Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Fusion Thread Pt. 2(merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Fusion development

Unread postby Ulenspiegel » Tue 19 May 2015, 04:11:20

StarvingLion wrote:
Ulenspiegel wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Literally every "reputable" physicist and chemist on earth when asked about the "energy problem" responds with a glib "put up some more solar panels" "invent a more efficient PV cell" "biomass is the answer" "wait for fusion to get solved" barrage of hopeless "solutions".

These people are so disconnected from the real world in their taxpayer silos that they couldn't care less.

Here is the fantasy of the german energy "miracle".

'From Sunlight to Jet A1'
http://theenergycollective.com/davidhon ... ght-jet-a1


Nice strawman. Using jet fuel, that is a niche application to judge the whole approch is stupid propaganda. In contrast to other alternatives today's wind turbines and PV panels are able to provide sufficient amounts of net energy. BTW most ICEs will be replaced with EVs.

You compare science fiction (fusion) with reality. Loser. Even if we see a "commercial" fusion reactor around 2040, you have not proof that it would generate cheaper electricity than alternatives. Only idiots would waste two decades with waiting for a miracle. In contrsts, realists this include most scientsists work with what the have. :-)


Looky here, I'm being lectured to by a Phd. I guess the professional students in Germany need another 20 years of education to learn commonsense.

Commonsense: It makes sense to put solar where the sun shines best and wind where the wind blows most. That isn't Germany. And I guess these educated dolts don't understand the definition of the word 'global' in 'Global Warming'. What happens within the borders of Germany has no impact on the climate. In fact, the head cheerleader of EV's in Germany tells us in Angewandte Chemie that renewables are a big waste of money:

'About the Nonsense of Biofuels'
H. Michel

"In a visionary view, storage of electric energy would not be required if superconducting cables would be available. In this case, a limited number of photovoltaic fields located in various time zones around the globe, say, one in North Africa or the Kalahari, one in Eastern Asia/Australia, and one in Mexico, connected by such cables and to the consumer would continuously supply electric energy"

The title should have been 'About the nonsense of renewables in Germany'. So much for energy independence too. This Michel idiot must be mystified why there is so much conflict over fossil fuels in the ME to put forth an even more concentrated "solution" for electric energy.


You still use a strawman, biofuel is a niche. The energy transtion is driven in Germany by on-shore wind, even when you do not understand this.

The Audi show is marketing, not more, no argument against the energy transition. BTW Audi does not use biofuel but syn-fuel (P2L). Prof. Hartmut Michel does not oppose this.

BTW I have done my PhD in Frankfurt and worked with some of his students. Prof. Michel knows what he is talking about, i.e.low efficiency of natural photo synthesis. BTW I used him as argument againstbio-fuels in other thredas.

That biofuel, something that is derived from organic matter, will not save us is clear but not relevant to assess the energy transition. EVs could provide 80% of the solution, powered with wind energy.

Using a niche and blow it out of propaotion is a stupid discussion startegy, esp. when you have problems to get the facts straight, you may look like an idiot.
Ulenspiegel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 02:15:29

Re: Fusion development

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 21 May 2015, 01:21:21

Ulenspiegel wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:
Ulenspiegel wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Literally every "reputable" physicist and chemist on earth when asked about the "energy problem" responds with a glib "put up some more solar panels" "invent a more efficient PV cell" "biomass is the answer" "wait for fusion to get solved" barrage of hopeless "solutions".

These people are so disconnected from the real world in their taxpayer silos that they couldn't care less.

Here is the fantasy of the german energy "miracle".

'From Sunlight to Jet A1'
http://theenergycollective.com/davidhon ... ght-jet-a1


Nice strawman. Using jet fuel, that is a niche application to judge the whole approch is stupid propaganda. In contrast to other alternatives today's wind turbines and PV panels are able to provide sufficient amounts of net energy. BTW most ICEs will be replaced with EVs.

You compare science fiction (fusion) with reality. Loser. Even if we see a "commercial" fusion reactor around 2040, you have not proof that it would generate cheaper electricity than alternatives. Only idiots would waste two decades with waiting for a miracle. In contrsts, realists this include most scientsists work with what the have. :-)


Looky here, I'm being lectured to by a Phd. I guess the professional students in Germany need another 20 years of education to learn commonsense.

