[Tasmodevil44]

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.

[Tasmodevil44]

The water cycle of the planet is not a plumbing system

The natural system proceeding human intervention is indeed a natural plumbing system. The water cycle is a plumbing system no matter how you cut it. It’s just that rapid change of one plumbing system replaced by another man-made one is too rapid for nature to adapt and change……because nature works on slow incremental change……not the rapid alterations of things brought on by humans.

There most certainly could be some environmental drawbacks and consequences. That’s why such a thing would probably have to be studied in more detail……to figure out the best way to do it if at all. It seems like human overpopulation and mass consumption has done reached an absolute limiting point to where any and all solutions to problems tend to create more problems in place of the old ones.

However, a time may come when we have no choice but to implement the lesser of evils even if we still have evils. A time may come when the water shortage, Ogallala aquifier depletion, catastrophic food shortages due to declining agricultural production, and floods that cost billions in damage force us to take the least destructive option even if we still have destructive consequences.

Of course, the very BEST option of all would be if we could just REDUCE wasteful consumption of all kinds. Too much water is just simply being wasted. Even the modern flush toilet consumes too much water. Most toilets can still operate just fine on much less. We could also switch to more drought resistant crops. And even after food is grown, too much of the food America produces (almost half of it) is simply wasted. Dumpsters are full of rotting garbage stores and restaurants toss out. And do spoiled-rotten Americans really need all the swimming pools? Is this really realistic to consume more than the planet can handle? And do we really need to wash our cars and keep them absolutely spotless so often?

Other solutions may involve still allowing the water to flood and travel the way of the old pre-existing natural plumbing system part of the time……instead of having full-time diversion. Another solution (though more costly) would involve trucking in more soil or sediments from far away to artificially build-up what nature once did.

I’m still an open-minded optimist for trying to use creativity at finding solutions……rather than always being closed-minded and pessimistic. I’m always looking for answers while most people only see the obstacles and problems. And I’ll be the first to admit that ideas don’t always “pan-out”. But we’re defeated already if all we have is a closed-minded attitude of defeatism all the time.

[Tasmodevil44]

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.

[Tasmodevil44]

Here’s still one more possibility. Don’t know if it would work, either (a chemical analogy of what I’m trying to do is somewhat like pour gasoline onto rain-soaked wood that’s all wet. Or put lighter fluid on stubborn charcoal briquettes). How about adding some He3 to the plasma mix?

But I can already see one problem arising from He3 already. It is very scarce here on planet Earth. That’s why some scientists have proposed the idea of mining the Moon’s lunar soil for it. Over countless millenia, the solar wind from the Sun has deposited quite a lot of it there.

However, He3 may be more probable at getting p+B11 fusion over the “hump” than trying to add any fissionable stuff to it……whether it be thorium, uranium, or anything else that’s fissionable. I even entertained the wacky notion of adding some Americium (like in smoke detectors) to the mix. But Americium is also scarce and may not so-called “burn” to add any more energy either.

When thinking “outside-the- box” with an open mind, I try not to leave a single stone unturned ……no matter how crazy others may think it to be. While most ideas don’t work, you just never know when you might hit upon something that does. Even if 99 out of a hundred don’t work, then the one out of a hundred that does is still well worth it.

I still think the suggestion by transmute to add some heavy hydrogen may be the best bet for adding a little extra “kick” to get p+B11 fusion going. But you would definitely produce some radioactivity when the high energy neutrons slam into the walls and are absorbed. Preferrably, the d+d that uses strictly deutrium might produce less high energy neutrons than the d+t reaction that uses tritium. The tritium has got to sling it’s extra neutron somewhere……like the reactor’s walls.

But then again, like transmute said, these neutrons could also be harnessed to remediate existing stockpiles of the most wicked and nasty legacy of the Cold War and Arms Race.

[Tasmodevil44]

Transmute, you brought up a good point:

If the fusion “hump” is the problem, just use d+d or d+t …… require 1/10 as much heat ……

You are absolutely correct. Heavy hydrogen should “ignite” at lower temperature than the the p+B11 reaction. If hybridized fission/fusion is not workable, then why not this?

[Tasmodevil44]

Or could something like what is used in an H-Bomb be added to the plasma mix? Such as lithium or beryllium? More than likely, it would not add any additional “kick” to the process, either.

[Tasmodevil44]

Spallation of proton beams into neutrons isn’t the only way to convert protons into neutrons. In some rare cases, positively charged protons will covert into neutrons by absorbing a negatively charged electron. In fact, that’s basically what a neutron is: an electron and a proton combined together into one particle. But this method is also very unlikely to occur.

