# Nuclear Fusion



## Crafty Caracal (Jan 29, 2010)

I just read this on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm

I had the impression nuclear fusion was something of a sci-fi pipe dream, the sort of thing that powers space ships and exotic robo beings.

What do others think of this, will it be an available energy source in the next decade, or will it end up as a tragedy where some poor scientist tops himself after learning that his quest for sustainable energy failed and the military co-opted the technology to make super blaster mega death rays and kill people?


----------



## Leon (Jan 29, 2010)

inb4whitenoise. :V






did I do it right?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2010)

it will take some time but once they get it to work properly that would be pretty amazing^^


----------



## Tycho (Jan 29, 2010)

Oh, nuclear fusion works.

For the first few milliseconds.

IIRC they end up using a lot more deuterium/hydrogen than they'd like to, because they have to constantly give it "boosts" by injecting more material.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

Does it require four additional cybernetic arms to stabilise?


----------



## Thatch (Jan 29, 2010)

It's almost efficient. As in, it almost MAKES energy, instead of absorbing it :V


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 29, 2010)

Bla bla bla nuclear fusion stuff..
It can make electricity for the price of useless radiation and pollution.
It can bomb in a powerful way.
Although, creating electricity by the sun or wind is better.
There are much more deep bombs developed lke the hydrogen bomb that was too heavy and the neutron bomb said to be held in multiple countries that face wars more than PIGEONS. 
Nuclear fusion is still cool tho, because of the particle effect taking place and creating the best smoke mushroom.
There is one thing better than nuclear but we can barely make it and we can hold something like a particle in a magnetic can of some kind. This is called Anti Matter *here comes the light*.
It's powerful, it's massive, and it takes 3 KG of it to destroy NY city.
Ouch.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Bla bla bla nuclear fusion stuff..
> It can make electricity for the price of useless radiation and pollution.
> It can bomb in a powerful way.
> Although, creating electricity by the sun or wind is better.
> ...



wow, that totally sound slike you know perfectly well what you are talking about :V

there is not a lot of waste if you use nuclear fusion. you only get smaller radioactive elements like certain helium isotopes and they decay after a lot less time than uranium or plutonium.
and there is no radiation during the process. you only get energy and neutrinos but they are totally harmless because they pass through everything without interacting with anything^^ they are actually passing through you right now!
and fusion is safe. the plasma is kept in a magnetic field. once it touches the wall of the reactor its not pure enough anymore for the fusion process to take place and it just stops


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Bla bla bla nuclear fusion stuff..
> It can make electricity for the price of useless radiation and pollution.
> It can bomb in a powerful way.
> Although, creating electricity by the sun or wind is better.
> ...


That's fission, and you're an idiot.



> There is one thing better than nuclear but we can barely make it


I think the main way to get antimatter is to find it rather than making it.

Oh, and one of the fundamental antimatter particles--the positron--is emitted by certain forms of radioactive decay.



> and we can hold something like a particle in a magnetic can of some kind. This is called Anti Matter *here comes the light*.
> It's powerful, it's massive, and it takes 3 KG of it to destroy NY city.
> Ouch.


Did you know?

The antimatter counterparts of elements are named "anti-(element)", so you can have anti-hydrogen, anti-helium, anti-oxygen...
Presumably, the same rules would apply to antimatter compounds, so my question is: If I drank anti-coffee, would I be more tired than I was before?
</badjoke>


----------



## Tycho (Jan 29, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Did you know?
> 
> The antimatter counterparts of elements are named "anti-(element)", so you can have anti-hydrogen, anti-helium, anti-oxygen...
> Presumably, the same rules would apply to antimatter compounds, so my question is: If I drank anti-coffee, would I be more tired than I was before?
> </badjoke>



Is it possible to be tired when you have been effectively almost COMPLETELY erased from existence?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Is it possible to be tired when you have been effectively almost COMPLETELY erased from existence?


Well, it _does_ take a lot out of you...


----------



## Thatch (Jan 29, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> The antimatter counterparts of elements are named "anti-(element)", so you can have anti-hydrogen, anti-helium, anti-oxygen...
> Presumably, the same rules would apply to antimatter compounds, so my question is: If I drank anti-coffee, would I be more tired than I was before?
> </badjoke>



It would make you full of energy :V


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 29, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> wow, that totally sound slike you know perfectly well what you are talking about :V
> 
> there is not a lot of waste if you use nuclear fusion. you only get smaller radioactive elements like certain helium isotopes and they decay after a lot less time than uranium or plutonium.
> and there is no radiation during the process. you only get energy and neutrinos but they are totally harmless because they pass through everything without interacting with anything^^ they are actually passing through you right now!
> and fusion is safe. the plasma is kept in a magnetic field. once it touches the wall of the reactor its not pure enough anymore for the fusion process to take place and it just stops



No I actually just pretend I am knowing everything.
I don't know most of the words in english that are useful for scientific subjects, so I AM COMPLEETE!
Actually, radiation from cell phones distrubs me just as nuclear radiation distrubs me, which means NONE.
They pass through everything? Just like a "Walk through walls" HAAAAAX.

@Rigor -  I have no true feelings toward you so I won't quote you.
Anyway, HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY FIND ANTIMATTER OUT IN THE WILD?
We can't even find the "matters" alone, so now antimatter?
Until we will find it, we will have enough time to get 1 MG of antimatter ourselves. Fission, Fusion ... I know what are those but have no real intention to use my brain to translate it, so I just copied the title and tried to be proffesor.
If anti coffee existed I'll be very ANTI it.
Get it get it? Nope? (/badjokefail)


----------



## Lobar (Jan 29, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Well, it _does_ take a lot out of you...



Fffffff.  This made me laugh.  I'm such a dork :<


On-topic, *the sun* is proof-of-concept on nuclear fusion.  No alternative energy plan should be considered complete without fully funding the ITER project.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 29, 2010)

I certainly hope that fusion power (that generates more energy in a sustained reaction than what it takes to get it started) does become a viable reality soon.

I'm not holding my breath though. The running joke with nuclear fusion power generation is that it's always "we'll have it in fifty years" - which was first stated fifty years ago :-(


----------



## Thatch (Jan 29, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Fffffff.  This made me laugh.  I'm such a dork :<
> 
> 
> On-topic, *the sun* is proof-of-concept on nuclear fusion.  No alternative energy plan should be considered complete without fully funding the ITER project.



Actually, a guy from my uni made an interesting seminar about how Tokamaks may be, ironically, a dead end in technology. Polywells, it theory, are more cost-effective and efficient, especially if you look at how complicated and mind-numbingly expensive ITER is, with minimal energy output. But naturally Polywells have their own complications.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 29, 2010)

Xipoid would be interested in this thread.


----------



## SnowFox (Jan 29, 2010)

Xipoid would probably sticky this thread.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 29, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> Xipoid would probably sticky this thread.



Sticky all over.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 29, 2010)

He'd come in here and make it so much better.


----------



## SnowFox (Jan 29, 2010)

szopaw said:


> Sticky all over.



That reminded me of "The Office" for some reason.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 29, 2010)

Crafty Caracal said:


> I just read this on the BBC website:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm
> 
> ...



You're too late, it's already been done... all our present nuclear weapons are fusion-types.  And you are forgetting Hiroshima and Nagasaki.........


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> You're too late, it's already been done... all our present nuclear weapons are fusion-types.  And you are forgetting Hiroshima and Nagasaki.........


Fission =/= fusion.
Goddammit, Roose, I'm very disappointed in you.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 29, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Fission =/= fusion.
> Goddammit, Roose, I'm very disappointed in you.



Nuclear energy is nuclear energy, fission or fusion (a bomb is a bomb)... and I'm fully aware those two cities were devastated by fission devices.  Only because we didn't have the fusion bomb yet.  Knew I should have added that little bit, to avoid someone making this very comment.  Oh, well, I've been disappointed myself quite often.  Guess this time isn't any different than all the others.........


----------



## Crafty Caracal (Jan 29, 2010)

Thanks for the replies, I've bookmarked pollywells and ITER for further reading


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 29, 2010)

Oh, yeah, the article itself:  Nice to know they've finally broken through the difficulties.  Hopefully their claim that they'll have ignition sometime this year comes true, this could indeed be what we've been looking for in the way of "clean" energy (with the caveat that no energy-source is truely 100% clean:  There is always some form of waste that has to be dealt with).


----------



## Thatch (Jan 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Nuclear energy is nuclear energy



No.



Roose Hurro said:


> with the caveat that no energy-source is truely 100% clean:  There is always some form of waste that has to be dealt with).



Only this will make less pollution than the sun. Being smaller and stuff. So it's pretty clean.


