Put ITER and NOVA on ice; and all-out-attack on Sonofusion
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <33E3E1CD...@ma.ultranet.com>
Cesium-137 <g...@ma.ultranet.com> writes:
> Fool is pushing it a little, but you have to realize lack of creativity
> isn't what is going to kill sono (I do happen to believe sono
> experiments will be continuing for a very very long time). What is going
> to be sono's down fall is the fact that in opaque liquids one cannot
> make the needed observations required for cell adjustment. Now, I am
> sure there will be many experments with sono in cryo liquids; so, keep
> your eyes peeled.
Greg, I thought you promised to experiment with mercury sonofusion
come August, and this is August. Would it not be better quality time
with the experiment rather than make posts to the Net? What neutron
measurements do you plan to make on the mercury?
My writings have a _Policy Statement_ included and therefore should
be heeded more than your writings, Greg. The policy statement concerns
the funding of big science projects. It is _Pragmatic_.
Policy Statement--- fund those big science projects which demonstrate
a *beneficial surprize* along the way.
So, let us review the history of these three competing engineering
fusion programs.
(1) Tokamak fusion: started 1950, spent 15 billion, with never any
beneficial surprizes along the way. At best achieved 1/4 breakeven.
(2) Laser (Shiva -Nova) fusion: started 1970, spent 5 billion, with
never any beneficial surprizes along the way. Again, at best achieved
was 1/4 breakeven
(3) Sonofusion: started 1988, spent only some thousands of dollars,
not millions nor billions. A huge big surprize occurred in the year
1990 when Gaitan & Crum were able to sustain a stable large bubble that
was repeatable. Two big surprizes, stability and repeatability. This
bubble can already be used to produce lasers. So already this 1990
discovery has engineering use.
So, from judging the history of seeking fusion energy, already, of
the 3 contenders we have a front runner according to the _policy
statement_.
How much would it cost both in time and in money to setup Sonofusion
with the most advanced state of the art equipment and to accurately
measure for sonofusion in 1,000 different liquids, liquids of nearly
all the elements of the periodic table and 900 others and their various
different dopings. My estimate is in the low millions of dollars. How
much time? I suspect in less than 1 to 2 years of diligent work. Then,
if no further big surprize comes with Sonofusion after the 2 years time
is up, back to the ITER and NOVA and their increased budgets and
activities. But in the meantime, the 2 years for Sonofusion, keep
tokamak and laser fusion at this level with no increase. After the 2
years is up with intense research into those 1,000 liquids, and no
further big surprize, then back to ITER and NOVA on schedule.
My policy statement was recently put into action. Although I must
admit that I arrived at this policy statement after the deeds and
actions had already been committed. I bespeak of the Mars Pathfinder
mission. Here we had big science project. And before the Mars
expedition we had other planets and satellites competing for space
missions. But a big beneficial surprize came to the space program in
the form of a Mars meteorite found on the South Pole that was
discovered to "claim purported life". That discovery justified the
spending for the Pathfinder mission to Mars. Here we have an example of
a big science project that follows my policy statement to the tee.
So, considering that Sonofusion of the three types of fusion design
has been the only research to turn up a big beneficial surprize. And
considering that the cheap money and the small amount of time, 2 years
is fast, that the knowledge gained of 1,000 different liquids and
dopings, knowledge that will be sought in the future anyway! That this
route makes the most pragmatic and commonsense.
And also, Sonofusion, if it exists is either directly related to
Laser fusion, in that the collapsing bubble is the laser driver. Or,
Sonofusion, on the remote chance could be a tiny *supernova-physics*.
What I am implying above is that Sonofusion is combinable with Nova
Laser type fusion. Instead of the pellet to be fused with Lasers. Stick
the Sonobubble in the center of the Lasers and help the Sonobubble
along with achieving fusion. But we need to know what the best liquid
is and doping is.
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <5s27dd$88q$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> What I am implying above is that Sonofusion is combinable with Nova
> Laser type fusion. Instead of the pellet to be fused with Lasers. Stick
> the Sonobubble in the center of the Lasers and help the Sonobubble
> along with achieving fusion. But we need to know what the best liquid
> is and doping is.
