Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 31 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #349
    AndyL
    Participant

    Hi Everyone

    From finding this site over a year ago, it struck me what an elegant and exciting approach Focus Fusion was to the fusion problem. If the set of experiments underway in Chile are successful in three years time, we can all look back on that day and say “that was the day the world changed” in much the same way as for other great historical events!
    However, it is planned to use deuterium as the fuel gas in one phase of these experiments, and this caused me to wonder – is there any possibility that Mr. Weapons Proliferator could use a Focus Fusion device with deuterium as a fast neutron source with which to breed, over a period of time, a quantity of fissile material from fertile isotopes of uranium or thorium?

    #1753
    Lerner
    Participant

    Atomic weapons proliferation requires a good deal of technical expertise and access to uranium. These are two things that are quite easy for almost any government to have and very difficult for any terrorist organization. Preventing governments from getting nuclear weapons is wholly a political problem, not a technical one. There is no political will to prevent proliferation. Look at Israel, with a growing stock pile of atomic weapons and no reaction at all from the international community. So, technical issues are irrelevant to nuclear arms acquisition by governments.

    Would the existence of focus fusion reactors make it easier for terrorist organization to make atomic weapons? No, not really. A focus fusion reactor would be designed to function with pB11. Functioning with deuterium would require considerable modification, which in turn would need high technical skills. It would take a lot less technical skill to build a nuclear reactor to breed the plutonium. Once you have some plutonium mixed in with the uranium, you need to separate it out, purify it and then make a weapon. All of this requires a great deal of technical know-how.

    Bottom line

    #1763
    Lerner
    Participant

    Absolutely! With the transition to fusion, no one will need uranium at all, which will make the production of atomic weapons more and more difficult.

    You raise a good point too, that during the transition to fusion, there would have to be substantial aid from the industrialized countries to developing countries, including the oil producers, to aid the transition. One step could be writing off the international debt. Much of it will be totally unpayable if oil prices drop anyway. Another big source of money could be stopping the production of arms, a huge portion of which flows to the Middle East in one form or another.

    The money from arms production, international debt and high oil prices has overwhelmingly benefited an extremly small number of hugely rich people, with only the dregs flowing to the people of oil-rich countries. With sufficient political will, the burden of undoing the petroleum-arms-debt economy could be borne exclusively by those same few ultra-rich.

    #1788
    AndyL
    Participant

    Thanks for the informative replies. Political considerations aside for the moment, from a technical point of view, all types of nuclear weapons require fissile material either as the main charge or as a trigger for fusion fuel. Without it they cannot work. At present, and I am no expert here, there are only two ways to get it.
    One is to enrich natural uranium to extract the fissile isotope – a hugely expensive, technically daunting and time consuming task. This method has an advantage though, and that is you can disguise your true intentions by saying you are only making fuel for power reactors, as perhaps Iran may be doing. The technology is the same to attain either end.
    The other method is to configure a fission reactor to breed fissile material either in the fuel itself or in a blanket of fertile isotopes around the reactor core. This method is also hugely expensive but has been the main stay of US weapons programs because it is less so than the first. It is also technically challenging, but it is more difficult to disguise your intentions – as a fission reactor configured for breeding maximum fissile material is different in design from one that might be chosen for power production only.
    The advent of Focus Fusion using pB11 for power production would, I totally agree, render all other forms of power production obsolete, be they fission or oil. As you say, there would be no reason to pursue fission technology any longer. But the production of fissile material just got possible from a smaller, much cheaper reactor.
    To blanket such a device, as far as I know, you would need to get hold of some U238 – depleted uranium – of which there are thousands of tons in inventories around the world. It is used in some applications today, anything from ballast in airframes to armour peircing rounds. I wonder how accessible this stuff really is? Deuterium is not regulated at all.
    When I say “possible” I certainly don’t mean “easier”!
    I do appreciate the proliferation risk would be eliminated or greatly mitigated by the sheer technical difficulty, and the other highly complex stages necessary to produce a weapon.

