Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Fusion vs Fission

Author Topic: Fusion vs Fission  (Read 163969 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Content1

  • Guest
Fusion vs Fission
« on: Sep 30, 2009, 09:40 »
Everyone who may be waiting for new plants to be built  to increase job prospects should check out     

             https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/nic/icf/   

If fusion is able to be made to work, why invest in the old fashioned fission when Fusion is the future.   It not only doesn't produce the waste but it can make existing nuclear waste into fuel.    I admit I am biased. . . I work there.

dirac

  • Guest
Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #1 on: Sep 30, 2009, 09:48 »
Everyone who may be waiting for new plants to be built  to increase job prospects should check out     

             https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/nic/icf/   

If fusion is able to be made to work, why invest in the old fashioned fission when Fusion is the future.   It not only doesn't produce the waste but it can make existing nuclear waste into fuel.    I admit I am biased. . . I work there.

According to your link:

"By following our recipe, we would make a miniature star that lasts for a tiny fraction of a second."

I think the grids require a bit more stability then a fraction of second and also hundreds to thousands more of reliable megawatts. Scale-up from from a lab to industrial scale is not that easy.

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #2 on: Sep 30, 2009, 10:09 »
Fusion may not even be feasible to use as a source.  It has been worked on for decades and you get microseconds of Power.  Whoppe doo. Fission is known and is sustainable for a grid. Matter antimatter may even by pass fusion, who knows the future.  I am biased, little bitty experiments do not  equal large scale sustainable power.

Build Nuclear Fission plants NOW!!!!  Use coal to make fuel for vehicles until we get a good battery for vehicles.  Electric power tracks for trains sustained by Nuclear Fission Plants!!  Be energy independent as possible.  Make jobs here, keep jobs here!!!


Especially more HP  Jobs!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: Sep 30, 2009, 10:37 by thenukeman »

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5749
  • Total likes: 185
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #3 on: Sep 30, 2009, 10:39 »
china 'n india ar building100 knew plants in da next 20 years.   dare people will have lotsa lectricity for manufacture, we won't have enuff.  build nukes hear 'n now.  in da mean thyme, git moor money iffen ya gots two work more four da outage dats short staffed.
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Content1

  • Guest
Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #4 on: Oct 01, 2009, 03:01 »
Fusion is happening now, next year it will cross over to produce more energy then the costs to produce.   The 14Mev neutron released from the Tritium/ Deuterium (Like in 'Spiderman II') is coming.   It is that high energy neutron that can fission U238 and make spent fuel usable.  It is true the lab only will fuse a small amounts of matter to prove the viability of fusion.   The lab is only performing Deuterium/Dueterium now but the lasers fused it and neutron were released in recent experiments.  Higher yield fusion is scheduled in spring 2010.  If you can have the vision that once you actually produce energy in inertial confinement fusion it is only a matter of time to harness this energy.   This is not like the magnetic confinement that never solved the problem of confinement.  Using 192 lasers raise the temperature and pressure so fast, in the billionth of a second, the fusion already occurs before the target matter has a chance to expand.  Think of some method to then reinsert more fuel and fire again, it is a problem of application and not theory.  A source of power that is clean (helium is the waste) and is virtually endless of Dueterium in the oceans, while carbon should run out in a hundred years or so.

Offline B.PRESGROVE

Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #5 on: Oct 01, 2009, 11:56 »
 ??? Thats all great about the experiments, but in the mean time we need power now.  The only way to acheive the amount of power we need is nuclear and coal, the two sources that have been so faithful to us all these years.  Maybe some day we will see a small sun burn the land scape of earth due to a fussion accident or experiment gone wrong, but lets stay in the here and now. 

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #6 on: Oct 01, 2009, 04:49 »
Fusion can only happen in a controlled environment, not like Chernobyl where it got out of their control.   It is not like fission where you have control rods that could blow off in an explosion.   
 In lab experiments you limit the fuel to burn so you will never get a "Sun" like in Spiderman II.  The lasers acts as an ultimate piston and compress and heat the fuel to 100,000,000 degrees for 25 billioneths of a second, consuming all the fuel and ready for more.  It is not the heat that is as important as the high energy neutrons that are released to cause fission in u238 in a readctor based on spent fuel.   