Keep on going with NOVA and put only ITER and all tokamak fusion on
ice. Tokamak engineering was never designed for practical use. It was a
machine mostly to verify that fusion can occur, but as far as practical
design the tokamak is useless. We see another form of fusion which is
useless is the engineering of controlled-hydrogen-fusion-bombs. How to
engineer those bombs , control them and derive practical, useful
energy? Set off little hydrogen bomb explosions near a huge electric
dynamo that rotates it and on a downswing it picks up another little
bomb, explodes in a direction that keeps it rotating and making
electricity? Practically useless. Such is the design of Tokamaks,
practically useless.
Cesium-137
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In article <33E3E1CD...@ma.ultranet.com>
> Cesium-137 <g...@ma.ultranet.com> writes:
>
> > Fool is pushing it a little, but you have to realize lack of
> creativity
> > isn't what is going to kill sono (I do happen to believe sono
> > experiments will be continuing for a very very long time). What is
> going
> > to be sono's down fall is the fact that in opaque liquids one cannot
>
> > make the needed observations required for cell adjustment. Now, I am
>
> > sure there will be many experments with sono in cryo liquids; so,
> keep
> > your eyes peeled.
>
> Greg, I thought you promised to experiment with mercury sonofusion
> come August, and this is August. Would it not be better quality time
> with the experiment rather than make posts to the Net? What neutron
> measurements do you plan to make on the mercury?
Now, I said I was to start experimenting in the middle of August; and I
will do an experiment with mercury. But I am not going to be spending
alot of time on the use of mercury because the chances of me being able
to achieve sonolum are about as good as me being struck by lightning.
The fact is, I do not know how to tune a mercury cell (and to my
knowledge no one else does either). Hey if someone can enlighten me on
how to take observations on the experiment; I would be glad to follow
the instructions. As to neutron detection, I am not going to take any.
First thing I have to do is to get a working experiment; then i will do
the elaborate observations. Also, I am not going to get all the
equipement together to take measurements that I doubt exhist (fusion
needs somewhere around 100 000 000K to take place).
> My writings have a _Policy Statement_ included and therefore should
> be heeded more than your writings, Greg. The policy statement concerns
>
> the funding of big science projects. It is _Pragmatic_.
>
> Policy Statement--- fund those big science projects which
> demonstrate
> a *beneficial surprize* along the way.
>
> So, let us review the history of these three competing engineering
> fusion programs.
>
> (1) Tokamak fusion: started 1950, spent 15 billion, with never any
> beneficial surprizes along the way. At best achieved 1/4 breakeven.
Ok, I am sorry. You are spouting bullshit about these programs. Frankly,
I do not know where you get off critisizing these programs that have
been conceived and carried out by some truly great scientific thinkers.
Tokamak fusion has not only should good progress in attaining fusion,
but it has also allowed researchers to learn alot about subjects as
materials engeneering, plasma physics, neutral beam physics, magnetrons,
superconductors, heat dissepation, and these are just the ones I know
off the top of my head.
> (2) Laser (Shiva -Nova) fusion: started 1970, spent 5 billion, with
> never any beneficial surprizes along the way. Again, at best achieved
> was 1/4 breakeven
Again, you forget such breakthroughs as the advent of the holohrum and
the advances in related fields.
>
>
> (3) Sonofusion: started 1988, spent only some thousands of dollars,
> not millions nor billions. A huge big surprize occurred in the year
> 1990 when Gaitan & Crum were able to sustain a stable large bubble
> that
> was repeatable.
That is nice, but again that is nothing compared to spawned achievments
of the above programs.
> Two big surprizes, stability and repeatability. This
> bubble can already be used to produce lasers. So already this 1990
> discovery has engineering use.
Lasers? I would like to see the reference for that. If sonolum bubble
does lase then it would be a very impractical laser given the fact that
the power output is so small.
>
>
> So, from judging the history of seeking fusion energy, already, of
> the 3 contenders we have a front runner according to the _policy
> statement_.
I have one recomendation research the other programs before soliciting
your "policy statement."
>
>
> How much would it cost both in time and in money to setup
> Sonofusion
> with the most advanced state of the art equipment and to accurately
> measure for sonofusion in 1,000 different liquids, liquids of nearly
> all the elements of the periodic table and 900 others and their
> various
> different dopings. My estimate is in the low millions of dollars. How
> much time? I suspect in less than 1 to 2 years of diligent work.
You have got to be kidding that type of research could take decades. You
don't seem to realise that sound wave mechanics are understood to a very
high degree (as compared to something like plasma physics). It is basic
physics and chemistry that dictate how sound travels in different
materials, and it is good enough to an extent that only a very few
material if any would have to be tested to rule out sonoluminescence.
