[delt0r]

I have done the math here many times. I will do it again. The Best any fusor has done is 3×10^11 neutrons per second. Lets say we want 239grams of Plutonium from 238grams of Uranium. (1 mole). It would take 63 thousand years to do this assuming 100% of neutrons are the captures we want.

To get meaningful breading times, your neutron source is a power source.

[delt0r]

yea that will have a very poor vacuum and there will be lots of out-gassing crap in it.

[delt0r]

Not normally enough to worry even with DD fuel. Since a prototype would be with plan H there would be none. But then again they can yield up to 3×10^11 neutrons. Probably best to be prudent.

The biggest danger is high voltage, xrays and vacuum chambers in that order. Nothing that can’t be safe if your not silly. The High voltage source is typically the hardest thing to get if you have a budget. Good vacuum is hard to do without some good equipment and some good procedures.

[delt0r]

While I totally agree that it overreacting. A fusor is far more dangerous than a banana. The levels of xrays are not trivial and without proper precautions can lead to well beyond recommended safe dose limits.

[delt0r]

No its not. Sheesh. We have lab plasma’s that relax via magnetic reconnection all the time.

[delt0r]

How does the BBNH explain galactic rotation curves? Or gravitational lensing measurements or the Bullet cluster? In fact as far as i can tell, you only have “BB doesn’t explain everything so we are right” Withing a theory that does at least as well, and lets be clear Electric universe does not, (or MOND), is a prerequisite for replacement.

[delt0r]

That is from heat bursts. A problem in some devices when confinement is lost. Not from radiation. In the DPF you don’t really get plasma hitting the walls.

[delt0r]

The best shielding is the 1/r^2 law. In other words don’t get close. But most of the gamma emitters are not long lived. Decades IIRC.

[delt0r]

Great questions. The intensity of the radiation is only enough to cause issues with heat build up and only for a short time. The radiation is decay of created elements from fission and neutron capture. Generally the created elements are not particularly corrosive or otherwise a problem. Its the fact they are radioactive that complicates everything.

I can’t answer specifics of this particular case. But i can make some broad statements.

First of all there is a quite a lot of info and reports on this and other things in the public domain via the IAEA. So we do in fact often know far more than popular media bothers to report on. This also include some R&D etc.

Next there is a huge difference between a spent fuel element and a not spent one. In both cases they are cladded in material that should keep most of the resultant radioactive materials contained inside the fuel element. In the case of spent fuel there are all sorts of things and quite a few of them are soluble in water. in the case of fuel its really not such a big deal. Activity is much lower and the Pu and U oxides are fairly inert. Still cracked or otherwise compromised cladding is an issue.

Now corrosion of both dry and wet storage can be an issue. Its complicated because basic chemistry is now more or less “wrong”, since the radiation can drive otherwise impossible modes of corrosion. Wet storage is typically less of an issue since its just the fuel element in some assembly and water. The amount of radiation goes down pretty quickly after removal from the core and then things are cool enough to consider dry storage. If the cladding cracks…. Well now you get salts etc in the water that are radioactive, but its considered bad because now it can get into the water table and be absorbed by living things.

Fact is most radioactive things are fairly harmless if they are outside your body with only a few notable exceptions. Not so much when inside.

[delt0r]

Its not even really about bots existing. Its about “can we just leave it safely”. Granted these guys may not have asked that. But its point to consider. Every time you move these things you have a chance of making things worse. Not better. Keeping the pools topped with water is a known quantity.

[delt0r]

vansig wrote: the damaged assemblies are presently too hot to handle in those areas, both for humans and for robots;

No they are not. Robots can handle it fine. Electronics when designed with high radiation in mind can handle it fine. In fact the problem with damaged assemblies is active material getting into the cooling water and then delocalization of the radiation. Not an increase in radiation. Waste is not safe to eat or anything. But not some get within 30 feet turn into Godzilla thing either.

[delt0r]

We have a lot of spent once through fuel rods lying around. Most of it is not in dry casket or otherwise so could be used in breeders with reprocess. Right now its about the only way to get its volume and lifetime down to manageable levels. If you add some neutronic fusion to the mix you could have sub critical fission piles that are safer to use to burn this waste.

Eitherway, we have got this waste and we need to deal with it. A all nuclear is bad don’t do it will not make it go away. Saying there is no problem leave it as is will also no make it go away as TEPCO has found out.

[delt0r]

You do realize that they have a patent on some aspects as well. They can’t cry foul about patents if you have them too.

[delt0r]

Long story short… It can’t work.

There are 3 different collisions you care about with beam matter interaction. The first is collision with electrons. The second is collision with B11. The 3rd is fusion events. The probability of these events and how much energy goes where is fairly easy to measure. So we don’t even need to make assumptions about our models. It turns out we are most likely to hit electrons and give them lots of energy which results in heat and xrays. Second is to bounce of the B11 nucleus. Even with perfect energy matching, you still have a fairly low probability of fusion. In fact the probability of a fusion event is so low you can’t get net energy out.

Its just the way the universe is wired. Over all the probability even in favorable conditions is really really low compared to all the other loss mechanisms. This is why fusion is hard. Its also why the sun is stable for billions of years……

[delt0r]

The lab down the hall uses Tritium. My old night scope uses tritium. You can buy tritium florescent toys. Its rather low energy beta emitter.

The reason its gets highly regulated is that once you can get enough of it, ie grams worth. It becomes a very important addition to fission weapons. In short it makes fission weapons *many* times easier to make. Things like ITER and JET require large inventories of tritium. That gets a whole lot of pain WRT regulation.

If something like the DPF can use a very small inventory, regulations are not so prohibitive. I have not idea of how much you would need. But it could well be at the quantities that attracts lot of regulation.

[Author]

Posts