Eventually maybe there will shrink the whole process, much like the laser in a CD was once huge not fits in your hand.   Then it is a process of firing the lasers, burning the Dueterium/Tritium and then pausing to re-load and fire again to the level of energy that is intended to be produce, much like "Mr. Fusion" in "Back to the Future" series.   The key is producing more energy then the lasers used to set off the burn, and capturing the energy from the burn.   We will get there, some say in a lecture I attended in 20-50 years, not the too distant future.   

A safety feature is if you do not reload, the cycle stops right there.   No chance of runaway.   This is ony one of the many ideas coming from research.   It is just so few have paid attention to it because when you think of fusion, you think of the Takomak that can't keep the magnetic field perfect. 

We are doing shots every couple of days and even with a D-D reaction, they are getting out neutrons from the success fusion process.   It is like air flight.   All the scientists back in 1900 said motor powered flight was impossible because at higher air speeds the wing control become unstable.   The Wright Brothers didn't care and came up with powered flight.   One others saw it could be done. planes started flying everywhere.

One successful fusion is controlled and achieved, and research increases at an exponential rate, you will see them being built around the world.

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #7 on: Oct 01, 2009, 07:21 »
Fusion can only happen in a controlled environment, not like Chernobyl where it got out of their control.   It is not like fission where you have control rods that could blow off in an explosion.  
 In lab experiments you limit the fuel to burn so you will never get a "Sun" like in Spiderman II.  The lasers acts as an ultimate piston and compress and heat the fuel to 100,000,000 degrees for 25 billioneths of a second, consuming all the fuel and ready for more.  It is not the heat that is as important as the high energy neutrons that are released to cause fission in u238 in a readctor based on spent fuel.  

Eventually maybe there will shrink the whole process, much like the laser in a CD was once huge not fits in your hand.   Then it is a process of firing the lasers, burning the Dueterium/Tritium and then pausing to re-load and fire again to the level of energy that is intended to be produce, much like "Mr. Fusion" in "Back to the Future" series.   The key is producing more energy then the lasers used to set off the burn, and capturing the energy from the burn.   We will get there, some say in a lecture I attended in 20-50 years, not the too distant future.  

A safety feature is if you do not reload, the cycle stops right there.   No chance of runaway.   This is ony one of the many ideas coming from research.   It is just so few have paid attention to it because when you think of fusion, you think of the Takomak that can't keep the magnetic field perfect.  

We are doing shots every couple of days and even with a D-D reaction, they are getting out neutrons from the success fusion process.   It is like air flight.   All the scientists back in 1900 said motor powered flight was impossible because at higher air speeds the wing control become unstable.   The Wright Brothers didn't care and came up with powered flight.   One others saw it could be done. planes started flying everywhere.

One successful fusion is controlled and achieved, and research increases at an exponential rate, you will see them being built around the world.

You are kidding right? 

1.   We can build reactors that burn U238 and many other spent fuel materials.  Look up the IFR.  Clinton killed it with only a few years to go before the project would have been ready for building.
2.   Why do you think a commercial power reactor is capable of blowing up?  It is physically impossible for this to occur.  I could maybe understand your point if you talked about a rod ejection accident being a concern but even that is a not going to cause the reactor to blow up.
3.   Fission works now.  You need No energy input in fission to get energy out of it.  The first reactors on the Earth were not even manmade.

The only fusion system that I would even throw money at now would be inertia-magnetic confinement fusion.  This was developed by Dr. Bussard.  It is a shame that he passed on before he could complete his work.  You simply make a continuous fusion reaction in the center of a cube and then get electricity out of it by running the fused nuclei through a direct energy conversion device that is just an elaborate bundle of wires.
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2009, 07:28 by The Nutty Neutron »

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #8 on: Oct 01, 2009, 09:51 »
Your enthusiasm is notable but your choice of analogies leaves something to be desired;

The first patent for a fusion reactor was granted in 1946, you say the best minds in the current research expect to be on-line in 20 to 50 years. That's ~85 to 115 years to go from the first reactor to something usable beyond a research platform.

The Wright Flyer was fabric, toothpicks, wheezing piston engines and wires. Powered flight broke the sound barrier in less than 44 years. Mach 3 was achieved by 60 years.

You need a better analogy, in terms of bang for the buck powered flight is light years ahead of fusion, and another 50 years on top of the current 63 is a long time to wait for a maybe. But, good luck with that just the same.  ;)

I agree.  Kid, a snake oil sales man came and gave you a good lecture.