Commonsense: It makes sense to put solar where the sun shines best and wind where the wind blows most. That isn't Germany. And I guess these educated dolts don't understand the definition of the word 'global' in 'Global Warming'. What happens within the borders of Germany has no impact on the climate. In fact, the head cheerleader of EV's in Germany tells us in Angewandte Chemie that renewables are a big waste of money:

'About the Nonsense of Biofuels'
H. Michel

"In a visionary view, storage of electric energy would not be required if superconducting cables would be available. In this case, a limited number of photovoltaic fields located in various time zones around the globe, say, one in North Africa or the Kalahari, one in Eastern Asia/Australia, and one in Mexico, connected by such cables and to the consumer would continuously supply electric energy"

The title should have been 'About the nonsense of renewables in Germany'. So much for energy independence too. This Michel idiot must be mystified why there is so much conflict over fossil fuels in the ME to put forth an even more concentrated "solution" for electric energy.


You still use a strawman, biofuel is a niche. The energy transtion is driven in Germany by on-shore wind, even when you do not understand this.

The Audi show is marketing, not more, no argument against the energy transition. BTW Audi does not use biofuel but syn-fuel (P2L). Prof. Hartmut Michel does not oppose this.

BTW I have done my PhD in Frankfurt and worked with some of his students. Prof. Michel knows what he is talking about, i.e.low efficiency of natural photo synthesis. BTW I used him as argument againstbio-fuels in other thredas.

That biofuel, something that is derived from organic matter, will not save us is clear but not relevant to assess the energy transition. EVs could provide 80% of the solution, powered with wind energy.

Using a niche and blow it out of propaotion is a stupid discussion startegy, esp. when you have problems to get the facts straight, you may look like an idiot.


I am advocating NO ALTERNATIVE NO SUBSTITUTION POSSIBLE...DOOMERISM...THE WELFARE STATE IS NOW HOPELESS...got it?

Nanotech(and mesoscopic systems) = **mass production** directed by machine accelerated brute force discovery (bye bye phds) taken to a whole new level of material superiority and speed of deployment. It is enormously more expensive and requires far greater expertise (eg. nanoparticles) in precision manufacturing, than old-style industrialism. Its a wipeout, of Giganticism, the enabler of the welfare state.

Giganticism, whether it be plopping down ever larger wind turbines, or nuclear reactors, or chemical process plants, or discovering a huge oil/coal resource below an ocean...is as useless to fund a welfare based state as building another aircraft carrier is for "defense".

Either you take up the 21st century sword, nanotech, or you are dead.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Fusion development

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 02 Jun 2015, 16:44:25

The GIGANTIC fusion reactor experiment called ITER is now offically DEAD.

http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2015 ... on-project

For the second year in a row, Senate budgetmakers have moved to pull the United States out of ITER, the huge and hugely over budget international fusion experiment under construction in Cadarache, France. The cut comes in the Senate version of the so-called energy and water spending bill, which would fund the Department of Energy (DOE) and other agencies for fiscal year 2016, which begins 1 October. But nixing ITER is hardly a done deal: On 1 May, legislators in the House of Representatives passed their own version of the energy and water bill, which includes $150 million for the U.S. contribution to ITER—the amount the White House has requested.

"This year we have recommended eliminating funding for the U.S. contribution [to ITER],” said Senator Lamar Alexander (R–TN) chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development at the subcommittee's markup of the bill today. "This saves $150 million in just this year." The subcommittee also moved to cut funding to ITER last year, when the Democrats controlled the Senate and Dianne Feinstein (D–CA) chaired the energy and water subcommittee. But the final budget bill for fiscal year 2015, signed by President Barack Obama on 16 December 2014, contained $150 million for the project.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Fusion development

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 02 Jun 2015, 17:12:42

StarvingLion wrote:Either you take up the 21st century sword, nanotech, or you are dead.

You mean like carbon-fibers?
Image
nano-graphene?

