So your claim is that when "2 km/s" is referenced on page 3 of the reference, the first which obviously is about the implosion speed after the shock is not rela

So your claim is that when "2 km/s" is referenced on page 3 of the reference, the first which obviously is about the implosion speed after the shock is not related to the second -- which is the necessary speed for the lead. So you repeat the claim of 2km/s for a vortex in the GF reactor. A few decimeters irregularity in the bottom of the vortex for the lower plasma injector invalidates that, which you certainly know. I have no physics background (cs/chemistry), but considering e.g. your insisting on the exact definition of Asimov's prediction above (which I acknowledged in my first comment), I believe you're trolling. So I'd really like to see other's arguments on this. I'm not going to spend time to get the cobwebs out of the part of my head where old math studies are stored for what likely is a troll. I have lost too much time as it is. Edit: I don't think you really care, but cavity compression for a 1 m sphere was done 2012. Google for a pdf called "Update on Progress at General Fusion". ("Fusion Power Associates, 2012 Annual Meeting")