Printer Friendly
(3) CommentsLPP in the Economist
Eric Lerner and LPP are featured in the Economist!
The economist article says “what he does propose is not really fusion at all. Rather, it is a very unusual form of nuclear fission”...
This is a classification issue. See FAQ: Are you sure pB11 fusion isn’t really fission?
The Economist goes on to describe aneutronic fusion, revealing some misunderstanding:
Normal fission involves breaking uranium or plutonium atoms up by hitting them with neutrons. The reaction Mr Lerner proposes would break up boron atoms by hitting them with protons (the nuclei of normal hydrogen atoms). This process is known technically, and somewhat perversely, as aneutronic fusion. The reason is that the boron and hydrogen nuclei do, indeed, fuse. But the whole thing then breaks up into three helium nuclei, releasing a lot of energy at the same time. Unlike the sort of fusion done in big machines, which squeeze heavy hydrogen nuclei together, no neutrons are released in this reaction.
The reason it’s called “aneutronic” isn’t related to the fusing/fissioning (fizzing?) - because pretty much all fusion reactions do something like that - deuterium and tritium fuse and then fission (fizz?) into helium and a neutron, etc. “Aneutronic” means - without neutrons, and refers to the lack of neutrons as a byproduct of the reaction, whether fusing or fizzing.
At least they used the word “aneutronic”. People may now start to question it, find out more about it, and that will be a great outcome of this article. It’s one of our goals to get that word “aneutronic” out there and better understood.
But what did the Economist mean by “perversely” known as aneutronic? I’m not sure if I like that word! Looking it up: The first definition of “perverse” is “showing a deliberate & obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable, unacceptable, often in spite of consequences” - well, I think attempting to master aneutronic fusion is reasonable. Perhaps it seems too difficult to achieve for many theorists, and that puts it in the “unreasonable” camp. Yes, perhaps this refers to the status quo of fusion research, not the technical reasonable-ness or acceptability of such a venture.
The second definition of “perverse” may fit better - “contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice” - so it just means “non standard.” The word “perverse” seems perjorative. Also, leads one to discuss the “kinking” of the plasmoid with a bit of a leer.
I prefer to think of aneutronic fusion as an “outlier” approach - a potential “black swan.”
Comments
There are (3) comments.The article is visible and non-technical, which is a more effective way of raising public awareness than whacking readers with a ream or two of math and theory that can be linked to if the reader is so inclined.
For future communications with the press it may be necessary to have a waterproof and simple definition of “nuclear fusion”, versus fission.
I propose a definition that says it is called fusion as soon as BOTH particles that are brought together are charged particles, and fission if one of them has no charge (hence, a neutron) This definition is independent of the outcome of the reaction and independent of the reactant mass.
i.o.w: charge + charge = fusion, charge + neutral = fission
This puts p-B11 clearly in the fusion camp (the good word!), despite the resulting fission into 3 alphas that follows the fusion, and it puts all conventional fission (uranium, plutonium, thorium…) clearly in the fission camp.
This is the definition that is used by physicists. The Economist was just wrong here. The reporter thought that calling the process fusion was perverse, not the process itself. But it is a jargon use of the word and means exactly what belbear says—the fusing together of charged nuclei, no matter what happens next.
Otherwise, however, a very good accurate article.
Post a Comment