I don't think expensive bikes or pencil lead will replace petroleum :razz:
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25799
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Nuclear Fusion Thread Pt. 2(merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 26 Jun 2015, 10:18:32

Lockheed Corporation has made new claims about their fusion technology program.

Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready for use in a decade. Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work. Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters. In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years. In recent years, Lockheed has gotten increasingly involved in a variety of alternate energy projects, including several ocean energy projects, as it looks to offset a decline in U.S. and European military spending. Lockheed's work on fusion energy could help in developing new power sources amid increasing global conflicts over energy, and as projections show there will be a 40 percent to 50 percent increase in energy use over the next generation, McGuire said.


http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/1 ... gh-in.html
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4027
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Fusion Thread Pt. 2(merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 12 Jul 2015, 17:26:48

Boeing patents laser-powered fusion-fission jet engine for airplanes, spacecraft

Assume the brace position. Boeing has received a patent for, I kid you not, a laser-powered fusion-fission jet propulsion system. Boeing envisions that this system could replace both rocket and turbofan engines, powering everything from spacecraft to missiles to airplanes.
The patent, US 9,068,562, combines inertial confinement fusion, fission, and a turbine that generates electricity. It sounds completely crazy—and it is completely unrealistic given our current mastery of fusion, or lack thereof—but, in the future perhaps, this could be a rather ingenious solution.

To begin with, imagine the silhouette of a big turbofan engine, like you'd see on a commercial jetliner. Somewhere in the middle of the engine there is a fusion chamber, with a number of very strong lasers focused on a single point. A hohlraum (pellet) containing a mix of deuterium and tritium (hydrogen isotopes) is placed at this focal point. The lasers are all turned on at the same instant, creating massive pressure on the pellet, which implodes and causes the hydrogen atoms to fuse. (This is called inertial confinement fusion, as opposed to the magnetic confinement fusion that is carried out in a tokamak.)

According to the patent, the hot gases produced by the fusion are pushed out of a nozzle at the back of the engine, creating thrust. But that's not all! One of the by-products of hydrogen fusion is lots of fast neutrons. In Boeing's patented design, there is a shield around the fusion chamber that's coated with a fissile material (uranium-238 is one example given). The neutrons hit the fissile material, causing a fission reaction that generates lots of heat.


arstechnica
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Master
Master
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 05:25:30

1. PACER has a straightforward mechanism of reaching the required energy level for fusion as it is boosted to that point by a fission explosion.

2. Pacer Fusions intermittent nature allows it to be smaller and more energy efficient than ITER.

3. Pacer fusion draws most of its energy from the D-D reaction thereby avoiding the extremely expensive Tritium isotope from being the primary source of energy.


PACER fusion achieved net gain during the Ivy Mike experiment in the 1950's. Tokamak fusion has never achieved net gain.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 08:26:31

ISTM that a Lithium-7/Hydrogen or Lithium-6/Hydrogen-2 reaction would be much more efficient than D/D reactions and result in less neutronic activation of the surrounding materials.

The only way I see any practicality in a Pacer type system would be if it were used at very great depths under ground so there would be no crater formed and no material released. If you put your PACER at say 12,000 feet down and properly size it the detonation will create a bubble of superheated rock that will then collapse into a blob just under molten temperature. You can then drill down close but not into the blob and extract heat as if it were geothermal energy. When cooled you place another PACER device in the center of the cooled blob and repeat.

I don't doubt you can use it to produce energy, what I doubt is how much it would cost you to retrieve that energy compared to more conventional Fission or combustion driven power systems. Fusion is like the Holy Grail, it sounds wonderful in theory. The question is as always, at what price?
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13826
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Timo » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 08:32:58

Question from a complete novice and layman on the subject of both fission and fusion: is it possible to detonate a "mirco-fission" reaction in a controlled environment that would produce enough energy to thus trigger a fusion reaction? By "micro-fission," i mean within an environment that's not 12,000 feet underground, and is reusable for the same purpose, as needed?
Timo
 

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 08:47:58

Timo wrote:Question from a complete novice and layman on the subject of both fission and fusion: is it possible to detonate a "mirco-fission" reaction in a controlled environment that would produce enough energy to thus trigger a fusion reaction? By "micro-fission," i mean within an environment that's not 12,000 feet underground, and is reusable for the same purpose, as needed?