    …and for obvious reasons I am very grateful for that knowledge.

    #1807
    Rezwan
    Participant

    Hi Gang:

    I just sent an email to the United Nations Institute on Disarmament Research – http://www.unidir.org/ – asking them to look into fusion alternatives and directing them to this site. Looking forward to their response!

    #2009
    Transmute
    Participant

    Well if p-B11 proves feasible, I don’t see why an easier reaction like D-D could not be done. The massive neutron flux from D-D could be used to breed plutonium out of uranium; it could also be used to make tritium from lithium, although what uses would tritium have if D-D and p-B11 are possible, maybe as a RTG fuel. It could even be used to destroy nuclear waste:

    #2012
    Elling
    Participant

    What is a proliferation risk really ?
    In your above scenario, the bad guy needs to get his hands on natural uranium or yellowcake in the first place. This is probably not too difficult given the ongoing uranium mining boom.
    Weapons grade material (Highly Enriched Uranium HEU and synthetic Plutonium Pu239) are still state secrets and the books are kept down to the last gram.
    Our bad guy could get fast neutrons in a number of ways from other hitech restricted areas, not just from a DPF. Fast neutronics are still a highly sophisticated science requiring huge machinery and megabuck investment.
    To make weapons grade materials, he stills needs all the centrifuges.

    Getting Deuterium in purified gas form for injection into the DPF might be achievable for our bad guy.
    Transforming a pB11 DPF device into a D-D reactor might also be achievable. But how do you collect your neutrons bursting out of your vacuum ?
    He risks killing himself handling neutrons. Even suicide bombers would hesitate to get killed before the deed.

    All things considered, DPF devices does not add to the present proliferation risk.

    #2013
    Transmute
    Participant

    Ok here is a idea for a weapon system: what if there was a large drone plane fitted with unshielded D-T fusion generator, they fly it over enemy territory like a crop duster and irradiate everyone to death, like a neutron bomb only no blast, better precision and delightfully evil. Or how about a fusion bomb, a fusion generator is used to try to start a chain fusion reaction, I don

    #2017
    Jolly Roger
    Participant

    Transmute wrote: Ok here is a idea for a weapon system: what if there was a large drone plane fitted with unshielded D-T fusion generator, they fly it over enemy territory like a crop duster and irradiate everyone to death, like a neutron bomb only no blast, better precision and delightfully evil.

    Apparently, a Focus Fusion reactor would have to be highly modified to run on D-T. Even then, the neutron density would not be high enough to be an effective weapon. The aircraft would have to patrol a small area for a long time, which would be suspicious. Even if the reactor were clandestinely left on a rooftop, it would soon be detected and destroyed.

    An unshielded p-B11 reactor X-ray source may be a concern, however. I would think that it would be easy to remove the shielding from a standard FF reactor. But Time-Distance-Shielding applies to X-rays (and neutrons, for that matter). For maximum radiation damage, exposure time must be maximized and distance from the source and shielding must be minimized. The X-rays would not be immediately lethal, and the aircraft would have to be flown low and slow to deliver a dangerous dose. An outdoor sports event would be a likely target, but intended victims could scatter (distance) and seek shelter (shielding) very quickly (time).

    Or how about a fusion bomb, a fusion generator is used to try to start a chain fusion reaction,

    According to info on the FF site, FF cannot start a runaway chain reaction, which a bomb requires.

    There are easier ways than FF to cause mass destruction. There are a few Soviet nuclear weapons that are unaccounted for. We should be worried about those.

    #2023
    Transmute
    Participant

    I’m not saying we should worry; I’m just saying that potential exist. What specifically would need to be modified to make D+D or D+T fusion possible? What would be a the neutron emision rate of a ~20 Mw D+T reactor?

