Lockheed-Martin and fusion powered fighter, real-life Millennium Falcon

Picture I

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Lockheed-Martin corporation is trying to make fighter or airplane, what would use Fusion reactor for flying. That seems like something from Science fiction books, but in this case, would this fusion motor become the real thing. The fusion motor doesn't mean that the aircraft needs nuclear reactors or the fusion would be self-sustain.


In those concepts, what is theoretically investigated in tens of years, the fusion will give only the driving force. The motor itself is theoretical very simple, the fusion element would be conducted thru the reactor, and then the lasers would ignite the artificial sun inside or outside the reactor. Those lasers can get their electric power from fuel cells, conventional turbo-generators, what are rotating by jet turbines or by nuclear reactors.

"Daedalus"
Picture II

Also, windmill-generators what is used in some Electronic warfare aircraft can be used in that role (Picture IV). That kind of fusion reactor was planned to interstellar spacecraft "Daedalus" what was planned by interplanetary society. In that solution, the fusion reactor would use assisted by another propulsion system, what gives power to those lasers. Of course, those lasers can use acetylene lights in their lightning tubes, and that would decrease the need for electric power.

Picture III

Those lasers can be carbon-monoxide lasers, what are most powerful chemical lasers in the world. Their mission is to create enough energy, that fusion would start in the middle of them. That motor would be the very revolutionizing solution in aviation, and that would give change to travel in the universe at least in our own solar system and also in the atmosphere of planets.

Picture IV

In some wildest dreams, that fusion powered aircraft would look like the normal fighter, and it air intakes would use as the port for the interstellar ramjet. In that fictional motor, the powerful magnetic field would suck the ions thru the fusion motor, and in this process, the magnetic field would pressure that ion flow like wire, what goes thru the reactor, and then the laser rays would ignite the fusion. The problem of that system would be auxiliary power, what is needed to make those laser-rays and magnets what would press that ionic flow.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

https://www.space.com/37146-nuclear-fusion-rockets-interstellar-spaceflight.html

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesignsfusion.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUUuMAsaJBU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeJCneMkxQk


Picture I

http://cdn3.theeventchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/lockheed-martin-patents-nuclear-fusion-powered-fighter-jet.jpg

Picture II

http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/fusion-engine.jpg

Picture III
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/george-h-miley-presentation-on-nuclear.html

Picture IV

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8g2DinNhXCU/maxresdefault.jpg

Why somebody hates artists and especially painters?

"Scream" Edvard Munch
1893
(Picture 1)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

All of us have different opinions, about the art. And we will not normally shoot those artists because of their work. If somebody will send artists to prisons because they paintings will not satisfy those persons, that will wake the investigators interested in those works. The reason for arresting of somebody because of some paintings seems quite small and strange for our democratic society. And if the painting is some kind of the political manifest, we must ask what makes it the political manifest?


Why the picture cause reaction, that some police-officers will come to artists home with sub-machine guns. Are those pictures some kind of danger for national security, and another question is, what means term "national security?". Is that the security of military industry? Or is it the national leader's personal security? And are the arrests made for hiding some leaders personal secrets, that they were in some places, where they were not? When we are observing person like Lev Trotsky, we must understand that this person was in New York during the Russian revolution in 1917.



And when we are thinking about the connection between Trotsky's place, where he stayed during the revolution and hate him, we must consider that maybe the reason for killing that man was, that somebody else was claimed, that he was with Trotsky in some very important place, and when Trotsky was in New York, that story was uncovered the lie. So did that revolution began too early, that the persons would not be in right places when the operation began. The revolution began too early in St. Petersburg, and the front was opposite direction, to what was planned. Maybe the leaders of the revolution thought that they will start to attack the Pacific coast of Russia to St. Petersburg and Moscow.