----------



## Kyle Necronomicon (Jan 29, 2010)

Already knew they were making fuzion not sci-fi to me anymore so no surprises anyway it'll prolly become a good energy source eventually but I hope for at least one huge 'splosion and the government may sue it for 'splosions but then the other governments would get it too and then it'd be like the cold war again.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 29, 2010)

There's also the Tokamak, which they've been trying to run in France for the past 60 years or so.  It involves a huge ass magnet that accelerates atoms and smashes them together.  I think they got it to work, but they can't sustain the reactions.  Which seems to be the problem with every fusion technology at this point; they can do it, but not for very long.
I don't think we'll have it in the next decade, anyhow.  Not enough people are putting money into it, so you only have a few groups working on it currently, with limited funds.  Government grants and such things are instead going to ineffective alternative fuels, like biofuels, solar power, wind energy, "clean" coal, etc.  It's understandable from a grant-writing perspective (it's a big risk that you'll get no payoff at this point), but not from an environmental standpoint.  Fusion would be a very clean technology.  The only waste is a mild radioactive waste that decays in a few decades, and that's just because the intense heat involved screws with the containment walls.  Or so I've read.  I guess the way some of these guys are doing it now involves silicon spheres, or lithium (which I think is required to isolate deuterium... something like that), so that would have to be taken into account, but fusion is enormously more efficient that anything else in terms of energy output.  We would be making little mini-stars to power our cities.
Also, there's no risk of meltdown.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 29, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> There's also the Tokamak, which they've been trying to run in France for the past 60 years or so.



You're some 60 years behind :V

There're many Tokamaks. Also, they originated in the USSR :V


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Nuclear energy is nuclear energy, fission or fusion (a bomb is a bomb)... and I'm fully aware those two cities were devastated by fission devices.  Only because we didn't have the fusion bomb yet.  Knew I should have added that little bit, to avoid someone making this very comment.  Oh, well, I've been disappointed myself quite often.  Guess this time isn't any different than all the others.........


Okay... 

What's the difference between fission and fusion bombs, then?



Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, yeah, the article itself:  Nice to know they've finally broken through the difficulties.  Hopefully their claim that they'll have ignition sometime this year comes true, this could indeed be what we've been looking for in the way of "clean" energy (with the caveat that no energy-source is truely 100% clean:  There is always some form of waste that has to be dealt with).


I still don't understand why they don't just use people to generate power. All you'd have to do is take those kids who drop out of high school and don't even bother trying to get their GED, hook 'em up to the dynamos, and tell 'em to start cranking. And those redneck couples whose sole source of income is having children.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 29, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I still don't understand why they don't just use people to generate power. All you'd have to do is take those kids who drop out of high school and don't even bother trying to get their GED, hook 'em up to the dynamos, and tell 'em to start cranking. And those redneck couples whose sole source of income is having children.



Because they're LAZY? That's the reason why you even mention them, isn't it? :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 29, 2010)

szopaw said:


> No.



Care to explain how fission and fusion are NOT two different forms of Nuclear Energy?  Are you aware that solar life-cycles include periods of both fusion and fission?




szopaw said:


> Only this will make less pollution than the sun. Being smaller and stuff. *So it's pretty clean.*



Yes, much better than coal or even fission... just hope that neutron shielding they come up with never fails.  Not to mention the containment!  Wouldn't do to have a little baby sun running loose... though I have to admit, baby suns are cute.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

szopaw said:


> Because they're LAZY? That's the reason why you even mention them, isn't it? :V


They wouldn't be the ones deciding it, though.
Start a government program that forces these wastes of space to do something useful.

oh wait I just figured out why they don't


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 29, 2010)

Woops, missed this one:



Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Okay...
> 
> *What's the difference between fission and fusion bombs, then?*



Though I asked you to explain the energy aspect in my last post, due to this being a bit different aspect, I'll give you a hint on this particular question:  one of those bombs is used to make the other work.




Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I still don't understand why they don't just use people to generate power. All you'd have to do is take those kids who drop out of high school and don't even bother trying to get their GED, hook 'em up to the dynamos, and tell 'em to start cranking. And those redneck couples whose sole source of income is having children.



_*stares blankly*_


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Though I asked you to explain the energy aspect in my last post, due to this being a bit different aspect, I'll give you a hint on this particular question:  one of those bombs is used to make the other work.


Uh...*tilts head*...nya?



> _*stares blankly*_


Well, people produce waste anyway, so why not use the ones who are wastes themselves as an energy source? :3


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 29, 2010)

Nice. I want my own Iron Man suit.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 29, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Uh...*tilts head*...nya?



_*snaps photo*_




Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Well, people produce waste anyway, so why not use the ones who are wastes themselves as an energy source? :3



_*still stares blankly*_




Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Nice. I want my own Iron Man suit.



Me, too... though I'd like to design mine to store in a pocket universe, so I can recall it, and have it automatically assemble around me, whenever I need it.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> _*snaps photo*_


o"."o;


> _*still stares blankly*_



You gotta blink sometime o.o;


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 29, 2010)

I WANT TO UNLEASH THE POWER OF THE SUN.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 29, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> I WANT TO UNLEASH THE POWER OF THE SUN.


IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND!?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 29, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> I WANT TO UNLEASH THE POWER OF THE SUN.


 
How about 1,000,000 suns?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> o"."o;



_*adds pic to photo album*_




Rigor Sardonicus said:


> You gotta blink sometime o.o;



On the Internet, I can stare FOREVER.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 30, 2010)

szopaw said:


> You're some 60 years behind :V
> 
> There're many Tokamaks. Also, they originated in the USSR :V



Sorry.  I was thinking of ITER.  I just forgot that's what it was called.  They use the tokamak design to produce the necessary magnetic fields... at ITER.
I had it in my head that the facility was called the tokamak, which it isn't.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Are you aware that solar life-cycles include periods of both fusion and fission?


A protostar becomes a star once hydrogen burning begins (that would be, fusion of hydrogen), continues the fusion of elements all the way up to whatever limit the star's mass imposes, at which point the fusion ceases, the fusion pressure is overcome by gravity, and the star implodes.  There is fission that takes places in stars simply because there's enough thermal energy there for it to happen from time to time (where the elements aren't just a vast ocean of plasma to begin with), but I don't recall ever learning that fission has any significant purpose in a star's life cycle.  At the centers of stars, where everything that matters happens (that matters concerning the life-cycle, I mean), there's simply too much pressure for atoms to split apart.  Instead, they fuse.
Anyway, the point is, fission and fusion are both nuclear processes, but they are actually polar opposites of each other.  Maybe you're just speaking in terms of the fact that they both release large amounts of energy, but that's really their only similarity.
Here: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/nuctek/fusionbomb.html
One of the reasons that fusion reactors aren't working right now is because it's really tough to create a continuous fusion chain reaction, simply because of the energy required to do so.  Fusions bombs, as that article points out, rely on fission to get started, and then only use the fusion energy generated to split more uranium atoms, rather than to create an explosion by itself.  Neutron bombs are just a one-shot deal, and rely more on the release of high energy particles than actual detonation capability.
This implies that a nuclear fusion reactor cannot possibly melt down, unless someone detonated a nuclear bomb inside of it for the specific purpose of melting it down.  Fusion and fission energy, then, are vastly different forms of energy.  Counter-intuitively, fusion is safer because higher energies are involved.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> _*adds pic to photo album*_


D:
I feel so..._violated..._



> On the Internet, I can stare FOREVER.


@_@


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 30, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yes, much better than coal or even fission... just hope that neutron shielding they come up with never fails.  Not to mention the containment!  Wouldn't do to have a little baby sun running loose... though I have to admit, baby suns are cute.



If my understanding is correct, if containment in a fusion reactor fails the hyper-critical conditions for fusion are no longer met - so the reaction kinda fizzles and grinds to a halt more or less immediately (for given amounts of "immediately").


----------



## Lobar (Jan 30, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> On the Internet, I can stare FOREVER.



And when you stare long into the Internet, the Internet also stares into you...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 30, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> A protostar becomes a star once hydrogen burning begins (that would be, fusion of hydrogen), continues the fusion of elements all the way up to whatever limit the star's mass imposes, at which point the fusion ceases, the fusion pressure is overcome by gravity, and the star implodes.  There is fission that takes places in stars simply because there's enough thermal energy there for it to happen from time to time (where the elements aren't just a vast ocean of plasma to begin with), but I don't recall ever learning that fission has any significant purpose in a star's life cycle.  At the centers of stars, where everything that matters happens (that matters concerning the life-cycle, I mean), there's simply too much pressure for atoms to split apart.  Instead, they fuse.
> Anyway, the point is, fission and fusion are both nuclear processes, but they are actually polar opposites of each other.  *Maybe you're just speaking in terms of the fact that they both release large amounts of energy, but that's really their only similarity.*
> Here: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/nuctek/fusionbomb.html
> One of the reasons that fusion reactors aren't working right now is because it's really tough to create a continuous fusion chain reaction, simply because of the energy required to do so.  Fusions bombs, as that article points out, rely on fission to get started, and then only use the fusion energy generated to split more uranium atoms, rather than to create an explosion by itself.  Neutron bombs are just a one-shot deal, and rely more on the release of high energy particles than actual detonation capability.
> This implies that a nuclear fusion reactor cannot possibly melt down, unless someone detonated a nuclear bomb inside of it for the specific purpose of melting it down.  Fusion and fission energy, then, are vastly different forms of energy.  Counter-intuitively, fusion is safer because higher energies are involved.



