It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In fusion (...) a nucleus of hydrogen containing one proton (...) and one neutron (...) collides with a nucleus of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. When they collide, they produce a helium nucleus (with two protons and two neutrons), a free neutron, and lots of energy. Hence, fusion power will be safe, since it is not based on controlling a chain reaction like what we've seen with fission. There are no long-lived nuclear waste products produced. And the fuel - hydrogen - is enormously abundant, since it is found in water.
originally posted by: Quantum12
The sad part is Ford motor company could design a car to get 100 mpg, this would in turn put big oil out of business so it's a lose lose.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
The neutronic reaction does create radioactivity but the half-life is something like 50 years.
Nuclear fusion will happen if two things happen first. One, power storage since these devices will be operational 24x7x365 because they are difficult to start up/shut down. Two, there is an efficient energy transmission line created (either room temperature superconductor or bundled carbon nanotubes). When these two items become new, fusion will be "announced".
Big accelerators take a lot of energy. Small accelerators maybe less, but then they get less acceleration and I think you need a fair amount for fusion. The vast majority of protons in the LHC experiments don't collide, they miss. So I think you have potentially one of the same problems that you have with Tokomak, you might put more energy in than you get out.
originally posted by: swanne
Unless, as Larson suggests, you smash the to-be-fused particles into one another. You don't need heat - the energy of the acceleration does the job instead. So in a way, you could achieve "cold" fusion using a small particle accelerator instead of an impossibly hot furnace.
My main concern with this technology is collision miss (no accelerators is perfect), but the article addresses this issue by electron-cooling the miss particles.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Big accelerators take a lot of energy. Small accelerators maybe less, but then they get less acceleration and I think you need a fair amount for fusion.
The vast majority of protons in the LHC experiments don't collide, they miss. [So I think you have potentially one of the same problems that you have with Tokomak, you might put more energy in than you get out.
Also I'm not sure accelerated particles are "cold", if there's any validity to this explanation of temperature:
zonalandeducation.com...
The collisions in the LHC can reach trillions of degrees, temperatures hotter than a supernova. They would be less for a smaller accelerator but I don't think it can be called "cold".
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: swanne
The neutron bouncing off the reactor walls, over time, and sheer number, will cause the walls to become radioactive over time. But that half-life is short lived, 50 years. By 100 years the entire reactor can be recycled with no harmful radiation.