Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:41 pm Post subject:
Ah its been so long since I've done research on that.
Some quick things you can google are:
quantum theory of gravity
unified field theory
gravitons
subatomic gravity
IIRC, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is that researchers are mainly concerned in overcoming electrostatic forces rather than gravitional forces. Because in a plasma state, atoms are stripped into e- and protons, fusion is really all about uniting a proton with another proton. Essentially, the repulsion between the two becomes incredibly intense and because of the sheer intensity and proximity, gravitational forces are assumed to be zero or extremely close to. However, as with all complex systems, a minor perturbance may be enough to be the difference between a chain reaction or one that terminates spontaneously.
It maybe that we are approaching the problem from the wrong angle and thus tomak and such maybe working on flawed principles. This could be why sustainable fusion hasn't been attained. Of course, my ass is doing the talking at this point and not my head
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:00 pm Post subject:
0mar wrote:
IIRC, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is that researchers are mainly concerned in overcoming electrostatic forces rather than gravitional forces. Because in a plasma state, atoms are stripped into e- and protons, fusion is really all about uniting a proton with another proton. Essentially, the repulsion between the two becomes incredibly intense and because of the sheer intensity and proximity, gravitational forces are assumed to be zero or extremely close to. However, as with all complex systems, a minor perturbance may be enough to be the difference between a chain reaction or one that terminates spontaneously.
Off the top of my head, I can't see that gravitational issues other than Newtonian are relevant in plasma physics, as you point out. I've a degree in physics and applied physics, and had professors working on plasma physics, but do not claim to be an expert. But still, the gravitational forces seem irrelevant. It's the electromagnetic forces that are the issue. Now it could be that classical gravitational forces cause some torque complications in the plasma, but that is not a theoretical problem in the sense that new gravitaitonal theories are required.
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: Nuclear Fusion
Old, old discarded news, I am afraid.
Besides, the last thing mankind needs is fusion.
Seal our fate, it would. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Note that the scales are logarithmic; they made remarkable progress re the triple product in the last 30 years (5 orders of magnitude). OTOH, the logarithmic scale means that still an order of magnitude is to be tackled. Anyway, I do think that ITER will at the very least be damn close to Q=1 or even better; this, however, does not mean at all that you can produce power economically.
Quote:
The future of electricity is currently wind, coal, nuclear, solar, hydro. Those five sources are what you are likely to see as natural gas and oil decline.
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:47 am Post subject: Re: Nuclear Fusion
I love how this has an almost 3 year gap in between the posts. Does that speak to you about how often there's any interest in this?
I'm not saying give up. I'm saying it won't make a difference in time short of being very lucky. And by difference I don't mean completely replace. I mean any difference at all. _________________ Azreal60
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:55 am Post subject: Re: Nuclear Fusion
azreal60 wrote:
I love how this has an almost 3 year gap in between the posts. Does that speak to you about how often there's any interest in this?
I'm not saying give up. I'm saying it won't make a difference in time short of being very lucky. And by difference I don't mean completely replace. I mean any difference at all.
No, this thread was one in limbo via the Energy/Conservation forum split, and not available to the public.
Myself, I don't think we can ever create a sun. And if we do, it won't be cheap, and it won't be available on the scale and in the manner we would need it...for decades.
And it would be like giving a six year old a Corvette with an unlimited credit card and turning him loose on the roadways.
We have not learned enough to be responsible for that much power. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Aug 17, 2005 Posts: 580 Location: Portugal
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:09 am Post subject:
0mar wrote:
we lack a theory of gravity for subatomic distances.
What do you want that for? Fusion temperature is still several orders of magnitude away from grand unification... I fail to see where a full theory of quantum gravity could help.
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 3391 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Nuclear Fusion
Am re-reading Deffeyes's Beyond Oil which has this interesting passage:
Quote:
I have been grousing for twenty years that the only way a fusion reactor is going to make sense is as a component of a fusion-fission hybrid. Fusion scientists, however, don't want to hear about hybrids. Their beautiful pure-fusion reactors are "clean" in the sense that they do not generate long-lived radioactive fission products. They don't want their nice reactors messed up with dirty uranium.
A study has recently be undertaken to re-examine the entire question of whether fission
fusion is a viable approach to revitalizing fusion research in the United States
1
. This
study examined not only the science and technology, but also attempted to figure out
what would and would not be salable to the American government, the source of fusion
research funding in the United States. Some of the conclusions of this study are
1. It is unlikely that the American Government will continue to support fusion
research at the multi-hundred million dollar level per year with a goal so
distant in the future.
2. Large international projects such as ITER are unlikely to be the salvation of
fusion research, at least as far as the American Government is concerned.
3. The use of fusion reactors for anything but energy generation is unlikely to be
salable to the American government.
4. It is very likely that fission power will make a comeback, probably in the
United States, almost certainly in the world
2
.
5. Fission and fusion are more likely allies than competitors.
Based on these conclusions, the idea of fission fusion was reviewed and re-examined.
Some conclusions are
1. Fusion reactors can be used as fission breeders, but with a very large advantage
over fission breeders. One fusion breeder can support perhaps 10 satellite
fission reactors, whereas one fission breeder can support more like a single
additional reactors. Any breeder is a large proliferation hazard and would have
to be in a secure area with close government oversight. A fusion breeder
greatly reduces the number of breeders.
2. Even pure fusion has a significant proliferation hazard in that a rogue country
or reactor operator could slip
238
U in the blanket and breed plutonium. This
potential proliferation hazard of a pure fusion reactor has received very little
attention.
3. Fusion could be used to help put the world on a much safer and proliferation
resistant nuclear energy cycle, namely the breeding of
233
U from Thorium.
This could be mixed with
238
U in a sub-critical, proliferation resistant mixture.
Page 2
2
4. Tokamaks are now producing about 10
19
neutrons per second in a D-T
plasma. Operating such a tokamak steady state would produce enough nuclear
fuel to power a 200-400 MW fission burner.
5. A viable approach to the American fusion project could be to build a high duty
cycle tokamak of the size of say TFTR. This tokamak would have a thorium
blanket and a D-T plasma. Breeding
233
U would be an important research
goal.
6. The construction of such a tokamak would mean that the fusion project would
enter mainly a technology demonstration phase, rather than a plasma physics
phase.
7. The tokamak might be of interest to the Navy as a producer of nuclear fuel for
ship propulsion.
8. This tokamak could also be used for other purposes such as spallation
neutrons, burning nuclear waste, etc. However fuel production would be its
main purpose.
9. If the project is successful and captures the interest of the country, a follow
on phase could be to build a much larger tokamak, say with 100 MW of beam
power and Q=10. This could supply a large number of satellite burner
reactors, and might be economically viable.
It is hoped that this study will stimulate discussion in the American fusion community.
Never came across the notion before. Perhaps it'll receive more attention when the NIMBYS start turning into IMBY,P,P,P!s (In My Backyard, Please, Please, Please!). Read that the Chinese have been looking into hybrids since the mid 80s, Google "Fusion-Fission hybrid". Nothing but tech-ish papers, the MSM hasn't covered this. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
I will not abide another toe.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