There is that, but I got the feeling Kilroy was implying the two processes were not both nuclear in nature, so I used the solar lifecycle thing to show that fusion and fission, though opposites, can exist within the same object.  I just didn't get into the little details.  Oversimplification on my part.  Fission and fusion are related, as far as nuclear processes go, but Kilroy just didn't seem to understand that.  And I'd say fusion is "safer" because it doesn't leave behind such a high degree of toxic waste, with such a long half-life.  And yes, that is the main problem relative to fusion reactors.  Fission is easy by comparison, though the reactions, due to their nature, tend to runaway, if not controlled, while fusion has the difficulty of being hard to initiate in a stable form, thereby being prone to, as Mayfurr said, "fizzle out".

I'd have to check, but I believe very old stars, in their red giant stages (I think), due to the lowering of pressures in their cores, switch from fusion to fission.  I seem to remember reading something to that effect, a very long time ago.  If the pressure in a star's core drops below the pressures needed to sustain fusion, then the elements in the star switch to fission.  Yep, I'd have to check that.........




Rigor Sardonicus said:


> D:
> I feel so..._violated..._



Treat me to a lobster dinner, and you can have the photo back...




Rigor Sardonicus said:


> @_@



O.0'




Mayfurr said:


> If my understanding is correct, if containment in a fusion reactor fails the hyper-critical conditions for fusion are no longer met - *so the reaction kinda fizzles and grinds to a halt more or less immediately* (for given amounts of "immediately").



It's that "more or less" part that bites.  Still, probably better than a runaway fusion reactor... though we won't really know until a fusion reactor comes on line, then loses containment.




Lobar said:


> And when you stare long into the Internet, the Internet also stares into you...



Blunt-force trauma should take care of that.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 30, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> I'd have to check, but I believe very old stars, in their red giant stages (I think), due to the lowering of pressures in their cores, switch from fusion to fission. I seem to remember reading something to that effect, a very long time ago. If the pressure in a star's core drops below the pressures needed to sustain fusion, then the elements in the star switch to fission. Yep, I'd have to check that.........


If what was in the core that had fused started to split again after all was said and done, stars would never die.  You'd be constantly recycling atoms.  So that makes no sense.  
Red giant stars are a complicated thing, but generally the reason they expand like they do is because hydrogen burning in the core ends (out of fuel), but the contraction energy of the core produces enough heat in the outer layers for hydrogen to start burning there instead, so the contraction energy plus the new hydrogen burning in the outer core heats the star up, and the ideal gas law takes effect (PV = nRT, if T is increased, V is increased) and the star expands.  But it's still fusion causing the expansion, just in a different place.  Fission has no part anywhere in any of these processes, I don't think.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

The responses to this thread leave me so jaded I don't even care to correct anyone.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> The responses to this thread leave me so jaded I don't even care to correct anyone.



I feel ya, I'm in the same boat. :|


----------



## Telnac (Jan 30, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> I certainly hope that fusion power (that generates more energy in a sustained reaction than what it takes to get it started) does become a viable reality soon.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath though. The running joke with nuclear fusion power generation is that it's always "we'll have it in fifty years" - which was first stated fifty years ago :-(


Unfortunately, true.  We know how to fuse H-2 (deuterium) and/or H-3, He-3, Li-6, Li-7 and even B-11... and so on.  However, doing so in a controlled manner is a royal pain in the arse.  The main reason fusion's good in atomic bombs is the same reason it's so hard to make economical in a controlled reactor: fast neutrons.  In a thermonuclear weapon, a variant of Lithium Hydride using Li-7 and H-2 is compressed until it's able to use the H-2 into Helium.  You'd thing that 2 H-2 atoms would make one He-4 atom, but the fusion process is sloppy and lots of side reactions need to take place before we start getting He-4 atoms.  These side reactions produce high energy neutrons & high energy protons in abundance.  The high energy neutrons are able to split U-238, which is used in the bomb casing to both provide the fuel for the third generation of nuclear reactions but to also be neutron deflectors to help start the first generation nuclear reactions.

Enough fast neutrons are produced in a fusion reaction that a thermonuclear bomb w/o the U-238 casing is popularly known as a neutron bomb.   Even from miles away, these neutrons strike everything and make many common atoms, such as the carbon in our bodies, radioactive.

There are fusion reactions that don't produce these neutrons, but they're very, very hard to set up, which is one of the main problems we're having.  There's little advantage to using nuclear fusion as a power source if it just ends up making the entire reaction chamber radioactive in a month!

What I'm betting on for the long haul is cold fusion.  It still have the same neutron problem as hot fusion, but without the need for a large confinement chamber, it's a lot easier to contain the fast neutrons to a small space and to properly dispose of any radioactive waste created by the reaction.  Alas, more often than not, cold fusion happens more as a result of getting lucky than by design and even then, the reaction ends pretty quickly.  Better atomic-scale designs for cold fusion reactions will make them far more reliable, but that's likely several decades off.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> The responses to this thread leave me so jaded I don't even care to correct anyone.


Oh please do Xipoid, I want to learnnnnnnnn.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 30, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> If what was in the core that had fused started to split again after all was said and done, stars would never die.  You'd be constantly recycling atoms.  So that makes no sense.
> Red giant stars are a complicated thing, but generally the reason they expand like they do is because hydrogen burning in the core ends (out of fuel), but the contraction energy of the core produces enough heat in the outer layers for hydrogen to start burning there instead, so the contraction energy plus the new hydrogen burning in the outer core heats the star up, and the ideal gas law takes effect (PV = nRT, if T is increased, V is increased) and the star expands.  But it's still fusion causing the expansion, just in a different place.  *Fission has no part anywhere in any of these processes*, I don't think.



Well, I've been doing some homework, and so far, everything I've found supports your supposition, so somewhere in my distant memories, I must have mixed up some things.  Fusion seems to be the only nuclear process at work in the core of stars.  So, my little bit was mistaken.  However, I did find plenty of material detailing the differences between the two, and how they both liberate nuclear energy.  I even found mention of a natural fission reactor existing in a uranium deposit... what did they say, 2 billion years ago?

Edit:  Ahhh, found this:  http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Lighting the Stars.htm ... an interesting read, though brief.



> *= Stellar ignition by nuclear fission =*
> 
> Thermonuclear fusion reactions, thought to power the Sun and other stars, require temperatures on the order of one million degrees Celsius for ignition. Since the mid-1930s the assumption has been that such temperatures were obtained during the in-fall of dust and gas during star formation, but there are problems. In 1994, J. Marvin Herndon suggested that stellar fusion reactions may, in fact, be ignited by a central fission reactor in the same manner that a fusion bomb is triggered by a fission bomb. Rather than stars automatically igniting during formation, non-ignition may occur in absence of actinide elements, leading to the possibility of dark stars, dark matter, particularly surrounding luminous galaxies [Herndon, J. M. (1994) Planetary and protostellar nuclear fission: Implications for planetary change, stellar ignition and dark matter. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A455, 453-461].


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 30, 2010)

> Rather than stars automatically igniting during formation, non-ignition may occur in absence of actinide elements, leading to the possibility of dark stars, dark matter, particularly surrounding luminous galaxies


That sounds....
Well, I'm a little suspicious, I guess, of this paper.  The website you linked to seems to have been put together by a scientist who at some point had his idea snubbed by the greater scientific community, which pissed him off.  It doesn't mean there's no validity, but it's a big red flag for things like this when you see someone introduce their concept by saying:


> As a consequence [of government funding] there is a documented record of astrophysicists, not only failing to acknowledge important contradictions to important advances, but trying to suppress and bury them. Science is about truth, not deception to the scientific community, to the general public, and to taxpayers.


