|
27 Sep 07 - 02:19 PM (#2158692) Subject: BS: nuclear fusion From: The Sandman Is this a sensible alternative to nuclear fission,as a way of providing energy. |
|
27 Sep 07 - 02:48 PM (#2158703) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: MMario "sensible" ? Or "practical"? I'm not sure anyone has a fusion generator that is practical yet - but the sun has been operating on fusion for millenia. Theoretically it would be cleaner and have less potential for harm. |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:03 PM (#2158711) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: JohnInKansas The "cleaner than" argument is largely wishful thinking. Flux densities necessary in the containment materials and operating machinery for a fusion reactor will almost certainly be sufficiently high to produce isotope changes in the structural parts of any fusion reactor, and the radioactive isotopes of structurally useful materials generally have decay rates as long as - or longer than - the depleted fuels that most people assume are the only "waste" from fission reactors. Some materials, rendered radioactive by exposure, also produce spontaneous radiation about as "hard" as that from fission fuels. The expected safe disposal requirements for radioactive waste from fusion reactors is not really much different than for fission reactors, since in both cases a large part of the "waste" is ordinary materials and parts made radioactive simply by being inside high flux areas within the reactor. Of course, "we" really won't know how big the problem is until someone actually builds one that works efficiently enough to be used for a while. We just hope the experts who build it have made fairly accurate analyses before they start construction. John |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:12 PM (#2158722) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Rapparee Make a hollow cylinder massing about 5 Kg of U235 or Pu239 (gotta be 99% pure). Make a plug massing about the same of the same stuff, machining it so that it fits smoothly and snugly inside the cylinder. Surround the cylinder with Li(VI) Deutride. Now, boys and girls, you're ready to conduct your first experiment in fusion reactions! First, tell all your little friends goodbye. Then shove that ol' plug into the cylinder just as fast as you can. Write a report on this for the science fair.... |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:13 PM (#2158724) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: MMario That's fission, isn't it? |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM (#2158729) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Rapparee Just at the start. Gives just enough heat to kick off the fusion reaction with the Li (VI) Deutride. |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:39 PM (#2158748) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: beardedbruce "Theoretically it would be cleaner and have less potential for harm." Ignoring the fact that sunlight has killed more people than nuclear ( fission) weapons... Skin cancer, dehydration, etc... |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:41 PM (#2158750) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: GUEST,petr so has choking on chicken bones |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:51 PM (#2158754) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: beardedbruce true, buit no-one is talking about using chicken bones as an energy source. Maybe we should: Anyone know the chemical energy stored in the cellular structure of a chicken? |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:54 PM (#2158755) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Peace I do, but I was sworn to secrecy. Sorry. I CAN tell you this: Do not stand next to poultry when a fart goes wrong . . . . |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:55 PM (#2158756) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Ebbie Are you implying the resulting bomb would taste just like chicken? |
|
27 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM (#2158757) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: McGrath of Harlow Nuclear fusion is the basis of all life on the planet. There's a splendid nuclear fusion plant that;s going to last for another five billion years or so, 93 million miles away, and it will give us everything we ever need in the way of energy. It's just a question of working out the best way to use it. |
|
27 Sep 07 - 04:00 PM (#2158763) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: beardedbruce But proper shielding IS required. Ozone layer, at a minimum... |
|
27 Sep 07 - 04:05 PM (#2158769) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: bobad Nuclear fusion occurs at conception, shielding would prevent it. |
|
27 Sep 07 - 04:10 PM (#2158773) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: MudGuard for millenia millennia - from mille (thousand) and annus (year) millenia - from mille (thousand) and anus (asshole) ... ;-) |
|
27 Sep 07 - 06:02 PM (#2158856) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: catspaw49 I never heard of Nuclear Fusion. Is it a sedan or sports model and what country are they made in? I'm only familiar with the Ford Fusion. Spaw |