> Then,
> if no further big surprize comes with Sonofusion after the 2 years
> time
> is up, back to the ITER and NOVA and their increased budgets and
> activities. But in the meantime, the 2 years for Sonofusion, keep
> tokamak and laser fusion at this level with no increase. After the 2
> years is up with intense research into those 1,000 liquids, and no
> further big surprize, then back to ITER and NOVA on schedule.
>
> My policy statement was recently put into action. Although I must
> admit that I arrived at this policy statement after the deeds and
> actions had already been committed. I bespeak of the Mars Pathfinder
> mission. Here we had big science project. And before the Mars
> expedition we had other planets and satellites competing for space
> missions. But a big beneficial surprize came to the space program in
> the form of a Mars meteorite found on the South Pole that was
> discovered to "claim purported life". That discovery justified the
> spending for the Pathfinder mission to Mars. Here we have an example
> of
> a big science project that follows my policy statement to the tee.
Ok, this another thing you have to look into more. The bacterial fossils
have always been hotly contested. Also, nasa has dramatically cut
manufacturing costs of all its probes. To prove this pathfinder was
first slated to have a chemical test aboard to try to find traces of
past life on mars, but that experiment along with many others have been
cut. Nasa's mentality now is different instead of the multibillion
dollar probes they make their equipment fast, simple, cheap and
hopefully reliable.
>
>
> So, considering that Sonofusion of the three types of fusion design
> has been the only research to turn up a big beneficial surprize. And
> considering that the cheap money and the small amount of time, 2 years
>
> is fast, that the knowledge gained of 1,000 different liquids and
> dopings, knowledge that will be sought in the future anyway!
And what purpose would that data serve? Accoustics is understood very
well, and it is very unlikely that sonolum will have any spinoff
benefits like tokamaks and ICF setups have.
> That this
> route makes the most pragmatic and commonsense.
>
> And also, Sonofusion, if it exists is either directly related to
> Laser fusion, in that the collapsing bubble is the laser driver. Or,
> Sonofusion, on the remote chance could be a tiny *supernova-physics*.
ok, what is supernova physics exactly?
>
>
> What I am implying above is that Sonofusion is combinable with Nova
> Laser type fusion. Instead of the pellet to be fused with Lasers.
> Stick
> the Sonobubble in the center of the Lasers and help the Sonobubble
> along with achieving fusion. But we need to know what the best liquid
> is and doping is.
the laser light would be serverly refracted int he water and light
scattering would make the above very unlikely to happen. Also, give the
fact that water absorbs blue light, the current use of blue lasers
(which i believe is the prime research tool for ICF) would prove
extremely futile.
Cesium-137
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In article <5s27dd$88q$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> > What I am implying above is that Sonofusion is combinable with
> Nova
> > Laser type fusion. Instead of the pellet to be fused with Lasers.
> Stick
> > the Sonobubble in the center of the Lasers and help the Sonobubble
> > along with achieving fusion. But we need to know what the best
> liquid
> > is and doping is.
>
> Keep on going with NOVA and put only ITER and all tokamak fusion on
>
> ice. Tokamak engineering was never designed for practical use. It was
> a
> machine mostly to verify that fusion can occur, but as far as
> practical
> design the tokamak is useless. We see another form of fusion which is
> useless is the engineering of controlled-hydrogen-fusion-bombs. How to
>
> engineer those bombs , control them and derive practical, useful
> energy? Set off little hydrogen bomb explosions near a huge electric
> dynamo that rotates it and on a downswing it picks up another little
> bomb, explodes in a direction that keeps it rotating and making
> electricity? Practically useless. Such is the design of Tokamaks,
> practically useless.
Ok, let's talk practical. I have said many times that it has been
calculated that even if every square inch of soil were to be covered by
sonolum fusion machines that the input energy would always be greater
than the extracted energy. I am surprised that you have never responded
to this.
Richard Logan
Carl Dean wrote:
>
> Garbage! The attached files show that you know nothing about the
> advancement of these technologies! If you don't know what has been
> accomplished - how can you forecast the future? You can't!
>
Pretty pictures. I think this is a basic problem with the fusion
program: Too many salesman, too few engineers. Our money would be
better spent developing the inherently safe reactor technologies that
are now on the drawing board.
The promise of fusion may be real but it has certainly been over sold.
