Nuclear Energy Fusion

I can't build a fission reactor in my backyard because it MAY endanger my neighbors. I can't practice war time drills with my Iowa class battleship. I can't own landmines even though it increases my personal or property safety. So after all this, I can cry at the top of my lungs; "FUCK WASHINGTON D.C.!" and no government agency will come crashing on my door... I have to ask what are you complaining about?

You're arguing the fact the Gov enacts laws to benefit all but not the individual is anti-freedom? You are out of your mind.

 

Right, but fyi, you can build a fusion reactor at your home, it just has to be cold!

 

Cold Fusion is a dead end. The amount of energy released would never be sustainable at room temp.

 

There is a renewed interest in it and attempts for the transmutation. I can't remember where I read it, but it was recently.

I would love to see this technology come to bear. We could convert all our wastes (among other things) into energy and recycle the metals back into new products. Best part: No radioactive materials to deal with in the end.

I have high hopes for it still.

As for the freedom part of this thread, I'm with pussycat on this one. SOME regulation is necessary, but not blind control which is the crux of the current regulations in play right now... mostly made by people who don't know WHAT a firearm is or how to use them.

If you want unrestricted weapons, go to the Middle East or parts of Africa, there are no weapons restrictions there, even home made ones... but don't expect to live too long either... or keep your legs. You know land mines are pretty indiscriminate... and weapons training isn't mandatory there either so expect a lot of mishandled firearms.

 

F? C? or K? (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin)

 

trans-MUTATION? Seriously? That died by the time Newton was de-vilified . We now understand decay into 'Daughter Products' from a higher product, meaning energy LEAVING the molecule equals a smaller DAUGHTER. URANIUM -> DEPLETED URANIUM -> "LEAD"
| -> THORIUM -> LEAD

Meaning, the way a molecule decays in either 'accelerated' or 'natural' ends with different daughter products. The energy expended in its lifetime will lead to different 'daughter' products.

Cold Fusion attempted to describe this effect without any evidence to back it up. Now that we have better understanding of fission mechanics, Cold Fusion can never come to be. The radiation released would murder every human in a 150 sq mile (estimated) with contamination from the gamma into the 1500 sq mile.

 

I normally try not to comment on things like "cold fusion" because I usually end up writing significantly more than I have time to. It really is oneof those false subjects that you're not quite sure where to begin.

Just for the sake of understanding my perspective I should divulge that I have a degree in nuclear engineering.

Cold fusion is a farce and will never be any sort of viable energy source. The concept violates an incredible number of natural laws from thermodynamics to nuclear physics. To be honest most nuclear engineers even chuckle at the thought of regular fusion ever becoming a viable energy source. Yeah, regular (scientifically sound) fusion works but we can't sustain a reaction.

If you really want to understand how nuclear things work then read a few reputable books. Pick up a textbook on thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, nuclear reactor physics, nuclear systems, and top it off with health physics and radiation detection and measurement for good measure.

Or you could go buy a book written by some random hermit in the woods who claims to have single handedly solved the world's energy problems while watching a bear shit out it's latest meal.

I guess the choice is up to you.


And back to the original premise of the thread... You're as free as you imagine yourself to be. If you're always a self-proclaimed victim then you will never taste freedom. Anarchy is just as much of a prison as communism.

 

I tried some examples but they don't listen. The heat alone from a FUSION reaction is going to be catastrophic. But no, we gotta have our feels over science.

I do not claim to be an expert but I know the energy released from FISSION vs FUSION is on the magnitude of thousands v millions.

Feel free to correct me.

 

So, follow me. If a thermo nuclear device reaches the temp of the surface of the sun for just an instant... how much energy would be released in a FUSION reaction?

 

WOW! It was a joke!

Honestly, I brought up Cold Fusion as a joke in response to what Seltzer posted about not being free to build a fission reactor.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

No. It's not.

I don't want to be mean here but your understanding of the subjects of fusion and fission appear to be lacking. You are conflating measured heat with energy expended from the reaction. Yes, they are related but are no where near as simple as measured heat output. From what I gather you're also conflating the reacting of nuclear weapons vs the harnessable energy from nuclear power.