    #2095
    Frenetic
    Participant

    AndyL wrote: Hi Everyone

    From finding this site over a year ago, it struck me what an elegant and exciting approach Focus Fusion was to the fusion problem. If the set of experiments underway in Chile are successful in three years time, we can all look back on that day and say “that was the day the world changed” in much the same way as for other great historical events!
    However, it is planned to use deuterium as the fuel gas in one phase of these experiments, and this caused me to wonder – is there any possibility that Mr. Weapons Proliferator could use a Focus Fusion device with deuterium as a fast neutron source with which to breed, over a period of time, a quantity of fissile material from fertile isotopes of uranium or thorium?

    So far, all the “weapons proliferators” have been Nations or agents of nations. Notice, if you will, that none of these proliferators needed a fusion reactor of any kind to achieve said proliferation. The possibility of this device, or any other device, contributing to “proliferation” is is well below negligible.

    By the way, I don’t know how many people have noticed yet, but the NPT is basically dead. Kim Jong-il and the Iranians are demonstrating beyond all shadow of doubt that the treaty is completely unenforceable so long as the rest of the world leadership is as spinelesss as it is now.

    #2566
    Brian H
    Participant

    Transmute wrote: I’m not saying we should worry; I’m just saying that potential exist. What specifically would need to be modified to make D+D or D+T fusion possible? What would be a the neutron emision rate of a ~20 Mw D+T reactor?

    The point would be? It’s a waste of resources to make plutonium. What’s it good for except nuclear triggers? There’s plenty available now. High neutron flux is a good thing only if you’re fooling around with fission processes and byproducts. What for? As is, the H-B11 process is vastly cheaper, safer, more flexible, higher efficiency, smaller, neater, and more fun.

    Try and get all that old fissionable material out of your neurons. It’s quite harmful.

    #2572
    Transmute
    Participant

    I think I may have stated this in another thread: the neutron flux could be used to destroy nuclear waste (as opposed to shoving it in a mountain and hoping it stays there for a million years) so a DPF reactor fusing D+D or D+T could be used to clean up the waste of the nuclear age while producing energy (the induced fission of the waste acts as an energy multiplier) as well as the waste/fuel could be reprocessed to extract plutonium, although the plutonium produced from this process would consist of unwanted isotopes that would make it less then ideal for making bombs it could go backing into fueling existing nuclear reactors (less need for new power plants, reactor powered on what was waste and with their waste recycled don’t make new waste (say that ten times fast))

    #2573
    Brian H
    Participant

    Transmute wrote: I think I may have stated this in another thread: the neutron flux could be used to destroy nuclear waste (as opposed to shoving it in a mountain and hoping it stays there for a million years) so a DPF reactor fusing D+D or D+T could be used to clean up the waste of the nuclear age while producing energy (the induced fission of the waste acts as an energy multiplier) as well as the waste/fuel could be reprocessed to extract plutonium, although the plutonium produced from this process would consist of unwanted isotopes that would make it less then ideal for making bombs it could go backing into fueling existing nuclear reactors (less need for new power plants, reactor powered on what was waste and with their waste recycled don’t make new waste (say that ten times fast))

    I don’t think you can use the alpha beam twice. Either you strip out its energy with the solenoids to make electricity, or you let it barrel on thru to irradiate your waste. Pick one.

    Perhaps you could extract heat from the fuel conversion process, but then you have to paste on that whole steam-turbine-generation plant deal to do anything with it.

    But as a dedicated waste disposal project it probably has legs, just not as a side-benefit of electrical power generation.

    #2574
    Transmute
    Participant

    I’m not talking about the alpha beam, I’m talking about the very high energy neutrons produced by T+D fusion (or the moderately high energy neutrons produced in D+D fusion) the “alpha beam” or beam of non-neutron (charged) nuclei produced by the DPF would in a Fusion Driven Sub-critical Reactor (as opposed to an ADSR) would best be spent hitting a splatation target making more neutrons. Destroy nuclear waste in such a manner would produce huge amounts of heat, in an economy where cheap B11+P DPF reactor have not yet taken over adding steam turbines to the nuclear waste destroyer would add profit to a previously unprofitable task.

    look up subcritical reactors.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 31 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.