To me, that says, "My idea wasn't accepted!  Boo hoo hoo!  It's not the idea that's faulty, it's the corrupted astrophysicists and their government money!"  Not particularly professional.
I'm just wondering how this kind of non-activation would occur, considering that 95% of the universe is made up of hydrogen and 5% is helium, which seem to ignite just fine considering that, you know, stars exist as they do.  It would have to be something incredibly rare, certainly rare enough not to account for the ginormous presence of dark matter we've [indirectly] observed, like this fellow seems to be implying.
I'm skeptical.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 30, 2010)

Actinides, huh? Well it is good to know that according to this guy first generation stars, existing before the synthesis of heavy elements, could not ignite.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 30, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> That sounds....
> Well, I'm a little suspicious, I guess, of this paper.  The website you linked to seems to have been put together by a scientist who at some point had his idea snubbed by the greater scientific community, which pissed him off.  It doesn't mean there's no validity, but it's a big red flag for things like this when you see someone introduce their concept by saying:
> 
> To me, that says, "My idea wasn't accepted!  Boo hoo hoo!  It's not the idea that's faulty, it's the corrupted astrophysicists and their government money!"  Not particularly professional.
> ...



Ahhh, so you noticed.  But I did say it was interesting, not necessarily factual.  It was the only thing I found refering to fission in the creation/life-cycle of stars, something to take with whatever grains of salt you wish.




CommodoreKitty said:


> *Actinides, huh?* Well it is good to know that according to this guy first generation stars, existing before the synthesis of heavy elements, could not ignite.



That part caught my attention, too.  Yep, those poor first-gen stars!


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

If they're using this stuff for fusion, what the hell's the point of the Large Hadron Collider?


Roose Hurro said:


> Treat me to a lobster dinner, and you can have the photo back...


Sure, if you don't mind eating dinner with a guy in a dress :3



> O.0'


p.o


----------



## Thatch (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> If they're using this stuff for fusion, what the hell's the point of the Large Hadron Collider?



It makes things go BOOOOOOOOOOM.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 30, 2010)

The LHC is used to study fundamental particles.  What did you think it was for?


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

Easog said:


> Oh please do Xipoid, I want to learnnnnnnnn.




Ask me a question.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 30, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> The LHC is used to study fundamental particles.  What did you think it was for?



I thought it was supposed to be this for super-smart big kids.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> The LHC is used to study fundamental particles.  What did you think it was for?


Well, what good is that?


----------



## Aurali (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Ask me a question.



Will you correct what's wrong? Or at least explain how fusion is produced? I'm honestly intrigued and want to know more


----------



## blackedsoul (Jan 30, 2010)

Learn to do it safely and boom, no more people whining about the earth WHICH IS NOT HEATING UP! TAKE THE GEORGIA WINTER FOR EXAMPLE!


----------



## Telnac (Jan 30, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Actinides, huh? Well it is good to know that according to this guy first generation stars, existing before the synthesis of heavy elements, could not ignite.


The problem with that theory is that it assumes that the core of some stars couldn't get hot & dense enough to trigger H-1 to H-1 fusion without free neutrons to help lube the whole process.  Two problems with that: we know H-1 to H-1 fusion can happen without any neutrons to help "grease the wheel."  In fact, the presence of free neutrons might hinder, not help, H-1 to H-1 fusion!  Secondly, even in the primordial Universe, there's enough H-2 to form H-2 to H-2 fusion, which emits the very neutrons he theorizes are needed to make other flavors of fusion possible.

Even if you assume he's right and the Universe was only H-1 or He-4, and that free neutrons are needed to cause fusion except under very high energies, a big enough star could still trigger H-1 to H-1 fusion w/o any free neutrons to lube the process.   We know that's possible, because we've done H-1 to H-1 fusion in particular accelerators and we can measure how much energy is needed to make that happen.  In fact, such as star wouldn't even have to be all that big: not much more massive than than a red dwarf. Anything larger would simply be too massive to remain stable w/o fusion keeping the internal pressure up and it would collapse. Long before becoming a black hole, however, H-1 to H-1 fusion would take place and the star would become a true star after all.

Even if you ignored ALL of that, and assume that only very massive 1st generation stars could fuse H-1 to H-1 for some odd reason, those starts would live a short life, go BOOM, and seed the surrounding area with elements other than H-1 and He-4.  Even if there were dark stars that are otherwise massive enough to ignite but lack the neutrons to do so, trace amounts of H-2, He-3, Li-6, Li-7 and other goodies would soon find their way into the core and BAM you have a true star... for a tiny fraction of a second.  If such a star was compressed to the point of gravitational equlibrium w/o the core producing any energy, and if you believe that neutrons are needed to moderate H-1 to H-1 fusion, the first neutron would be like throwing a match into a barrel of gunpowder.  BOOM, goodbye star!


----------



## Tycho (Jan 30, 2010)

blackedsoul said:


> Learn to do it safely and boom, no more people whining about the earth WHICH IS NOT HEATING UP! TAKE THE GEORGIA WINTER FOR EXAMPLE!



Goddammit, people, enough with the clinging to the idea of "global warming". "Global warming" is a fallacy.  It's "climate change".  Weather is starting to follow slightly different (slightly odd) patterns, temperatures seem to be a little more than they should be in one place and a little less than another.  This sort of "weird weather" thing DOES occur naturally (see: the Ice Age) but there's debate that perhaps we're throwing it into a higher gear than normal with our CO2 emissions and such.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

Aurali said:


> Will you correct what's wrong? Or at least explain how fusion is produced? I'm honestly intrigued and want to know more



No, and yes.


Fusion is simply the merging (or fusing) of multiple nuclei into a more complex nucleus. You would do so by bringing the nuclei close enough that the nuclear strong force will override the Coloumbic barrier. The only way to do this is by imparting enough energy to the nuclei (AKA: Heating) or by forcing them into the same proximity (AKA: Inertial confinement).


----------



## Telnac (Jan 30, 2010)

Aurali said:


> Will you correct what's wrong? Or at least explain how fusion is produced? I'm honestly intrigued and want to know more


I'll help out if you don't mind my verbose posts.  I won't answer what's wrong (there's been simply too much bad science posted here to answer it all) but I can give a quick overview of fusion vs fission.

Fission take heavy elements & splits them into lighter ones.  For elements more massive than iron, that usually produces two smaller atoms, the combined mass of which are less than the mass of the original atom.  The missing mass is either in byproducts of the reaction (neutrons, neutrinos and other side particles) or it's been converted to energy.  Thanks to E=MC^2, a small amount of mass yields a LOT of energy.

Fission requires little initial energy to set the whole process off.  In fact, all you need to do is pile up enough U-235 (or other fissile material) and it'll just happen on its own (a nuclear meltdown.)  The amount of material you need to reach this point is called the critical mass.  Critical mass is a bit of a misnomer, since you can't just have 12kg of plutonium and have a critical mass unless it's all compressed close enough that one atom splitting will, on average, make another atom split.  In a meltdown, the material gets out of critical mass because the reaction melts everything and it becomes a goo of molten slag unable to react with anything.  But if you compress such material quickly, so that it can't deform from the heat of the reaction before the reaction is complete, then all the energy is released in a fraction of a second and BOOM... you have an atomic bomb.

Fission reactors walk the fine line between meltdown by barely keeping the fissile material at critical mass.  Careful design is needed, and despite the number of fail-safe mechanisms in place, a meltdown is always possible.  The other downside is that fission produces a great number of radioactive byproducts that will remain radioactive for thousands of years to come.

Fusion is how the Sun makes its energy.  While we used fission to rapidly compress a Lithium Deuteride core to create nuclear fusion in thermonuclear bombs, the Sun uses no fission energy.  It's 100% fusion.

Fusion is the creation of heavier elements from light elements.  It's how the heavy elements were created in the first place, but elements heavier than iron cost energy to make via fusion, so no star will be powered by fusing heavy elements.  The heavy elements could only be made in the death throes of stars when they explode at the end of their life, and when there's enough energy to fuse random lighter elements to make things such as nickel, gold and uranium.

The type of fusion that produces energy only happens when you fuse light elements, such as hydrogen, to make other light elements, such as helium, lithium or boron.  The Universe is mostly made of hydrogen, and the lightest form: H-1... just a proton.  The Sun can fuse H-1 to H-1 to produce H-2 and a positron (a form of antimatter.)  The positron finds its normal matter counterpart, an electron, and both annihilate to produce oodles of energy.  H-2 is also known as deuterium, a form of hydrogen that has one proton & one neutron.   After that, H-1 va H-2 fusion or H-2 to H-2 fusion makes an He-3 atom (a lighter form of Helium) and more fusion reations finally reach the stable He-4 atom that we use in blowing up balloons.

H-1 to H-1 fusion requires a LOT of energy to initiate, and produces relatively little energy compared to other fusion reactions.  H-2 to H-2 fusion creates a LOT more energy and is easier to start, but H-2 to H-2 fusion produces fast moving neutrons, which can make anything they hit radioactive.  There are other fusion reactions that don't produce neutrons, but they're harder to set up & give back less energy.  So there is no easy solution for making a fusion reactor.