But the plans were not working because the people would start to hit the winter palace, and that caused the situation, that some key leaders were in wrong place.  And Lenin arrived in St. Petersburg after the revolution happened in that town. There was no evidence that Stalin ever was at the front, and he just claimed that he was the political prisoner. And the evidence was the prison card, what could be made by Okhrana, the Tsar's political police. And if Stalin was the agent of that organization, would that man be in trouble. He just claimed that he was the metal worker, who was the member of "secret communist cell".


But when we are looking about the "purges" what was me by him, this thing would get the different meaning, because GPU:s terror was targeted to metal industry and engineers who worked in there. So was Stalin hiding his past of the Okhrana's agent? This would explain, why this man hated those engineers. Because if Stalin ever was talked to real metal engineer about the things, what happened in the factory, this man would catch by lie, because if he was Okhrana's agent would this man know anything about the work in metal industry, and he would not know about the missions of the men, who work in there. And that would uncover the dirty secret about the man, what would cause death to him.


 When we are thinking of some portraits we must understand that if there were the landscape where some great battle was to happen, and some leader doesn't remember that or this person remembers a wrong place, that would be very destructive for the reputation of that person. Those leaders of the revolutions might make about the personal glories around them, and that's why they are so sharp about their reputation. And in the case of the Russian revolution, might be some fakes in those votes, about the leadership of the state.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union

Picture 1

https://www.rotadisi.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Munch-scream-Oslo.jpg

The renaissance and revolution in thinking

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The Renaissance is the ability to change and modernize the way of the thinking and talking. Here is one thing what people normally avoid. They keep diaries, what nobody else should see. But why those people don't publish their diaries on the Internet. Almost every person in the world has some good ideas, and sometimes I wonder why they can’t publish their thoughts? It’s not prohibited to say the opinion about things.


And the opinions can be different than president or grandmother's opinion about some things.  When we are talking about the renaissance in the modern way of thinking, we are talking about the revolutionary way of thinking. In the thinking, the term “revolution” might not mean that the person must be denied all things what that person might learn before.


The religion is not always bad for the thinker because it will give them more aspects than the fully materialistic way to think. When we are talking about materialism, we are talking about pure science, and pure science is not always the good way to think. When people are free to think, the thinker must dare to think the things that are not ethically or even legal things. Revolution of the thinking is sometimes hard for the thinker, and when we are talking about thinking, we must realize that all the thinking must not be scientifically proved.


 If we need to proof everything, what we will say and write we ever can’t talk or write anything. That’s why professional thinkers are usually called the philosophers. When we are talking about the philosophers, they might sometimes be very tough. We normally think that religion is normally some kind of very sensitive or peaceful thing, what has the strong tradition. But the religion might be very tough and violent against the other religions.


Many people don't ever imagine, that religion is a part of the philosophy. In the religions is often spoken of some holy men, who met the god. But nobody mentioned that this particular person is met the god by themselves. Or they ever brought any evidence about this meeting with the god. There is always some other person, who met this holy person. And other just send messages, what this mysterious holy man tells to them.


Why some people are against the religion, is that they can’t touch the god. They say that they are atheists. But they always forget, that atheism is also one of the religions, and the atheism is the very good way to make limits for thinking. Atheists say that “they don’t believe in god because there is no evidence of the existence of that person”. But if we all think that way, we ever can't think anything.


When we are talking about the God, we don’t usually think that the thing will mean the person who is technically superior to other persons. This doesn’t mean that the technology was very complicated. That meant that those persons had knowledge what other people would not have. That God might have the receipt of the gunpowder, and that person uses that receipt for controlling the people. Renaissance means modernization.


The capacity for taking modern things in the life will make the person strong. If some person has been said something about ten years ago, doesn’t mean that this person was wrong at that time. But when the things are changing, the things what that person said ten years ago have been changed wrong.


Here I mean the things like the Internet-based A level examination have been said in the dawn on the Internet. In that time the net was not trustworthy enough, but in this day we must say, that the equipment and the net are increased so much, that we can change our mind in good conscience.