The USA produced 6"(155mm) artillery shells with a nuclear blast yield of 0.1 KT if that is what you mean? In theory one of those with a jacket of Deuterium, Tritium, Lithium or some combination of the three could trigger a small fusion release of 5-10 KT. That is how the 'neutron bomb' works, a very small fission explosion sets off a small fusion reaction that releases a large number of highly energetic neutrons. The preferred jacket for that is pure Tritium but for energy production that is almost pointless.

The reason for going deep underground is to keep all of the fission products and all the resulting heat trapped so you can extract the heat for power production. The smaller the explosive force the shallower you can do the detonation without fear of fission products or heat escaping to the air, however the smaller the explosion the less energy accumulated in the molten blob you are trying to get energy from. You also need to make sure you are doing your detonation in a layer of dry rock because water not only has a huge heat capacity, when the energy is released the resulting steam can force it way through cracks in the rock to dissipate the heat into a much larger volume making it much harder to extract useful energy.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13826
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 13:28:24

Tanada its good to talk to someone who knows about fusion however I suggest you got to Yotawatts.net and look at the designs there.

We are not talking about just dumping nukes in a huge hole and hoping we can recover energy from it.
Instead we are talking about detonating a purpose built pellet inside a purpose designed beryllium lined blast chamber. With a purpose designed heat recovery system using molten salt or water.

Steinhaus's latest design is a pure fusion method where a fusion driver (likely an ion accelerator) is used to detonate a small pellet of tritium, this explosion then detonates deuterium in a wave. And then the energy is recovered and the process repeats. He predicts that the cost would be at least as good as the best fission plants we currently have. I intend to work with him to do a comprehensive economic analysis however.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 15:40:32

Based on the diagram on the page you mentioned two question immediately spring to mind. Why an ion beam instead of a four laser inertial confinement rig? Second question, why muck about with Tritium and Deuterium, both of which are expensive to get and Tritium requires all sorts of regulatory oversight. Lithium-7/Hydrogen takes very little more energy to initiate than T/T, T/D, or D/D reactions and the result is Boron-8 that immediately decays into 2(He-4) leaving no messy neutron activation of anything. Plus you can even sell off the He-4 'exhaust' to the existing Helium market, again without regulatory headaches. Lithium-7 and Hydrogen are both very common and relatively cheap, Deuterium is somewhat rare and tritium has to be formed by bombarding Lithium-6 with neutrons.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13826
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby dissident » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 16:16:09

Timo wrote:Question from a complete novice and layman on the subject of both fission and fusion: is it possible to detonate a "mirco-fission" reaction in a controlled environment that would produce enough energy to thus trigger a fusion reaction? By "micro-fission," i mean within an environment that's not 12,000 feet underground, and is reusable for the same purpose, as needed?


This is the show stopper for the whole concept. If we could make micro-nukes then some continuous detonation system would make sense. But we can't and have not found some spatially coherent change reaction process. As described in the OP link the smallest reactor is a huge vat anchored into rock and the explosions are substantial. The cost estimate in the article quoted is based on guesstimates and can't be taken seriously.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4902
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 16:46:33

Tanada wrote:Based on the diagram on the page you mentioned two question immediately spring to mind. Why an ion beam instead of a four laser inertial confinement rig? Second question, why muck about with Tritium and Deuterium, both of which are expensive to get and Tritium requires all sorts of regulatory oversight. Lithium-7/Hydrogen takes very little more energy to initiate than T/T, T/D, or D/D reactions and the result is Boron-8 that immediately decays into 2(He-4) leaving no messy neutron activation of anything. Plus you can even sell off the He-4 'exhaust' to the existing Helium market, again without regulatory headaches. Lithium-7 and Hydrogen are both very common and relatively cheap, Deuterium is somewhat rare and tritium has to be formed by bombarding Lithium-6 with neutrons.


Stienhaus has a very logical way of working on the problem, rather than designing a whole fusion process to generate electricity like ITER he instead has taken an experiment that we know produced a massive net gain of energy 'ivy mike' and has adapted it to generate electricity.