However, fusion has a TON of advantages over fission.  First, there is no chance of meltdown whatsoever.  If something catastrophic happens and the reactor looses the fuel containment, the reactor breaks, the fuel comes in contact with the outside air, quickly burns and the end result is: water vapor and a VERY EXPENSIVE repair bill!  There is no threat to the public.  You can send your kids to the elementary school next door and never hand to worry about the school being reduced to a radioactive pile of ash.

Secondly, the radioactive byproducts are minimal.  Even in reactions that produce fast neutrons, we can control what those neutrons can interact with.  Yeah, we may end up with radioactive silicon or copper or some other lighter elements, but those radioactive byproducts have a much shorter half life than, say, Strontium-90 (a common byproduct of U-235 fission.)  We can place them in water for a few years & recycle the waste.   No need for a salt mine in Nevada to house the waste for 50,000 years.  What's more, the waste can't use used to make weapons.  A side reaction in nuclear fission can turn U-238 into Plutonium, the active ingredient in a modern nuclear bomb.  No fusion reaction produces waste like that.

Most importantly, is the fuel itself.  It's _*everywhere!*_  There's enough fuel in a glass of water to power a city for years.  No need to worry about oil embargoes, or tanker spills or pipeline problems.  Once fusion power is practical and widespread, our energy concerns are a problem of the past.  Granted.... the challenges we need to overcome to make that fantasy a reality are numerous and expensive.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

I... I can't even


----------



## Aurali (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> I... I can't even



umm. what?

Thanks Telnac, pretty much stuff I knew, but I did learn a few things.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

Aurali said:


> umm. what?




I give up.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> I give up.



You can't give up now, the Positrons are depending on you!


----------



## Telnac (Jan 30, 2010)

Aurali said:


> umm. what?
> 
> Thanks Telnac, pretty much stuff I knew, but I did learn a few things.


YW.  Sorry for the long post, but I didn't know where you were starting in terms of knowledge so I decided to start with the basics & go from there.


----------



## Aurali (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> I give up.



Was he wrong? If so, please say something.. I get in enough trouble recalling incorrect knowledge.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

Aurali said:


> Was he wrong? If so, please say something.. I get in enough trouble recalling incorrect knowledge.



Was who wrong?


----------



## Aurali (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Was who wrong?



Telnac


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

Aurali said:


> Telnac



Minus some choice language, no.


----------



## Aurali (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Minus some choice language, no.



Okay. Would you care to expand on it then? *wags tail like a young child*


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Well, what good is that?


Who knows?  I imagine something will come out of a greater understanding of matter and the universe.  That's why it's exciting.
Research often seems worthless until it changes everything.  Maxwell spent a lot of his time running currents through wires and passing them through loops, just to see what would happen.  Now we have alternating current electricity.  So you never can tell.



			
				Xipoid said:
			
		

> You would do so by bringing the nuclei close enough that the nuclear strong force will override the Coloumbic barrier.


I wonder how much energy you get from overriding the degeneracy pressure in the nucleus.  I'll bet we haven't done that in a lab yet.  We just watch massive stars explode violently.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 30, 2010)

Aurali said:


> *wags tail like a young child*



It's confirmed, you live in an alternate reality :V


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

Aurali said:


> Okay. Would you care to expand on it then? *wags tail like a young child*



Not really no. Maybe in private.



M. Le Renard said:


> I wonder how much energy you get from overriding the degeneracy pressure in the nucleus.  I'll bet we haven't done that in a lab yet.  We just watch massive stars explode violently.



What do you mean by overriding the degeneracy pressure? Collapsing it into singularity?


----------



## Telnac (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Minus some choice language, no.


Sorry; I probably irritated you b/c I'm a futurist and I think that fusion really will solve most of the energy problems we have today.  That said, this rosy future will likely be at the end of our lifetimes (or even later than that.)  The fusion experiements being built now are _*huge*_, enormously expensive and aren't even designed to generate electricity!  They're just giant proof-of-concept experiments that exist only to show us how we can build a commercial fusion power plant someday.

When such power plants are finally built, fusion power will probably cost far more per watt than fission, coal, solar, wind or fart-powered energy production.  In the short term, fusion won't herald in a new era with angels singing and free energy for all.  But I do believe it'll be the primary power source for the 22nd century and possibly even for some of the latter half of the 21st century.  That's because new fusion plants won't be nearly as expensive to set up as the first generation of them.  In the decades to come after that, science & engineering will continue to improve, making future designs smaller, cheaper, safer and more productive.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Sorry; I probably irritated you b/c I'm a futurist and I think that fusion really will solve most of the energy problems we have today.  That said, this rosy future will likely be at the end of our lifetimes (or even later than that.)  The fusion experiements being built now are _*huge*_, enormously expensive and aren't even designed to generate electricity!  They're just giant proof-of-concept experiments that exist only to show us how we can build a commercial fusion power plant someday.
> 
> When such power plants are finally built, fusion power will probably cost far more per watt than fission, coal, solar, wind or fart-powered energy production.  In the short term, fusion won't herald in a new era with angels singing and free energy for all.  But I do believe it'll be the primary power source for the 22nd century and possibly even for some of the latter half of the 21st century.  That's because new fusion plants won't be nearly as expensive to set up as the first generation of them.  In the decades to come after that, science & engineering will continue to improve, making future designs smaller, cheaper, safer and more productive.




People who believe Fusion is the future do not irk me at all. I like those people.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> What do you mean by overriding the degeneracy pressure? Collapsing it into singularity?


Yeah.
I guess I'm wondering, because it seems like the energy in fusion comes from missing mass, but I've always been told the only reason for the supernova effect in collapsing massive stars is because of a rebound shockwave.  I didn't know (or couldn't remember) if there were any other energies involved.


----------



## Telnac (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> People who believe Fusion is the future do not irk me at all. I like those people.


Good to know, thanks.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> Yeah.
> I guess I'm wondering, because it seems like the energy in fusion comes from missing mass, but I've always been told the only reason for the supernova effect in collapsing massive stars is because of a rebound shockwave.  I didn't know (or couldn't remember) if there were any other energies involved.




Fusion/fission energy comes from the mass required to be converted into binding energy. If you look the binding energy curve, it sort of explains itself. If you reduced a nucleus to singularity, I'm not sure what would happen (micro black hole? Explosion of exotic particles?). Even if it did make energy, I wouldn't even know how to begin to speculate on how to collect it.


----------



## Aurali (Jan 30, 2010)

szopaw said:


> It's confirmed, you live in an alternate reality :V



I HAVE INVADED YOUR DIMENSION TO RID IT OF THE BROCCOLI MENACE *noms on broccoli*


Xipoid said:


> Not really no. Maybe in private.



If you wouldn't mind I'd love to hear it, even in private.



Xipoid said:


> Fusion/fission energy comes from the mass required to be converted into binding energy. If you look the binding energy curve, it sort of explains itself. If you reduced a nucleus to singularity, I'm not sure what would happen (micro black hole? Explosion of exotic particles?). Even if it did make energy, I wouldn't even know how to begin to speculate on how to collect it.



Aren't micro black holes unsustainable? the amount of energy that it would need to fuel would be tremendous! almost impossible with the space between atoms on the atomic level.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Even if it did make energy, I wouldn't even know how to begin to speculate on how to collect it.



Not to mention, that even if it did make energy, would it be more than needed to make it collapse to begin with? Doubtful, IMO.


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Does it require four additional cybernetic arms to stabilise?



:|



Xipoid said:


> Fusion/fission energy comes from the mass required to be converted into binding energy. If you look the binding energy curve, it sort of explains itself. If you reduced a nucleus to singularity, I'm not sure what would happen (micro black hole? Explosion of exotic particles?). Even if it did make energy, I wouldn't even know how to begin to speculate on how to collect it.




Hopefully they figure out how to collect it before flipping the switch.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

8-bit said:


> :|


:V


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> :V



I know who Doc Oct is. Hes that guy who flies around throwing those pumpkin bombs, right? :V


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

8-bit said:


> I know who Doc Oct is. Hes that guy who flies around throwing those pumpkin bombs, right? :V


Of course. Now how do I shot web?


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 30, 2010)

8-bit said:


> Hopefully they figure out how to collect it before flipping the switch.




You have to do research before you can go anywhere.


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Of course. Now how do I shot web?



I think it comes out the penis?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

8-bit said:


> I think it comes out the penis?


But it's too gooey to swing from. Am I doing it wrong? D:


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> But it's too gooey to swing from. Am I doing it wrong? D:



Maybe you're not pulling hard enough? Did you remember the magic words?


----------



## Thatch (Jan 30, 2010)

8-bit said:


> Did you remember the magic words?