Offline Rennhack

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #9 on: Oct 02, 2009, 12:40 »
We will get there, some say in a lecture I attended in 20-50 years, not the too distant future.

They have been saying 20-50 years for 20-50 years now.  I worked at PPPL in their Fusion Reactor department. about 10 years ago... and I was in a lecture there that they said that FUSION would be viable in ... you guessed it 20-50 years.

Tomorrow never comes.

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #10 on: Oct 02, 2009, 03:09 »
Yes, mankind is a little like Moses. . .he could see the promised land but was not allowed to enter.  But the children of Israel did.  And so will all of us and our world will change with the success of fusion.  The reason it has not worked until now was we did not have the power to bring up fuel to the necessary 100 million degrees and contain the reaction long enough for fusion to happen.   With the Lasers at the LLNL they have it.  By getting the fusion reaction to work it is like studying the inside of the sun.  Once you get the process down, and I have seen it, where you fire the lasers with such precision that it compresses the target 1000 time evenly along with raising the temperature to 100 million degrees, it for a few billioneth of a second made a minature sun, fusion occurred, and neutron were released from the conversion of heavy hydrogen into helium.  It is all recorded on film.   The lab, so famous for so many other discoveries there, is on the verge of another.  It is like watching the Manhattan project all over, except not to destroy in a bomb, but to find a source of energy that is inexhaustible for the benefit of all mankind.  We should be glad it is American Technology at work and this job is not being "outsourced."

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #11 on: Oct 02, 2009, 07:23 »
Someone has already made fusion work.  All you need to do is design an energy convertion system.  Refer to the picture below and when you come up with something, get back with me.
« Last Edit: Oct 02, 2009, 07:24 by The Nutty Neutron »

Offline Rennhack

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #12 on: Oct 02, 2009, 09:53 »
Tomorrow never comes.

I stand corrected, I just passed a billboard for our local power company that owns the fission nuclear plant near my house.  the billboard announced that "Tomorrow is here".  It sure is for that space age of fission.  But fusion is stuck in the science fiction era.

Chimera

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #13 on: Oct 02, 2009, 09:59 »
IMHO, the main problem with fusion is we still don't have the theory right.  Back in the days of discovering neutrinos, the experimenters stated on more than one occasion that there were problems with the data they were retrieving - not the experimental models or the theories they were based on.  Then we put the solar observatory into orbit: When the data started coming in, the experts stated, "It can't do that!"  Personally, I'm not sure we should be flirting with the possibility of creating a singularity until the experts get a theory that fits instead of trying to fit the data into their theories.


Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #14 on: Oct 02, 2009, 10:04 »
I suppose if the cave men had smoke signal communication like the internet you all would argue "The Wheel:  What good is it!"

In Roman times:  "Why spend money on Research and Development, when we have slaves.  Those Barbarians will never pose a threat."

or more recent:  "Mr. Roosevelt, don't waste money on the Mahattan Project.   If we have to invade Japan someday to end the war, we will overwhelm them with numbers in an invasion.  A few more may die, but at least we will have saved some money."

The Moon, the greatest boondoggle of all time.   What did we gain?  A device we call the micro-computer which we seem to have found a use for.

We all have those questions in life, why are we here, how does the Universe work?   All nations that have abandoned dreaming and research find themselves in the dustbin of history.  With the squandoring of trillions of dollar it is nice to see we spend some of it on the future, not the "How can I profit in a week from this."   It is the short sided approach to our problems that have put us in the budget mess we are in.   This project was approved by liberals, wanting to find a way to end carbon emissions, and conservatives, how to turn water into money.   If it is successful both groups have made the long term commitment to achieve both.





Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #15 on: Oct 02, 2009, 12:50 »
something to add.   The director of the NIF (Search youtude under "NIF") feels fusion will be proven as a technology to pursue in 2 years, not 50.   Once you achieved controlled nuclear fusion, and can repeat it with certainty, it can be developed into energy producing units.  (Much like the Wright Brothers proved the viability of power assisted flight). We have tried various methods of fusion over the last 50 years, but not with success.   You must understand up to now, we have never achieved controlled fusion producing energy greater then that expended to produce it.  They videos explain Spring of 2010 is where these first milestones are scheduled.  Stay tuned, it is not as exciting as the first Moon landing, but its impact cannot be measured how it will impact our lives.

