Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
Novus
The change in the kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on the object.
The kinetic energy of an object is equal to
.5*speed*speed*mass
If the object is reflected by a force and has the same speed then the kinetic energy of the object does not change therefore the object does not gain energy from the containtment (sic) field therefore no energy is lost that way. _________________ IMHO great war will happen soon.
Start preparing now.
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
Tanada wrote:
Yes I have several ways of containing those 14 MeV neutrons, the simplest being to go with a D-D reaction that nets you 50% fewer neutrons.
I do not forsee D-D fusion, before D-T fusion comes on line.
Quote:
Best fusion fuel is of course He-3 because all of the ejected particles hold electric charges.
And I think so as well.
Quote:
Next on the list, line the reaction chamber with several centimeters of Berylium to reflect neutrons back towards the core and put a layer of Th-232 between the reaction and the Berylium to hopefully absorb some of said neutrons releasing energy. Also you need the whole chamber surrounded by heavy water a few meters thick to stop up all the neutron leaks.
Better build proper fission reactor...
Anyway why bother with beryllium & thorium? Just line up fusion reactor walls with U238, fast neutrons will make good business with it and you will also get more energy...
Quote:
Neutrons decay into Protium after a short time, if you can keep them bouncing back and forth they will soon be contained.
Half life=10min, 14MeV, no electric charge... Sorry, man can't be done.
I have better idea. Why not to allow neutrons to escape fusion reactor (they will anyway...), deposit their energy in liquid lithium cooling jacket (and produce necessary tritium in this proces...), than convert resulting heat into electricity with aid of conventional turbines and then return part of this electricity into confinement system as necessary and send excess into the grid.
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
Well admittedly I'm not an expert on fusion, far from it. But since my company is interested in doing contract work for ITER I've been following ITER for a while and have been looking through the info, tenders and specs on the various components that ITER has been sending out.
From a material and design viewpoint it seems doable. Don't forget that a lot of the items that make up the Tokamak have been already been designed, prototyped, tested and certified (like the confinement). For the remaining components I see some very big challenges, but I believe they can be met.
So if the physic boys have done their homework I am confident that it can be built and brought into operation.
The only thing is that if I look at the time-frame, I am worried whether we have enough time to develop the technology, to the point where it is of practical use.
After all if all goes well in 2016 we have only have a device which consumes an enormous amount of electricity.
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3918 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Tanada wrote:
Yes I have several ways of containing those 14 MeV neutrons, the simplest being to go with a D-D reaction that nets you 50% fewer neutrons.
I do not forsee D-D fusion, before D-T fusion comes on line.
The energy difference in acheiving D-D vs D-T is minor all things considered, somewhere on the order of 10% higher average temp. In reallity any fusion plant with multiple fuels in it, in this case both D and T, you will be getting all three reactions and then some. First order you will get D-T and T-T and frequently D-D because the temperature is after all an average and those particle above the 10% higher threshold will react just fine thank you very much
Second order those three reactions will give you He-4+n, He-4+2n and nearly equally for D-D you get He-3+n or T+P. This adds P and He-3 to the fusion fuel and adds a complexity to the possible reactions that should be fairly obvious. You then have five fuel nuclei to model, P, D, T, He-3 and He-4. Not all reactions jettison a particle, P+T can lead to He-4 and energy without ejecting anything but gamma's and neutrino's as can P+D leading to He-3. It is now widely held that in very long lived stars, the M10-class dwarves, that P+P=D+neutrino and P+D=He-3+neutrino are the dominant sources of energetic reactions Theoretically these stars will last as long as the Universe as a whole because they use their fuel so slowly.
Quote:
Quote:
Best fusion fuel is of course He-3 because all of the ejected particles hold electric charges.
And I think so as well.
That was somewhat tounge in cheek as I state above the first order reactions only make up a small portion of the possible reactions, much like fission reactions on any nuclear reaction you are playing the laws of averages, but to fill the average you also fill in the whole area under the bell curve of standard deviation's
Quote:
Quote:
Next on the list, line the reaction chamber with several centimeters of Berylium to reflect neutrons back towards the core and put a layer of Th-232 between the reaction and the Berylium to hopefully absorb some of said neutrons releasing energy. Also you need the whole chamber surrounded by heavy water a few meters thick to stop up all the neutron leaks.
Better build proper fission reactor...
Anyway why bother with beryllium & thorium? Just line up fusion reactor walls with U238, fast neutrons will make good business with it and you will also get more energy...
U-238 has increasing odds of fissioning when capturing neutrons with an energy of .6MeV and up, for Th-232 the corrosponding energy is 1.4MeV. When being bombarded by 14 MeV neutrons there is little practicle difference in the reaction rates of the two nuclei and Th-232 is not only much more common than U-238, when the resulting U-233 is mixed with the U-238 at a ratio of 96%/4% it makes excellent LWR fuel that is not chemically seperatible for weapons use.
Quote:
Quote:
Neutrons decay into Protium after a short time, if you can keep them bouncing back and forth they will soon be contained.