Carl Dean
> Pretty pictures.
A graph representing progress made is not a pretty picture.
> I think this is a basic problem with the fusion
> program: Too many salesman, too few engineers.
Actually the problem is too many engineers, too few salesmen. They need to
do a better job of selling the program than they have.
> Our money would be
> better spent developing the inherently safe reactor technologies that
> are now on the drawing board.
>
> The promise of fusion may be real but it has certainly been over sold.
>
If you realize that the promise of fusion could be real, and you understand
what fusion has the capacity to do; then how can you say that it has been
over sold? It's budget is negligible when compared with the yearly costs
of fossil fuels. Also be sure to factor in the costs associated with
defending these oil supplies.
As far as inherently safe reactor technologies, they have them already.
All you have to do is build them. The problem is that people have been
brainwashed and are afraid of the technology. They don't realize that they
are receiving more rem's from radon inside their own homes than they will
from (western) nuclear power plants.
Carl
David B. Green
Cesium-137 wrote:
> being invested to make current nuclear reactors safer. Developments in
> reactor materials, redundant safty systems, and nuclear waste managment
> are worthwhile and would be very beneficial to study. Now fusion does
> have great potential, but the fact is the US will not accept fusion as a
> primary energy source until major corporations that would tend to make
> money off of it say so. Let us not kid ourselves about the American
> government, it isn't a government for the people it is more a government
> for huge corporations. They are the ones that have the money to lobby
> and solicite the politicians, and they will not allow fusion to become
> the United states primary energy source until they are ready to take
> full advantage. Fusion will have its day and it will be in the next few
> decades, but ultimatly it is the big corporations or conglomerates that
> will dictate when this day will be. Now, I am not saying the government
> will indefinatly suppress fusion when it is ready for use; but it will
> way for the corporations to be ready to take advantage of it.
I have found that the government has over the years busted up many a
corporation when it became too powerful and bribed corporations to do
the governments bidding when it wanted something done. The US
government is still bigger and richer (and meaner) than any corporation
in the world.
David
--
David B. Green
Barclay Laboratory
916-244-4460
FAX 916-244-2924
Cesium-137
David B. Green wrote:
I see your point and do not dispute the power of the government over
corporations. My point has nothing to do with bribary or strong arming
government or government officials, but let us face the fact that large
corporations do most of the donations that drive most of our elected
officials campaign funds. Now legally, these politicians have no
obligation to these companies; but let us not be naive. Many of these
elected officials have reelection hopes and thus do not want their
funding cut. This combined with the powerful abilities of companies to
lobby government makes the our system of government more condusive to
serve the whims of major companieS (notice I am in no way referring to
one mega-corporation but a group of large corporations with similar
intrests) rather than the American public. I am also not saying that
government ignores the american public. As with anything else it is a
balance of power.
Cesium-137
David B. Green
Carl Dean wrote:
>
> > (1) Tokamak fusion: started 1950, spent 15 billion, with never any
> > beneficial surprizes along the way. At best achieved 1/4 breakeven.
> > never any beneficial surprizes along the way. Again, at best achieved
> > was 1/4 breakeven
> >
>
> advancement of these technologies! If you don't know what has been
> accomplished - how can you forecast the future? You can't!
>
>
> [Image]
>
> [Image]
>
> [Image]
>
> [Image]
>
> [Image]
Awwsome graphics. Got any ideas on the Cold Fusion progress? Bets on
who will get an on-line plant first?
I know that the Hot Fusion folks have done some magnificent work and
really good physics but I keep getting snippets of information that
something is going on in the cold side.
Paul F. Dietz
On 5 Aug 1997 19:09:32 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>I don't think you looked at any of the graphs. How can you so easily scrap
>a research program that is making real progress. The rate of fusion energy
>gain is greater than that of the rate of increase for computer memory.
It is making progress towards a dead end. Magnetic fusion reactors
using DT fuel are, IMHO, unlikely to be economical, for reasons Lidsky
pointed out in the mid 1980s. The engineering studies continue to
yield reactors that are only marginally competitive, at best, with
current energy sources, and fusion is going to have to compete with
the improved competitors of 40 or more years in the future. Magnetic
fusion's only real chance, IMHO, is to go to small reactors using
advanced fuels, using some kind of direct conversion, but tokamaks
don't appear to be suitable for that.
The decision to scrap a program is eased somewhat when the next
step is a multinational megaproject like ITER. A project that is
having a real hard time getting enough funding to proceed.