The idea is that only a tiny amount of tritium is used and it is used essentially as a catalyst for D-D fusion. The vast majority of the tritium required will be recovered after each burst as a product of D-D fusion.

As for the Deuterium question, my understanding is that deuterium is the most common fusionable *isotope on the planet. And my reference for that would be energy matters.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 16:59:07

dissident wrote:
Timo wrote:Question from a complete novice and layman on the subject of both fission and fusion: is it possible to detonate a "mirco-fission" reaction in a controlled environment that would produce enough energy to thus trigger a fusion reaction? By "micro-fission," i mean within an environment that's not 12,000 feet underground, and is reusable for the same purpose, as needed?


This is the show stopper for the whole concept. If we could make micro-nukes then some continuous detonation system would make sense. But we can't and have not found some spatially coherent change reaction process. As described in the OP link the smallest reactor is a huge vat anchored into rock and the explosions are substantial. The cost estimate in the article quoted is based on guesstimates and can't be taken seriously.


Steinhaus's new Mini-Mike concept specifically trys to solve this problem:

A mini-Mike reactor to accommodate 250 MJ yield pure fusion devices is expected to be cylinder with hemispherical ends 11 m dia. x 50 meters in length and would be buried in a vertical orientation about 100 meters in the ground. This is a conservative sizing of the fusion reactor that results in peak pressures on the reactor cavity of less than 30 pascals pressure (moderate pressure for long trouble free operational life). The fusion reactor cavity is pumped down to a soft vacuum before each shot which greatly reduces peak pressure on the walls of the reactor. The actual pressure simulated on the walls of the reactor from a 250 MJ device is 1.5 pascals (modest pressure) as a result of a pressure peak quenching effect produced by the falling wall of molten salt released in the reactor just prior to device ignition.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tikib » Thu 16 Jul 2015, 17:32:23

Tanada your point of comparing the design to NIF is an important one. My understanding of the design is that the layer of deuterium around the D-T pellet has the effect of amplifying the energy produced.

The problem at the National Ignition Facility is that they were trying to generate ignition from too small a D-T pellet. But of course using a large amount of Tritium is difficult because its so expensive.

So Steinhaus's idea is to use the D-T pellet as a trigger for D-D fusion so that the expensive inner core can be surrounded by cheaper deuterium so that theirs enough fuel to create ignition but not at too great a cost.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 17 Jul 2015, 02:21:30

Tikib wrote:Tanada your point of comparing the design to NIF is an important one. My understanding of the design is that the layer of deuterium around the D-T pellet has the effect of amplifying the energy produced.

The problem at the National Ignition Facility is that they were trying to generate ignition from too small a D-T pellet. But of course using a large amount of Tritium is difficult because its so expensive.

So Steinhaus's idea is to use the D-T pellet as a trigger for D-D fusion so that the expensive inner core can be surrounded by cheaper deuterium so that theirs enough fuel to create ignition but not at too great a cost.


The problem with the NIF is that its a scam

http://www.osa-opn.org/home/articles/vo ... aiOA462W8E

http://fire.pppl.gov/NIF_Path_Forward_Rpt_120712.pdf
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 17 Jul 2015, 13:05:23

Tikib wrote:Tanada your point of comparing the design to NIF is an important one. My understanding of the design is that the layer of deuterium around the D-T pellet has the effect of amplifying the energy produced.

The problem at the National Ignition Facility is that they were trying to generate ignition from too small a D-T pellet. But of course using a large amount of Tritium is difficult because its so expensive.

So Steinhaus's idea is to use the D-T pellet as a trigger for D-D fusion so that the expensive inner core can be surrounded by cheaper deuterium so that theirs enough fuel to create ignition but not at too great a cost.


Aye and there is the rub, so to speak. My suggestion to use Lithium-7/Hydrogen-1 has a couple very large advantages. First off both elements are common and therefore cheap. Second the alloy is a solid, so you can have your reaction chamber be a hard vacuum instead of a soft vacuum. I already talked about the fact that the reaction yields only 2(He-4) and energy under normal circumstances.