I had hoped that fission of a few heavy atoms might dump a little extra energy into the plasma to help things along a little better.

Well, so much for the failed idea of trying to dump more energy into the DPF to try and get it over the fusion “hump” more easily. It would be too hard to get the thorium to transmute into uranium and fission. And it would ruin the whole elegant idea of clean “non-rad” power even if you could. But I’m still curious about the basic concept, though. Is there anything else you might be able to add to the plasma mixture that might add a little more energetic “uummph ! ! ! ” to it?

If there is, I don’t know what such an additional “kick” or fusion stimmulus would be. Any suggestions?

[Tasmodevil44]

You said:

I would put my bets on EV and PHEV over the inefficiency of making synthetic fuels to power grossly inefficient internal combustion engines.

I hate how closed-minded this extremely conservative American society is these days. What really annoys me the most is those who don’t even read ALL of my posts……so that I always have to keep on repeating myself like a broken record. Here is some of what I posted:

After many years of research and development, electric storage batteries for electric cars still do not have the energy density and convenience of liquid fuel that allows quick refilling of a gas tank.

And also:

So that while there will be some losses converting electricity into chemical fuels derived from seawater, the commercial value of the resulting liquid chemical fuel will be much greater.

More of my quotes on efficiency:

Here recently, there have been advances in improved fuel cells that use methanol.

And also:

Furthermore, if you replace the internal combustion engine and wasteful transmission of a conventional automobile……and run electric power directly from a methanol fuel cell to an electric motor attached to the wheels……the original energy of the focus fusion device could be converted back into motive power quite efficiently.

And about not using old abandoned offshore oil platforms for the most efficient purpose, you said:

1. In tomorrows grossly expensive energy economy you could make a profit making energy out of just about anything.

2. The goal is not to replace oil just to make a profit, synthetic oil made from solar or wind power plants……

5. If cheap aneutronic fusion becomes a reality, kiss all other energy sources goodbye, it will become the power source for everything, electricity, synthetic fuel, manufacturing, waste recycling, desalination, everything, and will change the world even at a rate cheap printable solar power could never even dream of.

Which is all the more reason not to waste a useful resource like old abandoned offshore oil platforms on windmills……regardless ! ! ! (which is what they want to use them for now) You can’t run very many cars and trucks on fuel from offshore windmills. Put high energy density DPF fusion plants on abandoned oil platforms for making fuel from ocean water just like I said. NOW GO BACK AND READ EVERYTHING THAT I SAID.

[Tasmodevil44]

In addition to the radioactive problem, you are correct about the energy balance, too. As energetic as the DPF is, you would still be fighting an uphill battle against the binding energy curve. And thorium is way beyond iron on the curve, where fusion starts to absorb energy rather than release it. You would need even more energy than the DPF can provide.

Violent supernovae, anyone? We could cook-up some gold and silver while we’re at it.

About the only other way a DPF might “burn” thorium (a very unlikely longshot) is if some of the energetic protons caused a secondary release of neutrons by way of the spallation effect or something similar to it. In fact, shooting a beam of energetic protons at a lead target to generate a secondary shower of neutrons is one of the ways physicists have proposed for a thorium reactor. But such an effect or something similar might not even work in a plasma.

[Tasmodevil44]

……all about energy balance

especially since you cannot turn neutrons directly into electricity. It needs a thermodynamic circle

I also mentioned in my post that the heavy fission products (which are positively charged nuclei) may come streaming out in a unidirectional beam just like the alpha particles……and undergo direct inductive conversion to electricity the same way……making it far more efficient than conventional fission reactors (and less waste for the same amount of energy). Most of the energy of heavy atom fission comes from the positively charged heavy fission byproducts……not from the neutrons. Upon fission, they repel away from each other with incredible force. And because they are massive, they equate into considerable energy if they too can be converted by direct induction. Did you read this part? You must not have completely read it all.

By far the biggest problem (like you and I both already stated before) is not really so much whether it would work or not for transmuting and “burning” thorium…… or the resulting energy balance…… so much as the radioactive problem even if it could:

any parts you take out will be high-level radioactive waste.

all about an attempt to “make watts, not rads”

You and I both are still in agreement on this one. Even if it could theoretically “burn” thorium, had an excellent energy balance, and helped to contribute more energy to facilitate a mixture of pB11 fusion as well (as I described), you would still have the really wicked rad waste problem to contend with.

The energy of the fission would come primarily from the heavy fission byproducts, not the neutrons. Instead of generating watts of power, the neutrons would be absorbed into the surrounding reactor walls…… and transmute everything else into a radioactive mennace……including the reactor itself. While producing substantially less radioactivity than a conventional fission reactor, it would still produce it nonetheless.