Paul
Email from the following may be autodeleted:
bigfoot.com coolcom.com earthlink.com
earthlink.net hotmail.com super.net usa.net
Carl Dean
> Talk is cheap very cheap. Especially one who critisizes an area of
> research which he is COMPLETELY ignorant about. I am sorry your sono
> laser fusion scheme would never work do to the liquid around the bubble
> playing havoc with the laser light (I am keeping this simple to
> understand). The physics that debuncs your would be experiment is
> understood very well and has been proven experimentally.
Ouch! That had to hurt!
Neodimium
In article <33E66D...@awwwsome.com>, "David B. Green" <barclay@awwwsome=
com> wrote:
>Cesium-137 wrote:
>>=20
>> Carl Dean wrote:
>>=20
>> > > Pretty pictures.
I agree, do you have more?
Regards
Neodimium
I speak by my self.
Eric Lucas
Carl Dean wrote:
> This sonoluminescence (sp?) is the newest that I've heard of.
Mostly because it is the pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation of one
of the most well-developed net-loons of the last half of this decade.
Don't hold your breath.
Eric Lucas
Carl Dean
> You had 50 years to engineer hydrogen fusion bombs to make electricity.
>
> You failed on that.
Nobody ever pursued that area of research. It's not practical.
> You had 50 years with tokamaks and 15 billion dollars, and you failed
> again.
If you look at Magnetic fusion's budget and progress graphs you'll see that
the actual research program started in the early 1970's. Why? The oil
embargo showed us how vulnerable we are, only we have forgotten the lesson.
We have far too short of a memory span.
>
> When I made that post above, I was wrong. We should not put NOVA on
> ice. We should put ITER and all tokamaks on ice. In fact even mothball
> them.
I don't think you looked at any of the graphs. How can you so easily scrap
a research program that is making real progress. The rate of fusion energy
gain is greater than that of the rate of increase for computer memory.
> NOVA combined with Sonoluminescence is the path of the future and the
> route for successful fusion engineering.
So you're saying that a program that is reaching fruition should be
completely abandoned and forgotten just so that you're idea can be
researched. That sounds pretty selfish to me. Nova is being superseded by
the NIF and it doesn't need sonoluminescence to achieve breakeven and power
gain.
If this area shows promise then make some presentations, get some funding
and develop your program. Don't work to hinder other areas of research.
Carl
Paul F. Dietz
On 4 Aug 1997 20:19:16 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>As far as inherently safe reactor technologies, they have them already.
>All you have to do is build them. The problem is that people have been
>brainwashed and are afraid of the technology. They don't realize that they
>are receiving more rem's from radon inside their own homes than they will
>from (western) nuclear power plants.
So, you say passively safe reactors like, say, IFR are not being built
only because people are brainwashed?
What advantage, then, could fusion possibly have? Is a fusion reactor
somehow more resistant to antinuclear activists? I suggest that it is
now only because it is so far from practicality.
Paul F. Dietz
On 5 Aug 1997 23:56:28 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>> The engineering studies continue to
>> yield reactors that are only marginally competitive, at best, with
>> current energy sources,
>
>True, but that assumes that we will continue using these sources.
I offered that as a comment on the economics of fusion, not as a
statement that current energy sources will continue to be used.
I expect future energy sources to be *less* expensive than current
ones, simply because of the usual incremental improvements that
occur over time.
>> and fusion is going to have to compete with
>> the improved competitors of 40 or more years in the future.
>
>There is not that much research being conducted. What kinds of
>technologies are you referring to? Biomass? Solar? Nuclear? Advanced
>fossil fuel?
All of the above, plus wind. The biggest growth will, IMO,
be in natural gas. The quantity of natural gas in seafloor clathrates
is enormous, and hydrogen from methane -- even if you have to
pyrolyze the methane to carbon and hydrogen, and bury the
carbon -- is going to be cheaper than hydrogen from electrolysis
of water.
I believe nuclear will begin to contribute to industrial process heat
at some point. Gargantuan fusion plants are unlikely to do that.
>I think fusion's biggest potential competitor is advanced geothermal. It
>is supposed to be able to be sited anywhere and requires no fuel.
But it is not cost competitive with fission or many of the other
options.
>
>> Magnetic
>> fusion's only real chance, IMHO, is to go to small reactors using
>> advanced fuels, using some kind of direct conversion, but tokamaks
>> don't appear to be suitable for that.