Nuclear fusion of hydrogen will give off around 14.1 Million electron volts (MeV). A fission reaction of U-235 gives off 198 MeV. The reason nuclear fusion bombs are hotter and more destructive than nuclear fission bombs is a direct result of density. The uranium bomb, little boy, gave an estimated equivalent yield of 15 kilotons of TNT. If you do the math you can show that somewhere around 2.5% of the entire fissionable mass actually fissioned. That means that 97.5% of that uranium did not have a reaction at all. On the other hand, a fusion bomb will have a much much higher utilization percentage proportional to the density of the hydrogen.

In other words fusion bombs have a bigger boom because more of the material reacts.

Nuclear power reactors, despite being significantly lower enrichment, are much more efficient in the utilization of that energy over time. In other words, the amount of material that fissions is much higher but the heat is absorbed by the water over a much longer period off time. Nuclear reactors obviously don't explode and don't heat up the sky instantly like a nuclear weapon. It's a false equivalency to discuss them in terms of observable heat when you're trying to talk about useable energy.

I don't know. This whole conversation seems off to me and I think it is because of the conflating measurable heat of a nuclear reaction with harnessable energy output.

And to continue on the bitch warpath...

Transmutation of elements is a real thing. I think it interesting that you said it isn't followed by a prime example of it is. Yes, there are daughter products, yes we know how it works, but we still regularly use the term transmutation when referring to nuclear decay. The definition is the conversing of one element to another element or isotope. So I find that argument odd as well.

I'll go back to my last post and repeat what I said about reading reputable books on the subject. I know it's a bitch thing to say but there really is no better answer than to put down the Wikipedia and pick up an expert.

 

A lil rough but not mean. You obviously are passionate about this topic.

I got half way through my rant and had to delete it.

I have questions rather than rants. If you got the time.

Is it a single pair of hydrogen atoms that provides 14.1 MeV? How many in the U-235? I just wanna know if those are apples to oranges comparisons. If you don't know I won't hold it against you. I want to know more. The shortening of MeV caught me, I thought it was 14.1 MILLION MeV to 198 MeV. Imagine a morons rant based on not being able to read.

And now semantics...

Transmutation, when used by the simpler folk (like me) is Lead to Gold type transmutation. It harkens back to Philosopher Stone type of nonsense, the days of Newton or Harry Potter if you wanna get REALLY semantic about it. Using that word sets us back IN MY OPINION. Nuclear Decay is perfect in my opinion, my body decays despite it running normally... so there must be a process that says no matter how hard I try my body will change without my say so. I prefer precision of communication rather than words we already use, have used before to mean something different and may change in the future to mean other things.

I hope you respond.

 

Yes, that is correct. It would take two hydrogen atoms to fuse together in order to produce fusion energy.

One uranium 235 atom.

In scientific papers it is considered common courtesy to fully write out an acronym and then place it in parenthesis. From that time on it is used as an acronym without having to redefine it. I should not have made the assumption that I could do the same thing here.

I'm fully aware of Newton's misunderstanding of being able to turn lead into gold. And I hate to break it to you but Harry Potter is a fictional book. You can call it "semantics" all you want but it does not change the definition of transmutation.

Your opinion sucks.

There is more to transmutation than just nuclear decay. It also includes activation products or any activity than can change the element or isotope.

Just because you don't comprehend the term doesn't mean the rest of the world sees it as you do. Search the internet for transmutation and possibly watch a few YouTube videos. I'm sure you'll learn quite a bit.

I did but I'm not going to respond to this thread concerning anything nuclear from here on out. If you want to publicly discuss anything nuclear then please feel free to start a new thread.

 

I just enjoy reading the posts and the responses. Both amusing and enlightening. Since I don't have a degree in physics, I'll just refrain from any more postings. I don't want to expose my ignorance.

 

I can't say that I'm expert either, but when it comes to fission power, I really would like to see more research AND TESTING with thorium power plants. Tho, it needs traditional fission with uranium to to produces viable isotope of thorium, but yield so very high. And if I'm right, fission with thorium is much better since half-time of the waste of thorium is like 30 years to plutoniums 10000+ years.

 

Feel free to post! Sharing information and ideas is the best way to learn.