Not to mention the fact that the U-232 produced is a really wicked and nasty alpha emitter. If you were to accidentally inhale even the smallest microscopic particle of U-232 into your lungs……and it became permanently lodged there……you could develop lung cancer.

While I still think that such a thing may at least be theoretically possible…… (plasma may be energetic enough to overcome 90 protons. Especially if an energetic alpha occasionally collided with it.) ……is it very desirable or even something that you would really want to do?

Well, so much for a dense plasma focus that can be modified to safely transmute and “burn” hazardous thorium. Guess we’ll stick with trying to obtain a safer fusion ignition with p + B11 for now, folks.

[Tasmodevil44]

For many years now, I have advocated a nationwide water redistribution system. Not only do we have periods of severe drought (not enough H2O), but there are other times when we have too much rain and floods (too much H2O). This can cause billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy as entire towns, communities and rural farms get wiped-out. Therefore, too much excess water needs to be redistributed not only in space, but also in time (storage system) until it is needed. We need a major public works project to do this. Although it would cost billions, it would pay for itself many times over by preventing catastrophic flooding. But politics would be a major obstacle, and some residents would not like being uprooted from their homes in order to construct the large network of canals and pipelines necessary.

For many years now, I have proposed building a network all around the Missisippi and it’s smaller tributary rivers. This would drain excess water and help to relieve the pressure off the earthen dikes so that they will be less likely to break.

I once considered photovoltaic solar power to pump the water around. This way, the distribution system would not be dependent upon fossil fuels. However, the fusion focus device may move vast volumes of water even more efficiently.

Another political opposition may come from the environmentalists. The plumbing of some rivers and streams may have to be re-routed. This could result in some environmental drawbacks to my idea (such as local fish species in certain rivers affected, and etc.).

For example, in order to reduce the cost of building canals and pipelines, existing water courses could be modified. The Missouri River could be made to reverse itself (flow upstream) across the State of Missouri away from the Missisippi River. This may require the river bottom dredged deeper in some places (other streams may be diverted as well).

And just why would you want to do that?

Which brings me to my next idea.The object of all this is to divert vast quantities of excess rainwater (and potentially disasterous flood water) from the Missisippi and other tributary rivers all the way to the Ogallala aquifier. Then injection wells could inject the water into the underground Ogallala reservoir to replenish it.

In my original plan, I once again thought about solar-powered injection wells to accomplish the task. So that the entire system would not be dependent upon fossil fuels. But the fusion focus could do the job just as good or better.

When it comes to megawatts of installed capacity, what would be cheaper to build: zillions of photovoltaics or just a few fusion focus powerplants?

The answer to that is that fusion focus would probably allow more water pumping capacity installed more cheaply.

So in the final analysis, the Ogallala aquifier would become a huge water storage device. You could simply reverse the pump and start taking water back out when needed. Or have separate wells both injecting and retrieving at the same time. Or some of the water from the diverted rivers and streams could go directly to irrigation without having to be stored underground. Especially after the Ogallala aquifier has done been replenished back up to a healthy level. This would reduce how much water would have to be extracted from the aquifier.

[Tasmodevil44]

has a whopping 90 positive charges to overcome, boron has only 5.

And also:

No energetic device like the DPF is needed for that.

That’s all the more reason why I thought that an energetic device like the DPF might make thorium undergo transmutation into something else that would fission instead of having to use neutrons. I also mentioned that other things like deutrium or an alpha particle of helium absorbed might also work. I’m very open-minded about possibilities most people would not be open-minded enough to consider. However, you’re definitely correct about one thing for sure……and that is this:

the high radioactivity of some byproducts such as U-232

You’re most definitely correct on this one. U-232 is a particularly nasty isotope to deal with. So that while I’m still open-minded enough to think that it might work…… even if it did, you would still have to manage the nasty consequences.

[Tasmodevil44]

It’s too bad you can’t actually use the most ordinary common garden variety C-12 for a nuclear fuel by energetically agitating it by some other as yet undiscovered means. Now that would really be an incredible breakthrough. So far, ordinary carbon can’t do much. If you try to bombard it with neutrons to try and make carbon fission like uranium, it will absorb more neutrons than new ones released, causing any potential chain reaction to wind down to a stop. Some physicists have likened it to trying to burn wet wood. If only……if only……if only a new practical way to energetically agitate and destabilize the C-12 nucleus could be discovered. If not, then focus fusion by absorption of a hydrogen proton is still the only way.

[Author]

Posts