Homepage Forums Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) Science and Applications Could pB11 focus fusion device be modified to use thorium?

This topic contains 39 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Axil 9 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3196
    Avatar
    Tasmodevil44
    Member

    Belbear put it quite well, too:

    the “Age of Nuclear Madness”

    And also like belbear said ……a heavy hydrogen addition to the mix to create a neutron emitting version may be the best bet for both waste remediation and also to get fusion to “crank over” and begin to fuse p+B11. Deutrium may be the best bet for so-called “lighter fluid on the charcoal” to make things burn.

    #3197
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    Tasmodevil44 wrote: Belbear put it quite well, too:

    the “Age of Nuclear Madness”

    And also like belbear said ……a heavy hydrogen addition to the mix to create a neutron emitting version may be the best bet for both waste remediation and also to get fusion to “crank over” and begin to fuse p+B11. Deutrium may be the best bet for so-called “lighter fluid on the charcoal” to make things burn.

    Neutrons are more trouble than they’re worth. The only way to extract energy from neutron flux is with fission cascades producing heat, which requires the whole thermal power cycle to extract electricity, with its 30% efficiency rating.

    Forget fission. It’s a wasteful and dirty technology compared to fusion.

    #3200
    Avatar
    Transmute
    Member

    You people should look up accelerator driven nuclear reactors, this is what a DPF could do, if DPF do not manage to become has energy positive as theory suggest then as a neutron generator for a sub-critical reactor they could make nuclear fission cheaper, safer and cleaner, sure it won’t be a great as a true fusion economy but it may be a good backup plan if DPF fails to meet it mark, even if DPF reaches practical net positive energy with aneutriatic fusion, neutratic fusion with DPF would still be greatly usefull in a accelerator driven sub-critical reactor as a means of destroying nuclear waste.

    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/141/

    #3201
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    Transmute wrote: You people should look up accelerator driven nuclear reactors, this is what a DPF could do, if DPF do not manage to become has energy positive as theory suggest then as a neutron generator for a sub-critical reactor they could make nuclear fission cheaper, safer and cleaner, sure it won’t be a great as a true fusion economy but it may be a good backup plan if DPF fails to meet it mark, even if DPF reaches practical net positive energy with aneutriatic fusion, neutratic fusion with DPF would still be greatly usefull in a accelerator driven sub-critical reactor as a means of destroying nuclear waste.

    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/141/

    You still have the fission/heat engine to build out, and compared to building more FF reactors it’s throwing away money. The fission waste is only a problem because of politics and ignorance.

    Drop it on a subduction seam under the ocean and let geology recycle it for a few million years.

    #3203
    Avatar
    Transmute
    Member

    Brian H wrote:

    You people should look up accelerator driven nuclear reactors, this is what a DPF could do, if DPF do not manage to become has energy positive as theory suggest then as a neutron generator for a sub-critical reactor they could make nuclear fission cheaper, safer and cleaner, sure it won’t be a great as a true fusion economy but it may be a good backup plan if DPF fails to meet it mark, even if DPF reaches practical net positive energy with aneutriatic fusion, neutratic fusion with DPF would still be greatly usefull in a accelerator driven sub-critical reactor as a means of destroying nuclear waste.

    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/141/

    You still have the fission/heat engine to build out, and compared to building more FF reactors it’s throwing away money. The fission waste is only a problem because of politics and ignorance.

    Drop it on a subduction seam under the ocean and let geology recycle it for a few million years.

    that IF DPF works as desired, if not energy multiplication from fission of waste and of course heat engines will be needed to achieve energy positive function. I would argee deep sea storage is a great option in theory but politically it a nightmare all the environmental groups would have a orgasm of outrage, you could more easily convince them with destroying nuclear waste then storing it where it could leak out (no matter how unlikely that is, they will cry murder over it)

    #3205
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    Transmute wrote: [

    that IF DPF works as desired, if not energy multiplication from fission of waste and of course heat engines will be needed to achieve energy positive function. I would argee deep sea storage is a great option in theory but politically it a nightmare all the environmental groups would have a orgasm of outrage, you could more easily convince them with destroying nuclear waste then storing it where it could leak out (no matter how unlikely that is, they will cry murder over it)

    We are kind of working on the FF/DPF assumption, here. And subduction zones are those areas where the ocean floor is being drawn down beneath the continental plates, and merging with the mantle. Lots and lots of half-lives later, some of it may resurface in volcanic lava, but it is LITERALLY millions of years.

    Pandering to public ignorance must come to an end somewhere.

    #3206
    Avatar
    Transmute
    Member

    Brian H wrote:

    [

    that IF DPF works as desired, if not energy multiplication from fission of waste and of course heat engines will be needed to achieve energy positive function. I would argee deep sea storage is a great option in theory but politically it a nightmare all the environmental groups would have a orgasm of outrage, you could more easily convince them with destroying nuclear waste then storing it where it could leak out (no matter how unlikely that is, they will cry murder over it)

    We are kind of working on the FF/DPF assumption, here. And subduction zones are those areas where the ocean floor is being drawn down beneath the continental plates, and merging with the mantle. Lots and lots of half-lives later, some of it may resurface in volcanic lava, but it is LITERALLY millions of years.

    Pandering to public ignorance must come to an end somewhere.