"YES, OH FUCKING YES!" ?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

8-bit said:


> Maybe you're not pulling hard enough?


I'm afraid of ripping the skin, though...



> Did you remember the magic words?


You mean they're _not_ "Oh god, fuck me harder"?


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 30, 2010)

Ah yes, the laser fusion experiment that worked ...
Not that it would actually was planned for fusion reactors but for simulating nuclear explosions of hydrogen bombs (after all, their biggest sponsor, the US military, want to see some results for their cash, can't blame them), but it's a start. Now, if they could get to the break-even (approx. twelve fusions per second, according to the scientist they asked about his opinion) the whole thing might actually become interesting, but as for now it's still a long and rocky road until we got our own micro-sun in our basements. ;-)


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> Ah yes, the laser fusion experiment that worked ...
> Not that it would actually was planned for fusion reactors but for simulating nuclear explosions of hydrogen bombs (after all, their biggest sponsor, the US military, want to see some results for their cash, can't blame them), but it's a start. Now, if they could get to the break-even (approx. twelve fusions per second, according to the scientist they asked about his opinion) the whole thing might actually become interesting, but as for now it's still a long and rocky road until we got our own micro-sun in our basements. ;-)


And until I finally get to achieve my lifelong dream of punching the sun.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> And until I finally get to achieve my lifelong dream of punching the sun.



It's way too fucking smug when it wears sunglasses.  :V


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 30, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It's way too fucking smug when it wears sunglasses.  :V


Bitch always be tryin' to tackle me >:[


----------



## TriggerhappyWolf (Jan 30, 2010)

yeah let's put reactors in every house, what could go wrong?

Not going to happen. We don't need the average idiot playing with one.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 30, 2010)

TriggerhappyWolf said:


> yeah let's put reactors in every house, what could go wrong?
> 
> Not going to happen. We don't need the average idiot playing with one.



Yes we do :V

Instant idiot remover

Just add hydrogen


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> If they're using this stuff for fusion, *what the hell's the point of the Large Hadron Collider?*



Particle physics...




Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Sure, if you don't mind eating dinner with a guy in a dress :3



Funny you should mention this, I just watched "The Fastest Indian" last night.  Go out, rent, and watch, if you want to know what I mean... it's a very good film.




Rigor Sardonicus said:


> p.o



P.P




Aurali said:


> Will you correct what's wrong? Or at least explain how fusion is produced? *I'm honestly intrigued and want to know more*



Try this:  http://nuclearfusion.com/




8-bit said:


> Hopefully they figure out how to collect it before flipping the switch.



Even fission reactors are simply a source of heat energy used to turn water to steam to power a turbine generator.  I imagine fusion reactors will work the same way, just a heat source to boil water.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 30, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Bitch always be tryin' to tackle me >:[



Yo, you gotta be getting those "P"s, duuuuude.  You be flyin' high off that bitch, he ain't be tackling SHIT!


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 30, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Even fission reactors are simply a source of heat energy used to turn water to steam to power a turbine generator.  I imagine fusion reactors will work the same way, just a heat source to boil water.



The fun part is when you work out what to use in the primary heat exchanger loop from the reactor to the "create steam for turbines" - the sodium/bismuth type reactor used on the Russian "Alpha"-class subs that uses _molten metal_ for the job of transferring nuclear heat to boil water is a _real_ example of "out of the box thinking". Especially when you have to keep the reactor going 24/7 to keep the heat exchanger loop molten or it will "freeze"...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 30, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> The fun part is when you work out what to use in the primary heat exchanger loop from the reactor to the "create steam for turbines" - *the sodium/bismuth type reactor used on the Russian "Alpha"-class subs that uses molten metal for the job of transferring nuclear heat to boil water is a real example of "out of the box thinking". Especially when you have to keep the reactor going 24/7 to keep the heat exchanger loop molten or it will "freeze"...*



Sounds like an engine only Scotty could love...


----------



## Crafty Caracal (Jan 31, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Feel my brain, it is bigger than your balls would be after a saline elephantiasis party



Sry for paraphrasing and yes it applies to more than just Telnac but he did gain the highest geek score, sweet replies, thanks n love  :-D

Funny thing is I brought this up after reading about it on the eve-online forums and the replies here are far more intelligent than the supposed intelligent end of the gamer spectrum.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1260394

/uneducated asshole asking questions about stuff he doesn't understand but thinks is cool 

AFAIK Einstein reckoned E=MC2 so nuclear energy is our butt ass awful attempt at making real shit out of a beautiful equation that tells us how energy and matter interact. Good luck and much love to all of you who try to do something with it.

Government Health Warning:
Don't drink rum or you'll end up making shit posts like this asshole.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 31, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Sounds like an engine only Scotty could love...



It's not a patch on the Project Orion "ride a series of nuclear explosions into orbit" engine though...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 31, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> It's not a patch on the Project Orion "ride a series of nuclear explosions into orbit" engine though...



A ship is a ship, space or ocean.  And Star Trek is just fiction.  Scotty did, however, keep the Enterprise's engines running, which was my point reguarding an engine that needed to be keep "hot" 24/7.  Out of the box thinking, yes, but I imagine the sub's engineer had to be very good at his job.  Like Commander Scott.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 31, 2010)

Crafty Caracal said:


> AFAIK Einstein reckoned E=MC2 so nuclear energy is our butt ass awful attempt at making real shit out of a beautiful equation that tells us how energy and matter interact.



gg


----------



## Telnac (Jan 31, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> The fun part is when you work out what to use in the primary heat exchanger loop from the reactor to the "create steam for turbines" - the sodium/bismuth type reactor used on the Russian "Alpha"-class subs that uses _molten metal_ for the job of transferring nuclear heat to boil water is a _real_ example of "out of the box thinking". Especially when you have to keep the reactor going 24/7 to keep the heat exchanger loop molten or it will "freeze"...


I've never heard of that before.  That's AWESOME!  Go Russkies!



Crafty Caracal said:


> Sry for paraphrasing and yes it applies to more than just Telnac but he did gain the highest geek score, sweet replies, thanks n love :-D


  Never before has anyone made me actually blush irl.  Tho to be fair, I'm no brainiac.  My father has master's degrees in nuclear and aerospace engineering and was helping to design and build the USA's nuclear weapons arsenal 40 years ago.  Even tho most of the stuff we talked about around the dinner table was still classified in the 1980s, I did pick up quite a bit.  I was fascinated by the subject and he was all too happy to share what he knew.  He's still a bit disappointed I chose computer programming as my career choice instead of following in his footsteps.

I still enjoy the discussing the topic quite a bit, tho, as you can tell.



Crafty Caracal said:


> AFAIK Einstein reckoned E=MC2 so nuclear energy is our butt ass awful attempt at making real shit out of a beautiful equation that tells us how energy and matter interact. Good luck and much love to all of you who try to do something with it.


Oh, wow.  "butt ass awful attempt?"  If it was all that awful, all those tens of thousands of nukes would be just a really expensive joke the, right??


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 31, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> The fun part is when you work out what to use in the primary heat exchanger loop from the reactor to the "create steam for turbines" - the sodium/bismuth type reactor used on the Russian "Alpha"-class subs that uses _molten metal_ for the job of transferring nuclear heat to boil water is a _real_ example of "out of the box thinking". Especially when you have to keep the reactor going 24/7 to keep the heat exchanger loop molten or it will "freeze"...


Heh
Now guess why the Russians named the Alpha (Akula) class submarines "Goldfish" - they cost them more than some countries have for their entire military funding. ;-)



TriggerhappyWolf said:


> yeah let's put reactors in every house, what could go wrong?
> 
> Not going to happen. We don't need the average idiot playing with one.


*sigh* I wonder if this goddamn urban legend is EVER gonna be killed.
A fusion reactor can NOT explode! it doesn't even contain even nearly enough fuel to reach the critical mass. If the magnetic containment field collapses in a Tokamak fusion reactor, the atoms smash into the wall, are "cooled down", and that's it. No big bang at all. PERIOD!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 31, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> *sigh* I wonder if this goddamn urban legend is EVER gonna be killed.
> A fusion reactor can NOT explode! it doesn't even contain even nearly enough fuel to reach the critical mass. If the magnetic containment field collapses in a Tokamak fusion reactor, the atoms smash into the wall, are "cooled down", and that's it. No big bang at all. PERIOD!



It still wouldn't do to have idiots, "average" or otherwise, playing with home-fusion reactors.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 31, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> If they're using this stuff for fusion, what the hell's the point of the Large Hadron Collider?



one of the many reasons why they want to carry out this experiment is to find the "higgs boson". its a particle thats being predicted by the standard model of particle physics.
the other particles basically have no reall "mass", they only get it when they interact with the higgs boson field. at least thats what the theory says^^


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 31, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> It still wouldn't do to have idiots, "average" or otherwise, playing with home-fusion reactors.