Half life=10min, 14MeV, no electric charge... Sorry, man can't be done.
Putting it another way half life is 620 seconds so for each second that passes 1/1240th of the neutrons undergo beta decay into Protium and a free electron. When you are talking about reactions in the millions or billions per second those numbers add up, and putting a reflector material in place to bounce them back effectively triples the time they spend in the containment field with each bounce. Berylium is both a reflector and a moderator of fast neutrons. Practiacallity is questionable and would need in depth cost benefit analisys to prove or disprove the value of this method for the specific system being designed. YMMV of course
Quote:
I have better idea. Why not to allow neutrons to escape fusion reactor (they will anyway...), deposit their energy in liquid lithium cooling jacket (and produce necessary tritium in this proces...), than convert resulting heat into electricity with aid of conventional turbines and then return part of this electricity into confinement system as necessary and send excess into the grid.
So easy
That is the most offered theory of how it will work; in practice, as you say So Easy! _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
Tanada wrote:
The energy difference in acheiving D-D vs D-T is minor all things considered, somewhere on the order of 10% higher average temp. In reallity any fusion plant with multiple fuels in it, in this case both D and T, you will be getting all three reactions and then some. First order you will get D-T and T-T and frequently D-D because the temperature is after all an average and those particle above the 10% higher threshold will react just fine thank you very much
I have reasons to believe that you are mistaken here.
D-D fusion proceeds at temperatures ca 1 order of magnitude higher than D-T fusion.
D-D: 4*10 E8 and D-T: 4.5*10 E7.
link below:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/coubar.html
This mean, that about 1000% higher (and not 10% higher, as you had stated) temperature is needed to run D-D fusion.
Obviously even relatively "low" temperatures of D-T fusion will allow some D-D fusion events to take place, but those will be of very rare occurance and their imput to overall energy production will be minimal.
Hence I do not forsee D-D reactors before D-T reactors are online.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Best fusion fuel is of course He-3 because all of the ejected particles hold electric charges.
And I think so as well.
That was somewhat tounge in cheek as I state above the first order reactions only make up a small portion of the possible reactions, much like fission reactions on any nuclear reaction you are playing the laws of averages, but to fill the average you also fill in the whole area under the bell curve of standard deviation's
He-3 is still remaining best fusion fuel (for magnetic confinement), regardless of some by-reactions which would be taking place.
Quote:
U-238 has increasing odds of fissioning when capturing neutrons with an energy of .6MeV and up, for Th-232 the corrosponding energy is 1.4MeV. When being bombarded by 14 MeV neutrons there is little practicle difference in the reaction rates of the two nuclei and Th-232 is not only much more common than U-238, when the resulting U-233 is mixed with the U-238 at a ratio of 96%/4% it makes excellent LWR fuel that is not chemically seperatible for weapons use.
.
Thorium can be completely burned in known fission cycle (as you are aware) and uranium 238 in large quantities would be wasted if fast breeders fail.
That is why I had proposed it.
Quote:
Putting it another way half life is 620 seconds so for each second that passes 1/1240th of the neutrons undergo beta decay into Protium and a free electron. When you are talking about reactions in the millions or billions per second those numbers add up, and putting a reflector material in place to bounce them back effectively triples the time they spend in the containment field with each bounce.
With 14 MeV your neutron will have velocity comparable to c, therefore you would need really huge number of "bounces" to contain it even for 1 second (easy to calculate).
Something like 10 minutes would naturally be more desired, if you want to "keep in" about 50% of energy at least...
Quote:
That is the most offered theory of how it will work; in practice, as you say So Easy!
I had reminded here an obvious way to deal with "escaping energy issues". Many peoples (eg Novus or you) are arguing, that this "escaping energy" will make magnetic confinement impossible and yet potential solution is so simple by principles.
Nevertheless it will be a substantial engineering task.
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3918 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:06 am Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Tanada wrote:
The energy difference in acheiving D-D vs D-T is minor all things considered, somewhere on the order of 10% higher average temp. In reallity any fusion plant with multiple fuels in it, in this case both D and T, you will be getting all three reactions and then some. First order you will get D-T and T-T and frequently D-D because the temperature is after all an average and those particle above the 10% higher threshold will react just fine thank you very much
I have reasons to believe that you are mistaken here.
D-D fusion proceeds at temperatures ca 1 order of magnitude higher than D-T fusion.
D-D: 4*10 E8 and D-T: 4.5*10 E7.
link below:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/coubar.html
This mean, that about 1000% higher (and not 10% higher) temperature is needed to run D-D fusion.
Obviously even relatively "low" temperatures of D-T fusion will allow some D-D fusion events to take place, but those will be of very rare occurance and their imput to overall energy production will be minimal.
Hence I do not forsee D-D reactors before D-T reactors are online.
The difference between 400,000,000 degress K and 45,000,000 degrees K is a difference of 8.888:1, nowhere near 1000%!