>
>I have read somewhere that they were working on direct conversion while
>simultaneously utilizing the heat energy.
But the savings only come if most of the energy goes to direct
conversion, avoiding the capital cost of the steam/gas turbines and
generators. Magnetic DT fusion produces 80% of its energy in
neutrons, which have to deposit their energy as heat in a blanket. So
direct conversion is only a win with advanced fuels (D-3He or better).
>All they have to do is put an ever so small of a tax on fossil fuels and
>they would have more than enough money to proceed without the need for
>international partners. They already put approximately 30 cents worth of
>tax on each gallon of gasoline, but none of the money collected is used for
>energy research.
This argument displays political naivete. Why should the source of
tax money matter in the political process? Are other interest groups
going to look at these revenues and say "oh, my, it's an energy tax,
so we won't fight to get some of this money"? Of course not. And,
from a public policy point of view, if energy research is worth
supporting, it is as worth supporting with general revenue as it is
with revenue from energy taxes.
Arthur Carlson TOK
di...@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) writes:
> All of the above, plus wind. The biggest growth will, IMO,
> be in natural gas. The quantity of natural gas in seafloor clathrates
> is enormous, and hydrogen from methane -- even if you have to
> pyrolyze the methane to carbon and hydrogen, and bury the
> carbon -- is going to be cheaper than hydrogen from electrolysis
> of water.
Interesting. What does the energetics of
CH4 + O2 -> C + 2H2O
look like? What percentage of the energy that would be released by
just burning the methane is available? Have costing studies been
done?
(Followups have been trimmed to the energy related group
sci.physics.fusion)
--
Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
car...@ipp.mpg.de
http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~awc/home.html
As usual, if I am caught or killed, the Institute
will disavow any knowledge of my actions.
Dieter Britz
On 12 Aug 1997, Arthur Carlson TOK wrote:
> di...@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) writes:
>
> > All of the above, plus wind. The biggest growth will, IMO,
> > be in natural gas. The quantity of natural gas in seafloor clathrates
> > is enormous, and hydrogen from methane -- even if you have to
> > pyrolyze the methane to carbon and hydrogen, and bury the
> > carbon -- is going to be cheaper than hydrogen from electrolysis
> > of water.
>
> Interesting. What does the energetics of
>
> CH4 + O2 -> C + 2H2O
>
> look like? What percentage of the energy that would be released by
> just burning the methane is available? Have costing studies been
> done?
The reaction enthalpy for this is about -500 kJ/mol CH4, as compared with
-900 for complete burning of CH4. I am not sure how easy it is to break up
CH4 into C and H2, but the numbers say that it requires 75 kJ/mol CH4, not
that much, so it ought to be feasible, depending on reaction rates. I gather
the idea behind this is to avoid the CO2 you'd get from simply burning the
CH4? I have a feeling, though, that the carbon would slowly oxidise in time
anyway. If it's energy we are after, my long-term favourite is solar; we have
lots of it, and it will always be there.
Hey, this is chemistry - but then the Schultz/Swartz schoolyard fight running
the last couple of weeks has been chemical, too, so why not? Nothing
happening in fusion anyway, is there?
-- Dieter Britz alias br...@kemi.aau.dk. See http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz
Carl Dean
> So, you say passively safe reactors like, say, IFR are not being built
> only because people are brainwashed?
Suggest another reason if you know of one.
>
> What advantage, then, could fusion possibly have? Is a fusion reactor
> somehow more resistant to antinuclear activists? I suggest that it is
> now only because it is so far from practicality.
No, they are already against fusion reactors. Go to greenpeace and the
sierra club and see for yourself. What is needed is a broader
understanding of the issues.
Fusion has an advantage in that its radioactivity has a much shorter
half-life and because of this should not invoke as much fear. It also
can't melt down, which is another advantage worth noting.
Paul F. Dietz
On 12 Aug 1997 23:51:35 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>Fusion has an advantage in that its radioactivity has a much shorter
>half-life and because of this should not invoke as much fear. It also
>can't melt down, which is another advantage worth noting.
These claims are subject to dispute.
Halflife: there can be very long lived activation products
produced in the wall, even with ostensibly low activation materials
like SiC (from 28Si --> 27Al --> 26Al, the last have a halflife
of 7.2e5 years.) [Vanadium may be better, but is scarce and
somewhat expensive.]