In T/D fusion you get He-4+n+energy, in T/T fusion you get He-4+2n+energy. Simple but lots of neutron radiation ensues. For D/D fusion the results are not simple, sometimes you get He-4+energy, but not very often. Frequently you get He-3+n+energy and even more frequently you get T+p+energy. Yes you will regenerate the T consumed in the other reactions this way, but the neutron release is still very high for the quantity achieved.

If he is dead set on using Deuterium then a mix of Li-6/D and Li-7/T would be a much simpler fuel choice. My objection however remains the same, Li-6/D reactions yield like Li-7/H-1, but as soon as you put T into the fuel mix you start creating lots of chains of possible reactions that expel neutrons. Even pure Li-6/D fuel is problematic because some of the reactions will be D/D just because of the random nature of things, and that will yield Tritium and He-3 and lots of free neutrons. Li-7/H-1 does not have that issue, H/H fusion requires a great deal of time and pressure to be sustained enough to produce D, normally the two protons just bounce back after collision. There is the added issue that with D/D releasing neutrons when they impact Li-6 or Li-7 they can cause the formation of Tritium and Helium which is how we manufacture tritium in reactors now.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13826
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Why Pacer is a much better Fusion Technology than ITER

Unread postby Tikib » Fri 17 Jul 2015, 14:53:47

Tanada wrote:
Tikib wrote:Tanada your point of comparing the design to NIF is an important one. My understanding of the design is that the layer of deuterium around the D-T pellet has the effect of amplifying the energy produced.

The problem at the National Ignition Facility is that they were trying to generate ignition from too small a D-T pellet. But of course using a large amount of Tritium is difficult because its so expensive.

So Steinhaus's idea is to use the D-T pellet as a trigger for D-D fusion so that the expensive inner core can be surrounded by cheaper deuterium so that theirs enough fuel to create ignition but not at too great a cost.


Aye and there is the rub, so to speak. My suggestion to use Lithium-7/Hydrogen-1 has a couple very large advantages. First off both elements are common and therefore cheap. Second the alloy is a solid, so you can have your reaction chamber be a hard vacuum instead of a soft vacuum. I already talked about the fact that the reaction yields only 2(He-4) and energy under normal circumstances.

In T/D fusion you get He-4+n+energy, in T/T fusion you get He-4+2n+energy. Simple but lots of neutron radiation ensues. For D/D fusion the results are not simple, sometimes you get He-4+energy, but not very often. Frequently you get He-3+n+energy and even more frequently you get T+p+energy. Yes you will regenerate the T consumed in the other reactions this way, but the neutron release is still very high for the quantity achieved.

If he is dead set on using Deuterium then a mix of Li-6/D and Li-7/T would be a much simpler fuel choice. My objection however remains the same, Li-6/D reactions yield like Li-7/H-1, but as soon as you put T into the fuel mix you start creating lots of chains of possible reactions that expel neutrons. Even pure Li-6/D fuel is problematic because some of the reactions will be D/D just because of the random nature of things, and that will yield Tritium and He-3 and lots of free neutrons. Li-7/H-1 does not have that issue, H/H fusion requires a great deal of time and pressure to be sustained enough to produce D, normally the two protons just bounce back after collision. There is the added issue that with D/D releasing neutrons when they impact Li-6 or Li-7 they can cause the formation of Tritium and Helium which is how we manufacture tritium in reactors now.


Okay so the D-T reaction takes place in a berylium shell specifically designed to withstand the neutron flux. Once the plasma leaves the shell the reaction along the cylinder is almost exclusively the more predictable D-D.

The ratio by weight of Tritium to Deuterium is :

141 deuterium to 1 tritium. So as you can see the vast majority of the energy is produced due to the D-D reaction.

NB : I just read your statement again, you seem to think that D-D would be produced by H-H but it is of course extracted from seawater. And is therefore a primary fuel.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: THE Nuclear Fusion Thread Pt. 2(merged)

Unread postby Tikib » Sat 25 Jul 2015, 11:45:20

I do not beleive a net energy magnetic confinement fusion device is possible at all.

The D-D or D-T reaction does not behave like the slow burning H-H reaction in the sun.

if the density of D-T or D-D is sufficent to release net energy it will always cause an explosion.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests