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

Author Topic: Fusion vs Fission  (Read 163966 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #50 on: Oct 08, 2009, 04:10 »

Seriously you're not a real nuke yet right? Just a NUB?

Only "real" nukes would be regularly posting on Nukeworker.   But before you question someone with an argumentum ad hominem aimed at me, at least point out some falacy in my logic or facts.

It is a fact fusion powers most of the Universe, it is time we took advantage of this near limitless source of energy.   All other methods are parasitic in nature, that is, the draw from the enviroment, like solar from the Sun, Geothermal from the Earth, Wind, hydro, oil, coal, gas and Fission nuclear.   All of those are finite and can someday run out, and generally only work here on Earth.   Fusion works anywhere you can find supplies of hydrogen and lithium, which can follow us into space.

Offline Llama

  • License Termination Manager
  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 220
  • Have you hugged a llama today?
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #51 on: Oct 08, 2009, 05:21 »
Actually MARSSIM, my old buddy, using the sun could provide parasitic energy. In the case of parabolic trough systems and to a much lesser degree the solar power tower system parasitic energy is used by the various systems needed to support the solar power systems. So even though the use of the sun would not necessarily be parasitic directly, the processes used to support the systems would be. Now if we were to use devices to harvest the parasitic energies, such as piezoelectric generators in the case of roadways, then the process would be totally non-parasitic. What does this have to with fusion Absolutely nothing!
I just got carried away.

Sorry buddy I just had to do it   :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

p.s. I think I will go out and look at my rose colored sky  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #52 on: Oct 08, 2009, 05:38 »
There is one thing to add about the high powered lasers not even on the drawing board, only in  theory.  They may be able to go beyond turning lasers into the Xray range as they have here, but to the gamma ray range which could then impact the nucleus of atoms like accelerators do, to what end, who knows but it is definitely new ground that was not even conceived when they started.

For example:

Pumping Up Hope for a Gamma Ray Laser

Scientists generally agree that a laser that emitted gamma rays would have tremendous power. One of the scientists involved in efforts to make one. Carl B. Collins of the University of Texas at Dallas, estimates that such a laser might yield as much as 10.sup.21 watts. This surpasses the total power production of the United States (10.sup.12 watts) and is a respectable 0.03 percent of the total energy output of the sun. Thus it would enter a totally new energy scale for power sources made by humans -- in Collins's words, "a cosmic scale." He told the Second International Laser Science Conference, which met in Seattle last week, that new approaches show a good prospect of overcoming the difficulties that frustrated previous attempts to develop this laser.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v130/ai_4539152/

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #53 on: Oct 08, 2009, 07:41 »
Man I can see Content1 In 2059, 50 years from now, Telling Content 3 his Grandson that in 50 years the Fusion problem will be solved.  So Content 3 hold down the fort until 2109 for Content5.

Offline Brett LaVigne

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
  • Total likes: 21
  • Karma: 1371
  • Gender: Male
  • This aggression will not stand, man.
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #54 on: Oct 08, 2009, 08:13 »
Man I can see Content1 In 2059, 50 years from now, Telling Content 3 his Grandson that in 50 years the Fusion problem will be solved.  So Content 3 hold down the fort until 2109 for Content5.

That's funny. But I will say this about that. Without free thinking and persistant people, our species would still be killing buffalo for food and praying to some god in the sky for fire and rain. I do not buy that this hill is too steep or too tall to climb. Scientific advancement is moving at such a pace that there are college students studying to work in job fields that don't currently exist. Consider the advancements of the last 100 years, from horse and buggy to super computers. I think it is closed minded to say it's too hard or the battle is too long. We might smash an atom in a collider next month or next year and find something that will solve many of the problems facing fusion power.

I like how excited Content1 is about this. It will be people (probably with multiple Phd's, so they would actually be smarter than us road techs, LOL! Can't even believe that was a discussion) with this kind of outlook that will figure it out.
« Last Edit: Oct 08, 2009, 08:14 by Brett LaVigne »
I Heart Hippie Chicks!!!

JustinHEMI05

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #55 on: Oct 09, 2009, 09:41 »
Content1 has gumption. I admire and respect gumption. +K.