Offline B.PRESGROVE

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #16 on: Oct 02, 2009, 12:57 »
Again, ok we understand that the experiments are still going on and you have made some head way.....buuutttt you are a long way off from making a viable reactor to produce power for the grid.  By a long way I mean the 20 to 50 year marks.  I think it would be great to get fussion to work on a commercial scale, but we cant afford to wait right now.  We need power yesterday.  Not only that but where in the world do we have anything that can withstand 1,000,000 degrees of heat?  That is so unimaginably hot that my eyes are watering just thinking about it.

Fussion reactor on earth at 1,000,000+ dgrees = earth surface of molten, doesnt everything evaporate at that temp? (sorry I have to pick just a little) ;)

Offline B.PRESGROVE

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #17 on: Oct 02, 2009, 01:00 »
100 Karma to you Content for your passion on this subject though.  Good job.

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #18 on: Oct 02, 2009, 01:51 »
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/06/iec-fusion-wb7-wb8-and-wb9-information.html#

As I stated above, the kind of Fusion you are after is probably never going to work.  This device is about the only thing I have seen that might hold any value.  The fusion can be with hydrogen and boron.  This would be aneutronic fusion.  This means very few neutrons are produced and only 3 helium nuclei per reaction.


The energy would be mostly tied up in the KE of the He nuclei.  Even Tesla could have built an energy conversion device back when the airplane was being developed with the existing technologies.

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #19 on: Oct 02, 2009, 02:18 »
Matter Anti Matter reaction produces most energy.

Propulsion Type            Specific Impulse [sec]
Chemical Bipropellant         200 - 410
Electromagnetic              1200 - 5000
Nuclear Fission                 500 - 3000
Nuclear Fusion                10+4 - 10+5
Antimatter Annihilation      10+3 - 10+6

Penn State is working on Antimatter

Basically 100 milligrams of Antimatter to get the thrust of the space shuttle.

http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/introduction2.html

Being that Fusion is  difficult, maybe a breakthrough in antimatter as the cleanest energy which is pure energy conversion will bypass fusion.  Thats what I hope for!!  And It all can be made in the USA!!!!!

Maybe we should call this Fission vs Fusion vs Antimatter!!  LOL



Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13146
  • Total likes: 534
  • Karma: 5129
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #20 on: Oct 02, 2009, 02:41 »
Electromagnetic propulsion? Is that ion drive?

100 quatloos for antimatter propulsion. Does that mean antimatter power plants. What would happen if you lost containment on the "bottle" for the stored fuel? (We're such a bunch of closet geeks!!)  :P

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #21 on: Oct 02, 2009, 02:51 »
Ion Propulsion is electromagnetic, see below from Wikipedia,

An ion thruster is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft propulsion that creates thrust by accelerating ions. Ion thrusters are categorized by how they accelerate the ions, using either electrostatic or electromagnetic force. Electrostatic ion thrusters use the Coulomb force and accelerate the ions in the direction of the electric field. Electromagnetic ion thrusters use the Lorentz force to accelerate the ions. Note that the term "ion thruster" frequently denotes the electrostatic or gridded ion thrusters, only.

The thrust created in ion thrusters is very small compared to conventional chemical rockets, but a very high specific impulse, or propellant efficiency, is obtained. This high propellant efficiency is achieved through the very frugal propellant consumption of the ion thruster propulsion system.

Maybe we should call this the biggest Geek, Hey a new show!!     The best Geek Speak Wins and Star Trek must be worked in to make it more Geeky!!


withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #22 on: Oct 02, 2009, 03:05 »
I guess we should call this one Fission vs. Fusion vs. Antimatter vs. Quantum Nucleonics.

Since we're on the topic of far out energy production:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/1149.html

Hafnium 178, when bombarded with x-rays, produces a gamma flux around 60 times more intense than the x-rays that induced the reaction.  Weird.

JsonD13

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #23 on: Oct 02, 2009, 03:21 »
That link seemed a bit too excited over a 3-4 MeV gamma.  If we could "harness the energy" from these, why wouldnt our power plants do that with the N-16 gamma?

Jason

Offline Paul

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #24 on: Oct 02, 2009, 06:02 »
Is your name Martin Fleischmann?
Cold fusion, the future is now!
 :D
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?