

  5. John Kirby  June 1, 2016 at 4:19 am

    Typo there it should be 3.14D/3.14rxr, which gives 2/r. Inversely to r, but now twice the prssure!

  6. Worker Bee  June 1, 2016 at 2:43 am

    “Keshe knows this stuff and it is the basis for his so-called ‘Magrav’ home reactor technology.” – JS

    So has Keshe found a way around the problem, or will his units eventually explode?

    • 321  June 2, 2016 at 4:04 pm

      Exactly. This is what I want to know. Also, some fb comments mention LENR (another term for cold fusion i assume) and how it is safe. Info on that would be nice as well.

  7. John Kirby  June 1, 2016 at 2:33 am

    We know that nuclear fusion is possible, viz hydrogen bombs, and that it depends on exteme pressure/temperature.

    The pressure in a bubble due to surface tension is force/area, which is the circumference divided by the cross sectional area, or 3,14/3,14rxr, (pi D over pi R squared) which becomes 1/r. So the pressure in a bubble is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the radius. A bubble at its creation has an infinitely small radius and thus has infinitely high inernal pressure. So if we are using deuterium we can have fusion. Fleishman and Pons probably came across this phenomenon.

    I am not a physicist but thats my theory, open for comment/criticism/attack.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network