Meltdown: with improperly chosen first wall materials, the time
from loss of cooling (and shutdown of the reaction) to melting
of the first wall (from decay of shortlived activation products)
can be only a few minutes. Proper design and choice of materials
can avoid this, but then that's true of fission as well.
Fear? Imagine what Greenpeace is going to do with a machine
that puts a blanket containing a megacurie of tritium next
to magnets storing the energy of a small bomb. Also imagine
the fear of bondholders in a utility that tried to build
a tokamak, since that residual radioactivity is more than enough
to render the core inaccessible to hands-on maintenance.
Jim Carr
>produced in the wall, even with ostensibly low activation materials
>like SiC (from 28Si --> 27Al --> 26Al, the last have a halflife
>of 7.2e5 years.)
What is the production mechanism here? (gamma,p)(gamma,n)? (n,2n)?
I just don't see how you would expect to make the metastable state
of 26Al in the wall of a tokamak.
>Fear? Imagine what Greenpeace is going to do with a machine
>that puts a blanket containing a megacurie of tritium next
>to magnets storing the energy of a small bomb.
Yep.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Arthur Carlson TOK
di...@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) writes:
> On 12 Aug 1997 23:51:35 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Fusion has an advantage in that its radioactivity has a much shorter
> >half-life and because of this should not invoke as much fear. It also
> >can't melt down, which is another advantage worth noting.
>
> These claims are subject to dispute.
>
> Halflife: there can be very long lived activation products
> produced in the wall, even with ostensibly low activation materials
> like SiC (from 28Si --> 27Al --> 26Al, the last have a halflife
> of 7.2e5 years.) [Vanadium may be better, but is scarce and
> somewhat expensive.]
With any real world mix of isotopes, radioactive decay is never
exponential. Usually activity decreases quickly at first and then
slows down, but in some cases and by some measures it can even
increases with time. If you squint enough so you don't get hung up on
details, you will generally conclude that the radioactivity from
fusion wastes decays about two orders of magnitude faster than fission
wastes. Experts, of course, still have a lot of room for heated
discussions.
> Meltdown: with improperly chosen first wall materials, the time
> from loss of cooling (and shutdown of the reaction) to melting
> of the first wall (from decay of shortlived activation products)
> can be only a few minutes. Proper design and choice of materials
> can avoid this, but then that's true of fission as well.
Even with careful engineering, fission always has to live with fission
products. Transuranics are also hard to design away. The proper
caveat for fusion is that the desire for short-lived wastes provides a
narrow constraint on the materials that can be used, and this may
force compromises in other properties. Again, the general conclusion
holds that fusion has some features which can potentially and probably
make a fusion plant safer than a fission plant, but the details of
cashing in on these features can be difficult.
Richard Schultz
Dieter Britz (br...@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: Hey, this is chemistry - but then the Schultz/Swartz schoolyard
: fight running the last couple of weeks has been chemical, too,
: so why not?
I just want to point out that *my* argument with Mitchell Swartz has
nothing whatsoever to do with chemistry, but rather with ethics. I
will grant you that I cannot say the same thing about him with
any kind of certainty.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . .
mitchell swartz
In Message-ID: <5suik0$s6g$2...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
Subject: Re: Put ITER and NOVA on ice; and all-out-attack on Sonofusion
sch...@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) demonstrates he has
NO ethics once again.
=rs I just want to point out that *my* argument with Mitchell Swartz has
=rs nothing whatsoever to do with chemistry, but rather with ethics. I
=rs will grant you that I cannot say the same thing about him with
=rs any kind of certainty.
Reckon that ethics would require that Richard P.E. Schultz
explain to people his sad paucity of chemistry knowledge a priori.
Perhaps when Richard Schultz next claims myoglobin is a "dimer"
as he has "taught" twice already, a warning label with his post
would be sufficient. ;-)X
BTW, there should be more emphasis on achieving fusion,
all types.
Mitchell Swartz (mi...@world.std.com)
Paul F. Dietz
On 12 Aug 1997 09:01:38 +0200, Arthur Carlson TOK
<car...@ipp.mpg.de> wrote:
>Interesting. What does the energetics of
>
> CH4 + O2 -> C + 2H2O
>
>look like?
Actually, I was more thinking of the endothermic
reaction
CH4 --> C + 2 H2
at around 1000 C. Use heat from a high temperature gas cooled
fission reactor.