People (at least here) have oil-fueled heating systems, and yet I haven't heard from some maniac blowing up a building with oil and artifical fertilizer (just like in Oklahoma City). 
The only dangerous stuff that comes out of a fusion reactor is a slightly radioactive torus, which would require about 80-100 years to lose ALL of their radioactivity (compare that to some elements we have in fission power plants, which have a HALF-LIFE of 100k years or more!). 
An interesting side note: it might be even possible that we don't need "hot fusion" reactors in our houses at all. The have been some very interesting experiments (160+ in the last decade IIRC) that deal with a COLD FUSION reactor, where the fuel (Tritium) is fusioned with the help of a catalyst, generating an immense amount of heat. The test reactors were as big as a Thermos bottle. Of course, it would be nice to see if this can be officially confirmed as some sort of fusion reaction and not something else, but I haven't heard from any official statement yet. ;-)


----------



## ghilliefox (Jan 31, 2010)

now if we can make cold fusion an exact science all we need is to find out how to travel at the speed of light (or close to it) and we can start terraforming mars


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 31, 2010)

ghilliefox said:


> now if we can make cold fusion an exact science all we need is to find out how to travel at the speed of light (or close to it) and we can start terraforming mars


We already COULD travel to mars and back within 3 months, but it would require using a nuclear engine instead of just burning hydrogen and oxygen in a small chamber.
Needless to say, it's kinda difficult getting a nuclear reactor into an orbit with millions of retarded wannabe-ecos bawwwing around.


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Jan 31, 2010)

You silly people & your paid 4 opinions


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 31, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> The only dangerous stuff that comes out of a fusion reactor is a slightly radioactive torus, which would require about 80-100 years to lose ALL of their radioactivity (compare that to some elements we have in fission power plants, which have a HALF-LIFE of 100k years or more!).



Slightly radioactive is a bit of a understatement. From current numbers, the radioactivity of a TOKAMAK first wall systems, blanket, and outer shield can run about 100-5,000 Ci/KWth (material dependent), starting from an irradiation time of 10[sup]3[/sup] seconds. The rate can very depending on irradiation time, but for most materials we have selected remains essentially constant.



WarMocK said:


> An interesting side note: it might be even possible that we don't need "hot fusion" reactors in our houses at all. The have been some very interesting experiments (160+ in the last decade IIRC) that deal with a COLD FUSION reactor, where the fuel (Tritium) is fusioned with the help of a catalyst, generating an immense amount of heat. The test reactors were as big as a Thermos bottle. Of course, it would be nice to see if this can be officially confirmed as some sort of fusion reaction and not something else, but I haven't heard from any official statement yet. ;-)



All forms of fusion (including muon catalyzed) are plagued with problems. Be it containment issues, power balance, keeping it "hot", keeping it "pure", or just plain keeping it "safe", the current belief is that fusion power (or at least the TOKAMAK) will only ever be useful as the SABR fusion-fission hybrid, which in theory is the best idea I've ever seen.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 31, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Slightly radioactive is a bit of a understatement. From current numbers, the radioactivity of a TOKAMAK first wall systems, blanket, and outer shield can run about 100-5,000 Ci/KWth (material dependent), starting from an irradiation time of 10[sup]3[/sup] seconds. The rate can very depending on irradiation time, but for most materials we have selected remains essentially constant.


100-5000 C/KWh?
Oi, that might give you a ... ahem ... little sunburn then. ;-)


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 31, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> 100-5000 C/KWh?
> Oi, that might give you a ... ahem ... little sunburn then. ;-)




Due to the financial stake people have in certain materials, there is great friction at having the "best" materials selected. For instance, people like to use Ti-modified 316 stainless steel because of its low volumetric swelling from DPA damage levels, but it has one of the highest hydrogen/helium productions as well as one of the longest residual radioactivity after shutdown (around 10[sup]-2[/sup] Ci/KWth at around 10[sup]11[/sup] seconds later).

All the materials have some major downfall... except Tungsten. It has low volumetric swelling, mid induced radioactivity, low helium/hydrogen production, and low thermal creep. No one uses it.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 31, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> All the materials have some major downfall... except Tungsten. It has low volumetric swelling, mid induced radioactivity, low helium/hydrogen production, and low thermal creep. *No one uses it.*



I'll bite.

Why?


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 31, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> All the materials have some major downfall... except Tungsten. It has low volumetric swelling, mid induced radioactivity, low helium/hydrogen production, and low thermal creep. No one uses it.


Why? Has the military bought the entire market empty for the APFSDS penetrators they use in their guns (after it became clear that DU is STILL radioactive, and most important, pretty poisonous)?


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> Why?





WarMocK said:


> Why? Has the military bought the entire market empty for the APFSDS penetrators they use in their guns (after it became clear that DU is STILL radioactive, and most important, pretty poisonous)?




Material politics you could call it. People are paid to support stainless steel, so they do (or whatever have you). When you're being paid a lot of money, you stop caring.


----------



## Telnac (Jan 31, 2010)

That's odd that they wouldn't use the best material for the job.

Any home reactor will have to be buried at least 6 feet under the basement, and I can't see any way a hot fusion reactor could ever be small enough to fit inside a home.  Cold fusion, yes, but cold fusion is a long way off from becoming a practical reality.

As was said earlier, the experiments regarding cold fusion are bearing fruit, but only to prove that cold fusion is possible... not for power generation.  The number of fusion reactions taking place in cold fusion experiments are tiny, and the amount of thermal gain has been so small as to be barely measurable.  The initial cold fusion experiment was "debunked" in the late 1980s because no one could reproduce the results and the data from the experiment were attributed to background noise, or were widely believed to be faked.  As a result, the field was dismissed as junk science until very recently.

Better experiments have shown that cold fusion is real and these new experiments are reproducible.  It turns out that the first successful experiment was a simple fluke.  The advances in engineering to reliably get fissile material close enough to each other to fuse weren't possible in the 1980s.  They happened to get their experiment working by chance alone.

Even today, we aren't quite there.  We can get a reaction, but not a terribly reliable one.  We also have no way of refueling the device without taking it entirely apart & rebuilding it.  Like the experiments in hot fusion, we can get a reaction, but it shuts down pretty quickly. The hot fusion reactors being built today have the goal of generating more power than was put in to start the reaction, and the ITER reactor has the additional goal of remaining running over the long haul.  No cold fusion experiment has come even close to reaching either of those goals.  Hot fusion is a lot closer to becoming a viable energy source than cold fusion is.

That said, I believe cold fusion will be ultimately be the dominant way we'll use fusion power, simply because you can make small, regional cold fusion reactors.   It won't be a reactor under the basement of every home (that would be hideously expensive) but a reactor in a small village of 150 homes would be reasonable.  That would be far more cost effective than a giant hot fusion reactor & all the power lines needed to build the grid around it, and small, regional reactors would provide a pore reliable grid, too.  Taking one reactor offline wouldn't require you to radically increase the load on nearby reactors & power lines.

Cold fusion reactors could also be used to power spacecraft, especially unmanned interstellar probes.  That could make the concept of a space ramjet practical, since a cold fusion reactor would require far less mass than a hot fusion reactor.  They could also be used to power small colonies on the Moon, Mars or floating in the clouds of Venus, as well we space stations orbiting Earth-- eliminating the need for the mass of giant solar panels, which are vulnerable to space debris & which produce a lot of drag on LEO stations, which means fewer reboots to keep them in orbit.

I never heard of the hybrid reactor concept.  I tried looking for it online, but I just ran into a bunch of papers in journals that I don't have subscriptions to.  It would seem to me that a hybrid reactor would be the worst of both worlds: hard to set up and it'll still generation fission waste byproducts.  Do you have more info on it?  I'm quite curious as to why you think this would be the way to go.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 31, 2010)

I think Xipoid meant the TOKAMAKs that have a lithium liner inside the torus which is used to breed the necessary fuel during the fusion reaction with the help if a fission reaction caused by the reactor's generated radiation. Lithium fusions at a far lesser temperature than Deuterium and is one of the most common elements on earth, which would make it a very cheap and efficient energy source.
And yes, a reactor under every home wouldn't be necessary, no matter what type of fusion reaction you use. One reactor for a dozen homes would be more than enough to provide them with hot water and electricity.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 31, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> I think Xipoid meant the TOKAMAKs that have a lithium liner inside the torus which is used to breed the necessary fuel during the fusion reaction with the help if a fission reaction caused by the reactor's generated radiation. Lithium fusions at a far lesser temperature than Deuterium and is one of the most common elements on earth, which would make it a very cheap and efficient energy source.
> And yes, a reactor under every home wouldn't be necessary, no matter what type of fusion reaction you use. One reactor for a dozen homes would be more than enough to provide them with hot water and electricity.