It has been a long time since I did the kind of math needed to really express these kind of probabillities with any assurance of being correct but if you have had at least advanced Calculus take a look at Fusion Physics Calculations
All of the (curently) proposed ITER fusion fuels are D based usually with T as a booster fuel. Tritium lowers the threshold for a reaction with Deuterium almost 9:1, one order of magnitude being 10:1 that is pretty impressive. However because T-T fusion is one possible outcome which they wish to avoid the T level in the reaction chamber needs to be carefully controlled. T-T fusion not only releases less energy than D-T, it also releases two neutrons instead of one. _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
Joined: Dec 06, 2005 Posts: 886 Location: Stopped at the border.
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
Why direct the neutrons back into the reaction? Is it because it is thought that new fuel can't be added to the reaction? Is it a necessary conservancy of fuel? The containment field is going to catch everything that has a charge, either (+) or (-). It won't catch any neutrons, unless they aren't alone. Will the chamber lose too many neutrons too quickly for fusion to take place without some way to keep neutrons around?
If this is the dilemma, then wouldn't it be easier to marry the neutrons to something with a charge or introduce them to something that will help break them down to constituent parts that contain charges so that they can be caught up in the magnetic field. That way the amount of said thing can be regulated and not all neutrons involved.
I thought that eventually we were talking about a heat exchanging energy producer. Can we get more from something less conventional? What, exactly? And won't too much take too long to develop?
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3918 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:11 am Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
evilgenius wrote:
Why direct the neutrons back into the reaction? Is it because it is thought that new fuel can't be added to the reaction? Is it a necessary conservancy of fuel? The containment field is going to catch everything that has a charge, either (+) or (-). It won't catch any neutrons, unless they aren't alone. Will the chamber lose too many neutrons too quickly for fusion to take place without some way to keep neutrons around?
If this is the dilemma, then wouldn't it be easier to marry the neutrons to something with a charge or introduce them to something that will help break them down to constituent parts that contain charges so that they can be caught up in the magnetic field. That way the amount of said thing can be regulated and not all neutrons involved.
I thought that eventually we were talking about a heat exchanging energy producer. Can we get more from something less conventional? What, exactly? And won't too much take too long to develop?
Theoretically T (tritium) will have to injected into the reaction containment area constantly at a low rate to maintain the reaction in a stead state once everything is up and running. All of the neutrons leaving the containment reaction area will carry off most of the energy from the fusion reactions with them 'cooling' the reaction region as a result. Because the neutrons pass through the magnetic containment without resistence if you can bounce them back through the reaction zone you give them a chance to collide with the fusion fuel as they pass back through. Any collisions which occur will either cause fusion or impart momentum within the fuel returning most of the 14 MeV carried out of the reaction zone by the neutrons in the first place.
At some point you have to allow the He-4 out of the plasma containment because it will start damping the fusion reaction in the plasma by 'getting in the way'. You can not keep adding D and T and only extract n for a long period of time. Unfortunatly because of gasseous diffusion if you open a small region to allow plasma to escape the system will loose protium and deuterium prefferentially over tritium and helium. You really will have to 'drain and refill' the containment once the helium ash gets too concentrated. How long will these cycles be? Indeterminant. How much energy will be lost heating the new plasma fuel after the old fuel is pulled out, cooled and seperated? It will take the same energy as it did to start the reactor the first time.
As for marrying the neutrons to other nuclei, well that would be quite a trick inside the fusion zone. It is possible, if you can bounce them back through some of them will stick because protium has a decent capture cross section, but you have to remember that even in the core of the fusion region the plasma is very thin, hardly anything is there to react with. _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
Tanada wrote:
The difference between 400,000,000 degress K and 45,000,000 degrees K is a difference of 8.888:1, nowhere near 1000%!
8.888:1 corresponds to 888.8 % and this is close to 1000%!
10:1 would correspond to 1000%, as this is 10 X original value.
You are obviously commiting ca 1 order of magnitude error.
Advanced calculus is not required to realise it.
Maths looks like this:
100%*X = 100/100*X = X
1000%*X = 1000/100*X = 10*X
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3918 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject: Re: ITER to be Built in France
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Tanada wrote:
The difference between 400,000,000 degress K and 45,000,000 degrees K is a difference of 8.888:1, nowhere near 1000%!
8.888:1 corresponds to 888.8 % and this is close to 1000%!
10:1 would correspond to 1000%, as this is 10 X original value.
You are obviously commiting ca 1 order of magnitude error.
Advanced calculus is not required to realise it.
Maths looks like this:
100%*X = 100/100*X = X
1000%*X = 1000/100*X = 10*X
Which is yet another example of why I should not try and do any sort of math at 4 AM while suffering a cold, taking heavy decongestants and only sleeping 4 hours a night.
As has been pointed out frequently on this board, I do not get along with percentages, never have, never will. I hate the dang things they mess me up something terrible. Every time I do a calc and post it on here if it has a percentage anywhere in it I double check myself and I still screw it up. To err is Human, to really screw up math use a Calculator or Computer!
I don't supposse you would let me get away with yelling 'BUT 888% IS NOT 1000% SO I AM STILL RIGHT! HA! SO THERE! '
Nah it doesn't make me feel any smarter _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