|
27 Sep 07 - 06:07 PM (#2158863) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Peace And this from a guy who wanted a 1966 Buick Century? |
|
27 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM (#2158867) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: catspaw49 But nobody could get me one so I lowered my expectations Bruce. Spaw |
|
27 Sep 07 - 06:16 PM (#2158872) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Peace OK, so it was gonna be a Skylark. Sheesh . . . . |
|
27 Sep 07 - 06:34 PM (#2158877) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Peace For the do-it-yerselfers. |
|
27 Sep 07 - 11:51 PM (#2159013) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: GUEST,MarkS This entire thread is very confusioning. But thats normal for me anyway. |
|
28 Sep 07 - 04:25 AM (#2159092) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: PMB If we can get fusion to work, it would solve the world's energy problems and stop carbon dioxide build up, maybe even give us enough energy to run an intensive program to reverse it. It's a difficult question as to whether that would be a good thing. For example, it might result in uncontrolled population growth, with the remaining wild environment being destroyed to accommodate them and their food needs. Security achieved at the cost of most of the remaining beauty in the world, and people dehumanised, living like maggots in an angler's tub. It may be though that fusion already has been discovered, but missed. Cold fusion was "found", then discredited twenty years ago, but every 10 years or so for the last seventy someone has come up with a secret patent method of "burning water" (the lastest was only a few weeks ago). Everybody knows you can't do that, or at least can't get out more energy than you put in to separate the H and O. Unless there is something else involved. In the 1890s the Scottish scientist Lord Kelvin "proved" that the Earth couldn't be more than 24 million years old according to classical physics. But just as he'd laid physics to rest as complete, nuclear sources of heat were discovered that confounded his estimate and extended the potential age to billions of years. It's possible (if unlikely in the present state of knowledge) that there is some natural small- scale fusion reaction that could account for the apparent excess energy found- and the fact that someone is a charlatan doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong! |
|
28 Sep 07 - 05:36 AM (#2159122) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Phot The JET lab at Abingdon Oxfordshire has a working Fusion reactor, and it seems to be quite sucessful. Wassail!! Chris. |
|
28 Sep 07 - 06:02 AM (#2159137) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: PMB I thought the JET needed more energy to run it than it produced by fusion? |
|
28 Sep 07 - 06:51 AM (#2159161) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Keith A of Hertford They only get instantaneous bursts of fusion. To get the nuclei to fuse you need high temperature and or pressure. We can not achieve solar core pressures so much higher than solar temperature is needed. No material can withstand such temperature so magnetic containment has to be used. A practical reactor is still a long way off. |
|
28 Sep 07 - 06:55 AM (#2159164) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: JohnInKansas In the 1890s the Scottish scientist Lord Kelvin "proved" that the Earth couldn't be more than 24 million years old according to classical physics ... Some historians have held that Lord Kelvin's "proof" was a bit tongue-in-cheek, being actually a sop to the theocrats to get an answer acceptable to them, and to get them to quit criticizing things he thought more important. (Note that his "cannot be greater than" doesn't directly contradict the 16,000 yearists, but evades saying that he agrees with them.) His private correspondence has been reported as implying that he didn't feel he had the needed information for a scientifically valid estimate, and didn't really think such an estimate was very important (at least to his work/interests at the time). Since none of his private correspondence was sent directly to me, I can't vouch for this argument from first-hand knowledge; but some of the citations give it apparent credibility. John |
|