A reactor under every home would be very silly. A SMR (Small medium reactor) is around 250-500 MW (or maybe it was 750 MWth) could power an entire neighborhood and more.


I've heard of lithium breeders being used before, but people seem to have a hard-on for tritium as the main source.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 31, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> A reactor under every home would be very silly. A SMR (Small medium reactor) is around 250-500 MW (or maybe it was 750 MWth) could power an entire neighborhood and more.


Okay, that might be a bit much for a single house. Unless you run your private magnetic railway or themepark.



Xipoid said:


> I've heard of lithium breeders being used before, but people seem to have a hard-on for tritium as the main source.


Like what did you say about people getting paid for their opinion? ;-)


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 31, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> Like what did you say about people getting paid for their opinion? ;-)



There might have been a problem related to lithium, but I cannot remember off the top of my head. I believe it breeds tritium which tends to leak everywhere (and is radioactive don't you know)... or was it the fact that it breeds way too much or costs a lot of money. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but I can find out. Maybe it was radiation damage?


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 31, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> There might have been a problem related to lithium, but I cannot remember off the top of my head. I believe it breeds tritium which tends to leak everywhere (and is radioactive don't you know)... or was it the fact that it breeds way too much or costs a lot of money. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but I can find out. Maybe it was radiation damage?


LOL, the Tritium and it's radioactive nature was the very reason they used the lithium breeder, since it's much easier to fusion. 
Of course, if they discovered that they had way too much Tritium bred in the process and the torus couldn't keep it in because there was too much (and the nuclii simply diffused through the hull), that might be the main reason.


----------



## Xipoid (Jan 31, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> LOL, the Tritium and it's radioactive nature was the very reason they used the lithium breeder, since it's much easier to fusion.
> Of course, if they discovered that they had way too much Tritium bred in the process and the torus couldn't keep it in because there was too much (and the nuclii simply diffused through the hull), that might be the main reason.



I'll look it up and give you the answer.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 31, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> one of the many reasons why they want to carry out this experiment is to find the "higgs boson". its a particle thats being predicted by the standard model of particle physics.
> the other particles basically have no reall "mass", they only get it when they interact with the higgs boson field. at least thats what the theory says^^



The Higgs-Boson is also called "The God Particle"...




WarMocK said:


> People (at least here) have oil-fueled heating systems, *and yet I haven't heard from some maniac blowing up a building* with oil and artifical fertilizer (just like in Oklahoma City).
> The only dangerous stuff that comes out of a fusion reactor is a slightly radioactive torus, which would require about 80-100 years to lose ALL of their radioactivity (compare that to some elements we have in fission power plants, which have a HALF-LIFE of 100k years or more!).
> An interesting side note: it might be even possible that we don't need "hot fusion" reactors in our houses at all. The have been some very interesting experiments (160+ in the last decade IIRC) that deal with a COLD FUSION reactor, where the fuel (Tritium) is fusioned with the help of a catalyst, generating an immense amount of heat. The test reactors were as big as a Thermos bottle. Of course, it would be nice to see if this can be officially confirmed as some sort of fusion reaction and not something else, but I haven't heard from any official statement yet. ;-)



I still wouldn't want idiots messing with fusion reactors.  Never said anything about terrorists...




ghilliefox said:


> now if we can make cold fusion an exact science *all we need is to find out how to travel at the speed of light* (or close to it) and we can start terraforming mars



Science is already working on the idea of Warp Drive:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warpstat.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/index.htm

http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/

http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-drive-spaceship-engine.html

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2006-05/warp-drive

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html

http://www.sfu.ca/~adebened/funstuff/warpdrive.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/physicists-do-t/

Lots of material out there on the subject.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 31, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> The Higgs-Boson is also called "The God Particle"...



Don't read too much into that, Roose.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Don't read too much into that, Roose.



Just mentioning it, Lobar... a bit of trivia.  Still, I do hope they find something interesting, after all the trouble and expense.


----------



## Telnac (Jan 31, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Science is already working on the idea of Warp Drive:
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warpstat.html
> 
> ...


"Working on it" by pitching theories isn't nearly the same thing as successful experiments.  We _*know*_ cold fusion happened; we've yet to create even the smallest artificial warp field.

FTL technology seems to be possible, and if so, experiments with entanglement would be the way to crack that nut.  In fact, some recent experiments may have done that very thing.  But that's still quite controversial, and I won't gum up this thread by entering a debate on the topic.


----------



## footfoe (Jan 31, 2010)

The world will be destroyed as mankind makes a new sun!!!

Jezz haven't you seen spiderman 2?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 1, 2010)

Telnac said:


> "Working on it" by pitching theories isn't nearly the same thing as successful experiments.  We _*know*_ cold fusion happened; we've yet to create even the smallest artificial warp field.
> 
> FTL technology seems to be possible, and if so, experiments with entanglement would be the way to crack that nut.  In fact, some recent experiments may have done that very thing.  *But that's still quite controversial, and I won't gum up this thread by entering a debate on the topic.*



Fair enough, but the very fact science is looking at the concept seriously gives reason for hope.


----------



## Kyle Necronomicon (Feb 1, 2010)

Still think more 'splosions.


----------



## Xipoid (Feb 1, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> LOL, the Tritium and it's radioactive nature was the very reason they used the lithium breeder, since it's much easier to fusion.
> Of course, if they discovered that they had way too much Tritium bred in the process and the torus couldn't keep it in because there was too much (and the nuclii simply diffused through the hull), that might be the main reason.



Found the information for you.


Pure lithium has a high water/air reactivity, and given the application that is undesirable. It is required that lithium be mixed with another material in order to reduce this reactivity at the price of reducing its breeding capability and altering its melting point. You need to play around with the melting point temperature depending on if you want a liquid or solid breeder. There is no perfect or significantly better choice among materials.

There is a concern with liquid breeders of creating a high tritium partial pressure within the circulation system that will lead to a high tritium permeation rate (quite obviously not desired). Another difficulty is that you must heat up the system prior to start-up using internal heaters and maintain its molten state. The liquid metals also tend to be corrosive.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 1, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Found the information for you.
> 
> 
> Pure lithium has a high water/air reactivity, and given the application that is undesirable. It is required that lithium be mixed with another material in order to reduce this reactivity at the price of reducing its breeding capability and altering its melting point. You need to play around with the melting point temperature depending on if you want a liquid or solid breeder. There is no perfect or significantly better choice among materials.
> ...


Yeah, metallic tritium & metallic sodium have very similar chemical properties, and anyone who's sseen metallic sodium dropped into water in high school chemistry knows quite well how reactive sodium is!  Lithium isn't far off.

But for breeding purposes, there wouldn't be air in the reaction chamber in the first place.  If there was, the deuterium would simply burn in the oxygen atmosphere & we'd just get some very expensive steam rather than a useful plasma!  I wouldn't think that would be much of an issue if the reactor's designed properly.

It sounds like a cost & complexity issue to me.  Fusion reactors are expensive & complicated enough without making them MORE expensive & complicated!


----------



## WarMocK (Feb 1, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Found the information for you.
> 
> 
> Pure lithium has a high water/air reactivity, and given the application that is undesirable. It is required that lithium be mixed with another material in order to reduce this reactivity at the price of reducing its breeding capability and altering its melting point. You need to play around with the melting point temperature depending on if you want a liquid or solid breeder. There is no perfect or significantly better choice among materials.
> ...


Ouch ... >_<
Great, it would have been too good to be true if they could simply have slapped a Lithium liner into the torus and then fire it up without the need to add a separate fuel injection system (the fuel would already be inside the torus). And you could probably have put enough "fuel" in there for the entire estimated lifetime of the torus (10-15 years?). :-(


----------



## 8-bit (Feb 1, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I'm afraid of ripping the skin, though...
> 
> You mean they're _not_ "Oh god, fuck me harder"?



Hullabaloo and howdy doo,
Musty prawns and Timbuktu
yelsyby and hibbity poo,
kick em in the dishpan hoo-hoo-hoo


----------



## Xipoid (Feb 1, 2010)

WarMocK said:


> Ouch ... >_<
> Great, it would have been too good to be true if they could simply have slapped a Lithium liner into the torus and then fire it up without the need to add a separate fuel injection system (the fuel would already be inside the torus). And you could probably have put enough "fuel" in there for the entire estimated lifetime of the torus (10-15 years?). :-(




Sure would be great, but that's the running joke among fusion. Trying to get fusion power to work is like trying to squeeze jello without it leaking (also the analogy for containment).


----------



## ForumAccount (Aug 19, 2015)

The time is now: Wed Aug 19 11:32:24 2015. Please use https://www.weasyl.com/.


----------