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #56 on: Oct 09, 2009, 12:22 »
Lastest note from the Physicists to the RCT's.  The calculations are in (theory) of just how powerful these 20 megajoules shots will be next year.   This is only in reference to the neutrons released from the fusion process, gammas not taken into account.   The are only working with a tritium/deuterium target smaller then the eraser on a pencil, and of course, the efficiency is not at 100% fusion conversion of the target, yet, in the large rooms surrounding the target chamber, the total neutron dose in the 50 billionth of a second laser shot would produce a doses over thousands of rems.  (In the actual target area, it reaches in the millions of rems.)   Yes, if a person was in the outer room (they have safety measures to prevent this) they would get a dose to kill delivered in 50 billionth of a second.   I bet they will not have a problem with insects or mice in there.  In defense of this, where much is expected, there will be risks.   It was the same with the development of fission.   It  kills the notion of a tiny "Mr. Fusion" like in "Back to the Future" because the neutrons are the hazard, not the fusion temperature.   

On the other hand, look at the power coming out of essentially hydrogen isotopes.   If you surround the target with U238 in spent fuel, you will get high energy fission which, of course, will get further neutron flux from the fissioning U238, and we solve our waste fuel disposal problems while getting real power for our country out of what now is waste.   Whatever fusion system results, safety shielding will always be the prime consideration on how small you could make it, much like a conventional fission reactor is now.

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #57 on: Oct 09, 2009, 01:08 »
Lastest note from the Physicists to the RCT's.  The calculations are in (theory) of just how powerful these 20 megajoules shots will be next year.   

100 quatloos that 1 year from now, the "50 years from now" carrot will still be dangling, with no breakeven fusion energy as a result of my tax dollars.

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #58 on: Oct 09, 2009, 02:50 »
Lastest note from the Physicists to the RCT's.  The calculations are in (theory) of just how powerful these 20 megajoules shots will be next year.   This is only in reference to the neutrons released from the fusion process, gammas not taken into account.   The are only working with a tritium/deuterium target smaller then the eraser on a pencil, and of course, the efficiency is not at 100% fusion conversion of the target, yet, in the large rooms surrounding the target chamber, the total neutron dose in the 50 billionth of a second laser shot would produce a doses over thousands of rems.  (In the actual target area, it reaches in the millions of rems.)   Yes, if a person was in the outer room (they have safety measures to prevent this) they would get a dose to kill delivered in 50 billionth of a second.   I bet they will not have a problem with insects or mice in there.  In defense of this, where much is expected, there will be risks.   It was the same with the development of fission.   It  kills the notion of a tiny "Mr. Fusion" like in "Back to the Future" because the neutrons are the hazard, not the fusion temperature.   

On the other hand, look at the power coming out of essentially hydrogen isotopes.   If you surround the target with U238 in spent fuel, you will get high energy fission which, of course, will get further neutron flux from the fissioning U238, and we solve our waste fuel disposal problems while getting real power for our country out of what now is waste.   Whatever fusion system results, safety shielding will always be the prime consideration on how small you could make it, much like a conventional fission reactor is now.

You are really stuck on using U238 as a fuel.  We already have the technology to burn U238 with just a fission reactor.

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #59 on: Oct 09, 2009, 02:58 »
The Nutty Neutron is right!! CANDU reactors burn U238 everyday with heavy water and can be refueled while running.

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #60 on: Oct 09, 2009, 03:03 »
I am not stuck on u238 as I am stuck on using spent fuel, mainly u238 as one immediate use for fusion power.   We have lots of it lying around and some want to stick in a mountain, I say let's use it first.

withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #61 on: Oct 09, 2009, 04:01 »
At your current stage, what sort of energy output vs. input are you folks looking at?  I'm also wondering how you're planning to get a self-sustaining reaction out of fusion.  I'm not a naysayer at all, I'm just clueless about and intrigued by the process.

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #62 on: Oct 09, 2009, 06:24 »
At your current stage, what sort of energy output vs. input are you folks looking at?  I'm also wondering how you're planning to get a self-sustaining reaction out of fusion.  I'm not a naysayer at all, I'm just clueless about and intrigued by the process.