28 Sep 07 - 08:21 AM (#2159217) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Grab For example, it might result in uncontrolled population growth, with the remaining wild environment being destroyed to accommodate them and their food needs. Security achieved at the cost of most of the remaining beauty in the world, and people dehumanised, living like maggots in an angler's tub. That's a classical Malthusian viewpoint. Trouble is that it doesn't reflect experience in the West. We have more available power, cheaper raw materials and cheaper food than anyone else anywhere in the world any time in history. The result is births below replacement levels in virtually all Western countries, and in most countries that are at or above replacement, the cause is from immigration and children of immigrants. It's pretty simple really. If you know most of your kids are going to die young, you need to have lots in order that some will survive. If you know that it's 99% sure they'll survive, then you're better off (and your kids are better off) if you have a more targetted approach to child-raising, so that you choose to have them only when you have the resources to support them without significant compromises on their (or your) quality of life. Certainly there *is* uncontrolled population growth as cultures adapt to fit the new environment - historical population graphs show something like a tenfold jump in the 1800s as increased food supplies and improved medicine took effect, whilst people were still having a dozen kids - but over time that levels off. There's a grim irony in the fact that the developing world today might avoid the problems of that jump because of AIDS. As far as fusion plants go, it's still using a finite resource - there's only so much deuterium and lithium going around. But estimates are that it's enough to keep the world going for a very long time, so not such a big deal. Useful link including brief info about the reactor itself becoming radioactive. Graham. |
|
28 Sep 07 - 03:20 PM (#2159485) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Dave the Gnome Nothing wrong with fision either - except the waste. I know how to get rid of that though - Send it all to the moon. The bonus is that eventualy the moon will glow all month round... And don't ask me about my secret project involving all the convicted criminals in the world and excecise bikes connected to generators. :D |
|
28 Sep 07 - 09:34 PM (#2159676) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Charley Noble We've been getting rid of our nuclear waste from the decommissioned Maine Yankee nuclear plant for years by fusing it into ceramic seagulls and selling them to tourists. Now that may not be the best solution for disposing of nuclear waste but it sure is efficient! Cheerily, Charley Noble, high and dry in Maine |
|
28 Sep 07 - 10:22 PM (#2159695) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: catspaw49 John, I am amazed you didn't hear from Kelvin yourself. We used to write back and forth and exchange Christmas cards all the time. As a matter of fact, one winter I wrote him about the weather saying it was colder than "a witches tit in a brass bra" and he wrote in return asking if that was as cold as I had ever felt it. I replied, "Absolutely!" I got a short note from him a few weeks later thanking me for my help although I never knew what for............. Spaw |
|
28 Sep 07 - 10:46 PM (#2159707) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: Donuel Rapaire wisely left out a key ingredient. The Rosenburgs were killed for far less information. I knew a Kelvin Kelly from high school. I have heard absolutely zero from him. |
|
29 Sep 07 - 02:56 AM (#2159763) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: JohnInKansas Spaw - It's just that in our correspondence he never mentioned that particular subject. He was, as you may recall, fond of little "twists" in the conversation. Was it absolutely clear that he was asking if the weather (which you described appropriately) was as cold as you had ever felt, or might he have been asking if "in a brass bra" was as cold as you'd ever felt a w... ...? Maybe he didn't continue that conversation 'cause you didn't get it? John |
|
29 Sep 07 - 10:58 AM (#2159899) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: GUEST,Al no cookie The humor in this thread is about as low as you can get. Al |
|
29 Sep 07 - 11:06 AM (#2159902) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: John Hardly Nook you lar |
|
29 Sep 07 - 12:18 PM (#2159943) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: EBarnacle I was just talking to the Rosebergs in Denmark this morning. Seriously, a large part of the problem with nuclear waste [the spent fuel part, anyway] would go away if we would reprocess the fuel rather than planning to bury it. Remember that, with fission, there is less nuclear material around than there was 5 minutes ago. Half life, you know. |
|
29 Sep 07 - 03:41 PM (#2160033) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: GUEST,Rosenberg Tell that old fart Hakman to leave my name in vain. He couldn't fuse a plastic bag with a paper match! Rapaire doesn't know the formula, just the rumour. . . . |
|
30 Sep 07 - 05:43 PM (#2160655) Subject: RE: BS: nuclear fusion From: JohnInKansas except the waste. I know how to get rid of that though - Send it all to the moon. If we send that much mass to the moon, it's likely to upset the synchronicity between the moon's orbital and rotational speeds so that we will see those guys who live on the other side. Without a proper introduction and establishment of diplomatic relations, they may not be inclined to view our spying on them as a friendly action - and who knows what they might do? They obviously are not interested in contact with us, since they've been hiding from our limited "searches for life signs" on the other side. John |
