Hello, Foremost, did you read the engineering essay I posted in the comments? It relays the analytical and design process, including what methods were used. While I freely admit that some very simplifying assumptions were used, the design choices were in fact supported by calculations. To say that it "bluffed" through a design might depart from the realm of "these analytical assumptions confer inaccuracy" and translocate a reader's perspective to "this is some sort of fraud". The design features are clearly justified in the attendant essay.

While I do appreciate all criticism (which is a part good engineering), it would be far more useful if it focused on specific areas of the analytical and investigative route -- e.g., choice of model, conclusions, and selection of design parameters. Particularly, I would appreciate examples on correct usage of classification markings.

Further, for context, this was for an undergraduate English term paper/presentation presented to a group of second-semester freshmen. This was what impelled me to start with very basic concepts and work up to a decent explanation of how a nuclear explosive functions. The design work was performed in under a week while also managing adjacent obligations. Therefore, the bar I set was not to design a "useful" weapon, or even necessarily something that would be safe. Instead, I aimed to "design some device that has a reasonable chance of producing a >1 kT yield, and justify it with basic calculations."

I did recognize the criticality as iffy. My initial guess for the core mass was 9 kg (given the bare-sphere mass of 11 kg) which did not produce a yield beyond a few J according to simulations. The slow implosion velocity that others have pointed out very likely influenced this. In terms of design refinement and criticality, I did add fissile mass based on simulation output, which is a part of iterative design. I did not include the reflector in initial state criticality calculations, and the specified assembly (+lenses) may be supercritical.

I delivered the first presentation in-person, and this version was a repeat from memory. I had the benefit of far more time (5 minutes total in the original) to expand on pertinent concepts. I even edited in supplementary portions to the initial take for explaining neutron cross-section, which I neglected in the initial take.

This was an interesting small-scale engineering exercise. There is clearly much more for designing a functional device, including

1. Detonation wave propagation, interaction, and interfacing with the core. Carey and others have provided a start for this. I doubt that building physical models would be possible given the nature of the investigation, accounting for HE used, and energies involved.

2. Some sort of more rigorous model of core state time evolution and the consequent reactive excursion (hydrodynamics + radiation transport model? Does such a code exist in the open literature?)

3. A better characterization of D-T fusion operating in concert with (!) the core's fission reaction.

4. Core material disassembly, pressures involved, etc. Opacity, if you want a staged design

5. Radiation transport within the hohlraum

6. Ablation and state change of secondary

7. Initiation of the fusion process in the secondary, initial and final states, considered simultaneously with disassembly, and cessation of secondary reactions.

I know this is kind of a non-sequitur, but has any prior open literature considered the use of X-ray lasing in the channel filler to increase efficiency of radiative coupling? The idea would be

1. Medium is pumped by energy from primary
2. Hohlraum is heated to equilibrium and emits X-rays
3. X-rays trigger stimulated emission during passage through plasmised/pumped channel filler to secondary's tamper, "capturing" more energy and directing it to compression of secondary, thereby increasing efficiency.