Current stage, only firing deuterium/deuterium shots since the yield is lower and to insure the lasers are time precisely to completely consume the fuel.    In spring of 2010, they go live with using tritium/deuterium at near absolute zero encased in a beryllium shell.   It is estimated to use 20 million joules to ignite the fuel fired for maybe 25 billionth of s second, a lot of energy if it were continuous.   Once it is ignited it will well exceed the energy to ignite it, 100,000,000 degree, 3000 atmospheres and condensed to smaller then the thickness of a human hair from the size of a pencil eraser.   It is more like firing a bullet, that is, the energy to pull the trigger and hit the firing pin is way less then the energy when the ignited powder fires the bullet, must like here.   The difference is the bullet is deuterium/tritium reacting at a nuclear level converting to Helium and releasing the binding energy, along with high energy neutrons.

The goal would not be a self-sustaining reaction, but a complete reaction and release of energy to show it could be done.   Once you prove you can create controlled fusion, the plan would to make some mechanism where you fire a shot, charge lasers, reinsert and fire again, like the world most powerful machine gun.   As I said in a previous post, the pencil sized fuel that was compressed to the size of a human hair produces such energy that in the target chamber the neutron flux would be in the millions of rems, even in the room outside thousand of rems and even though the shot may be 25 billionths of a second, the total dose from neutrons received would be lethal, like in the center of a fission reactor.   It is not a continuation of the tokamak research, this is new and improved.   The liberals paid for it with the promise of clean non-carbon energy and disposing of spent fuel, the conservatives wanted new technology and a way to test our nuclear weapons without underground tests.   It is a technology that even if part of it is not successful right away other parts add to the safety of our nation.   It is better we are the researchers harnessing fusion rather then Iran and the Terrorists.   We are the good guys, don't forget.   This is not just hype.   We had the bomb first, and we did not use it to threaten others, only in self defense.   Had Hitler got it first, we all would be speaking German and Japanese.

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #63 on: Oct 09, 2009, 07:17 »
Have you heard of the concept called entropy?  You still have not told us about the power conversion process to power the laser from the fusion.  

Engineers have already proven that we make fusion work.  These reactors still sit on top of missiles ready to demonstrate their power.  Maybe we can build a big wind farm and detonate these "reactors" in the center every few minutes and get a nice breeze going.

I am going to stick with the Gen 4 reactors that use the caveman technology called fission as being the best next step.  These Gen 4 designs are helium cooled, graphite moderated designs that are 50% efficient.

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #64 on: Oct 09, 2009, 08:01 »
Put fusion device in center of fisson reactor.   Surround by conventional reactor using spent fuel.  Use fusion high energy neutrons to maintain criticality in what would be a subcrital reactor depending on thermal neutrons.   High energy neutrons from fusion make u238 produce faster neutrons to further fission more u238.   Using your K effective formula the fusion neutrons to keep the conventional reactor critical and at power putting energy onto grid.   Grid energy used to fire up laser.   That is one idea.

idea two.   Direct fusion heat.   Using the refiring of the fusion "Machine gun" process but at a faster rate to heat up water to boil like in a fission plant.   But then you are wasting all those lovely high energy neutrons.

The key first is to show we take isotopes of hydrogen to helium.   Give our engineers a break, they will take it from there. 

Please note, I do not think Hitler would had sued for peace if he had the ability to put all his enemies to pieces.  He would have sued for piece like he did with the Czechs (Whom the Germans cancelled whenever they could), Polish, French etc.   It was worth saving probably 10 million Japanese civilian lives and 1 million Amercing lives by stopping the war when we did the way we did.


Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #65 on: Feb 18, 2010, 06:40 »
We are training the folks for the first 20 Megajoule fusion reactions, watch the news in the next 3-6 months for history to be made.  We are booked for  years to come by researchers wanting to test this technology from around the world.  Sorry to all the Science fiction fans, but high energy lasers are in the x ray range and invisible to the eye.   They all got that one wrong.

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #66 on: Feb 18, 2010, 05:30 »
Remember how some a**hole said that the Segway was going to be the greatest thing invented since the internet?  I still remember seeing that thing unveiled on Good Morning America.  It was a disaster!

Come back when you close your breakers and start putting power onto the grid.
« Last Edit: Feb 18, 2010, 11:10 by Nuclear NASCAR »

JustinHEMI05

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #67 on: Feb 18, 2010, 06:02 »
Nutty, although I share your sentiment about closing breakers, I also applaud innovators and people that are willing to take risks despite the odds and nay sayers. If it wasn't for the likes of Newton, Galileo and Edison, we would still be in the stone age. People thinking outside the box is how we will get past this archaic form of producing power (splitting atoms).