    I read the SciAm article on deep sea storage of nuclear waste so I understand what your saying in enough detail to agree. But if your running on the assumption that DPF/FF/F2 works I’m being a little more pragmatic, it might end up being nothing more then a neutron generator. Now if it does work as described there is still going to be needs for medical and industrial radionuclides, fusion driven fission and neutron capture of heavy actinides could manufacture them more cheaply then exiting reactors, mind you there is only a few such reactors in the work of supplying radionuclides, but when they eventual shut down something going to need to replace them, now I never said fusion driven subcritical reactors would become the norm, but they would exist if only a handful of them even in a fully successful F2 economy,and if F2 is not that successful fusion driven subcritical reactors would likely be more economical.

    #3208
    Avatar
    belbear42
    Member

    Brian H wrote:

    Believe me: DPF’s and fission are compatible. It’s a fusion device and fusion is done with light elements. And DPF’s are all about an attempt to “make watts, not rads”

    I think you meant “incompatible”. DPFs are vastly more efficient than any possible fission rig.

    Indeed I did. Typo….

    #3209
    Avatar
    Brian H
    Member

    Transmute wrote:


    But if your running on the assumption that DPF/FF/F2 works I’m being a little more pragmatic, it might end up being nothing more then a neutron generator.

    ?? Perhaps you’re talking about using Deuterium; p-B fusion is aneutronic, except for rare side reactions. As a neutron source FF’s a waste of time! 🙂

    #3211
    Avatar
    Tasmodevil44
    Member

    Like I already stated before in one of my previous posts, belbear is probably correct in that you would be fighting an uphill battle against the binding energy curve. Thorium is way past iron on the periodic table, where heavy elements begin to absorb energy rather than release it. And like I also stated in one of the previous posts, even the energy of the PDF is probably not sufficient……you would need the hellish temperature and pressure of an absolutely cataclysmic supernova.

    In one of my previous posts, I also mentioned how thorium might also absorb something else more massive like an alpha particle (helium nucleus) instead……that might cause it to leapfrog over the slow decay step of protactinium……and go directly to an unstable uranium or something similar. However, this does not seem very likely either……for the exact same reason. You would still be fighting the binding energy curve, which would probably cool the plasma down way more than the fission would add to it.

    I’m not even sure the use of the focus fusion PDF as a driver for a subcritical thorium reactor would even be feasible or be able to work. Interesting thought, but seems unlikely to work the more you think about it.

    #3327
    Avatar
    Tasmodevil44
    Member

    Since fission of massive atoms like uranium, thorium, etc. seem so incompatible with the focus fusion device, I still wonder if He 3 would help ignite the pB11 reaction at lower temerature and pressure. The problem here is that this lighter isotope of helium is scarce here on Earth. It is more plentiful in the lunar soil of the Moon.

    #3416
    Avatar
    Tasmodevil44
    Member

    It might still be possible to theoretically create a hybrid fission/fusion DPF like the hydrogen bomb, but it woud more than likely make the DPF a dirty radioactive powerplant rather than a clean one. In the hydrogen bomb, a plutonium bomb supplies the energy to get fusion started. Therefore, it’s not much cleaner than just plain fission.

    Thorium can indeed fission with protons in place of neutrons, but it probably takes a full – fledged particle accelerator to get the required electron volts necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier.

    Another possibility is photo – fission. But this requires a gamma ray that is energetic enough. But alas, I doubt if the x – rays generated by the DPF would be sufficient. This would really be nice if it could do it by photo – fission, because the radioactive fission products of thorium produced this way are so short – lived they have half – lives only minutes to hours at most.

    But there is one remaining possibility, however. If a thorium nucleus absorbs an energetic alpha particle …… it can leapfrog right over the lengthly intermediary protactinium transmutation step …… going directly to unstable U236 …… and immediately fission thereafter.

    However, like I already stated, it would more than likely turn the DPF into a dirty rad producer. This is because after the thorium nucleus absorbed an alpha particle and underwent fission, it would emit two or three neutrons. After continuous operation for awhile, the outer walls of the DPF chamber would become radioactive and more than likely suffer major neutron corrosion from all the neutrons absorbed by the walls.

    But more than likely, it would still be difficult to make it work in helping to assist focus fusion with fission of heavy actinides like thorium, uranium, plutonium or americium in this manner. It would probably also be difficult to assist with supplemental fuel additives to the decaborane by using additives like deutrium or helium 3. I have also considered the possibility of using the blacklight reaction discovered by Randall Mills to help aid the p+B11 reaction. However, the blacklight reaction is still highly controversial in that some physicists consider it to be in contradiction to what is currently known about quantum mechanics. In the meantime, I continue looking for some other kind of additional energy producing ” uummph ! ” that might help p+B11 along.

    #3417
    Avatar
    JimmyT
    Participant

    Tasmo’ keep in mind too, that every time you generate a high energy neutron. Say a 14 Mev one. It represents more than just a radation hazzard. From the standpoint of this system it is a waste of energy. The momentum that it carries away cannot be harvested by either the x-ray or reverse particle accelerator. And it means that there will be alpha particles generated with that much less energy.

    #3418
    Avatar
    Tasmodevil44
    Member

    The energy conversion efficiency of such a thing would definitely be lousy. I have considered the blacklight reaction as an alternative way to assist in adding more energy, but this controversial physics claim of Randall Mills is very unlikely to add anything, either.

    #3428
    Avatar
    Tasmodevil44
    Member

    Lerner is highly confident that a high probability of p+B11 fusion ignition can be achieved with the decaborane alone. After exploring various options for some kind of supplemental energy boost …… heavy fissionable atoms, helium 3, deutrium, and the blacklight reaction …… none of them seem very likely candidates. A workable one, if found, still probably would not improve the FF reactor’s operation that much. About all it might do is perhaps reduce the electric power requirement for heating the plasma, but that’s about it. I still find it fun exploring such improbable options, even if many times they are not practical.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.