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #68 on: Feb 19, 2010, 10:10 »
Remember how some a**hole said that the Segway was going to be the greatest thing invented since the internet?  I still remember seeing that thing unveiled on Good Morning America.  It was a disaster!

Come back when you close your breakers and start putting power onto the grid.


We at the point similar to the Manhattan project, it will be the first example of where the energy derived from a fusion reaction is greater then the energy used to produce it, it has never been done before.   It is like the Wright Brothers who were told powered flight would never be stable, and they ignored that research and made the first plane.   Once people saw flight was possible, they changed their attitude and planes started popping up everywhere.   The same will happen here once the fusion occurs.   Are you one of the naysayers who say something like, "If God had meant us to have fusion, we would have been born with laser-beams?

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #69 on: Feb 19, 2010, 10:59 »
We at the point similar to the Manhattan project, it will be the first example of where the energy derived from a fusion reaction is greater then the energy used to produce it, it has never been done before.   It is like the Wright Brothers who were told powered flight would never be stable, and they ignored that research and made the first plane.   Once people saw flight was possible, they changed their attitude and planes started popping up everywhere.   The same will happen here once the fusion occurs.   Are you one of the naysayers who say something like, "If God had meant us to have fusion, we would have been born with laser-beams?

Like my Grandma used to say " Maybe but I kind of F'ing doubt it.

thenuttyneutron

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #70 on: Feb 19, 2010, 11:22 »
We at the point similar to the Manhattan project, it will be the first example of where the energy derived from a fusion reaction is greater then the energy used to produce it, it has never been done before.   It is like the Wright Brothers who were told powered flight would never be stable, and they ignored that research and made the first plane.   Once people saw flight was possible, they changed their attitude and planes started popping up everywhere.   The same will happen here once the fusion occurs.   Are you one of the naysayers who say something like, "If God had meant us to have fusion, we would have been born with laser-beams?

Fission works just by making a big block with the consistency of dirt out of graphite and uranium.

I do think fusion will work one day.  I just don’t think it will work with the technology that you are trying to develop.  Look up Dr. Bussard and his work.  I do think his technology has merit.

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #71 on: Feb 19, 2010, 11:37 »
Come back when you close your breakers and start putting power onto the grid.
 I will secong Nutty Neutron!!!

Skip Fusion, Go directly to matter antimatter reactor, it seems more plausible to me.  Temperatures too high for material in fusion reactor to sustain it seems to me.

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #72 on: Feb 19, 2010, 11:54 »
 Once people saw flight was possible, they changed their attitude and planes started popping up everywhere. 

Isn't that the slippery slope towards the scientific philosophy of Trofim Lysenko and bad sci-fi movie plots; obscure politically-correct scientists toeing the party line (but lacking scientific rigor and empirical evidence) come up with some wild theory and pull some new unprovable "theory" out of their hiney??  Did Keanu Reeves develop this new fusion with Morgan Freeman's help?  Simply wanting the next new thing doesn't make it happen, there has to be something real behind it.

Specifically with fusion, we keep hearing about how it powers the stars, yet not all astrophysicists are convinced that the fusion takes place in the core of a star, it may  be towards the corona. That would be consistent with the other two readily observed sources of fusion , lightning bolts and fission-fusion devices. Both of those experience fusion , but in the context of

Gobs of input power/ very short time span

What would make this whole "fusion is coming next year" thing a lot more plausible is some links to some published peer-reviewed material, the sort of stuff one would find on www.physorg.com Will there be any such articles, or just more advertising?

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #73 on: Feb 19, 2010, 12:47 »
Is Fusion the New Global warming?  Money wasted and in the end no proof??  hmmm.  Sounds like throwing money away to me with the temperature thingy and the short time energy is made. 

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #74 on: Feb 19, 2010, 01:51 »

What would make this whole "fusion is coming next year" thing a lot more plausible is some links to some published peer-reviewed material, the sort of stuff one would find on www.physorg.com Will there be any such articles, or just more advertising?

Just thought those at nukeworker wanted to hear it first, in the coming months you will have all the science papers you want to show that either it worked or failed, and why.  If it works our world will change.  Enough said until it happens.  I have a front row seat is all, much like the guy in Armageddon.

 


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?