When the head of the Atomic Energy Commission at the time, Lewis Strauss, infamously quipped in 1954 that electricity would become “too cheap to meter,” he was likely referring to nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission, the atom-splitting reaction that powers conventional nuclear power plants today. [1] I think that nuclear fission plant should be used as an example for nuclear fusion plant even though both process are opposite as both creates large amount of thermal energy which is the most fundamental way of producing electricity. [2]
“Mirror Systems: Fuel Cycles, loss reduction and energy recovery” by Richard F. Post, BNES Nuclear fusion reactor conferences at Culham laboratory, September 1969. [3]
Once nuclear physicists solve that problem, find a way to either neutralize the radiation or make it possible to reuse the fuel more than once (again, and again, and again. ), nuclear fusion will indeed become the miracle power source we’ve been looking for. [4] IEC Fusion is one of the most promising routes to commercial nuclear fusion and a possible solution to all of our energy problems. [5] I’ve always been interested in alternative energy sources – and once I began looking into the potential offered by nuclear fusion, I knew I had found my calling. [6] The purpose of this device is to create a virtual cathode in order to achieve nuclear fusion using inertial electrostatic confinement. [7] The aim was to produce nuclear fusion with deuterium, deuterium and tritium and ultimately ultra-clean aneutronic proton-boron fuels. [8] Coal plants require train loads of coal per day, while nuclear fusion plants need a gallon. [6]Later he was employed by MIT to work with the JET large tokamak nuclear fusion device in England. [8] This lab uses a much cheaper and easier method to reach nuclear fusion called Focus Fusion with the massive added benefit that its fusion reactors are small enough and safe enough to deploy domestically. [9]
You won’t, from him, get a balanced appraisal of the potential for nuclear fusion say v. where solar cells will be in 30 years time, or energy storage technology. [10] I wonder if they are talking about “cold fusion”? Plus the article states that nuclear fusion doesn’t produce radiation. [11] Ions can be confined with IEC in order to achieve controlled nuclear fusion. [12] We still have no idea whether we are going down a blind alley? ie that once we create a working nuclear fusion reactor in a lab sense, this will scale to civilian power use. [10] Nuclear fission is not an option for galactic travel, but nuclear fusion of light elements like hydrogen or helium would permit approaching the speed of light. [13] We have never succeeded in slowing down our nuclear fusion reactors, at ‘H’ bomb, fusing light atoms like hydrogen or helium. [13] Our present nuclear fusion reactors are classified by the methods used to support the nuclear fusion reaction, which takes place at a temperature much hotter than the surface of the Sun. [13]Responsible for the most powerful weapon detonated on earth, the hydrogen bomb, nuclear fusion could also potentially provide the world’s cleanest energy source. [14]HALOGEN-CATALYSED COLD NUCLEAR FUSION, yet another, not quite as much info available for this flavor. [15] Could it really be true that nuclear fusion can be coaxed into action at room temperature, using only simple lab equipment? Most nuclear physicists don’t think so, and dismiss Gordon’s pitted piece of plastic as nothing more than the result of a badly conceived experiment. [16]
Should polywell fusion work as has been theorized, very cheap and safe nuclear power will become available planet wide is short order. [17] Despite a complete lack of training in nuclear physics, Suppes hopes to be the first amateur in the world to build a Polywell fusion reactor — and eventually succeed where thousands of professional physicists have failed. [14]
I mean, if you’ve got nuclear fusion power plants everywhere, then the “inefficiency” of producing hydrogen, and compressing or liquefying hydrogen for storage, won’t be a problem at all. [18] First theorized by physicist Harold Grad back in the 50’s and pursued by the late physicist Robert Bussard until his death in 2007, polywell fusion could well be the means by which we finally achieve the holy grail in nuclear power: a fusion reaction that generates more energy than it takes initiate fusion, the so-called break even point. [17] The current experiment validates this theoretical conjecture for the first time and represents critical progress toward the Polywell fusion concept which combines a high beta cusp configuration with an electrostatic fusion for a compact, economical, power-producing nuclear fusion reactor. [19] Updated on 03/9/2015 at 09:03:03 The polywell is a type of nuclear fusion reactor that uses an electric field to heat ions to fusion conditions. [20]
An apparatus and method of extracting power from energetic ions produced by nuclear fusion in a toroidal plasma to enhance respectively the toroidal plasma current and fusion reactivity. [21] The standard theory of nuclear fusion rates in strongly interacting plasmas can be (correctly) derived only when the energy release Q is large compared to other energies in the problem. [21] Debates about whether or not to invest heavily in nuclear fusion as a future innovative energy option have been made within the context of energy technology development strategies. [21] Before this energy is lost to electrons through of the low-energy minority ions is thus limited by the combination of these two conditions: ni % m: (1) Yet greatly facilitate controlled nuclear fusion. [21]The timeframe by which nuclear fusion could become competitive in the energy market has not been adequately studied, nor has roles of the nuclear fusion in energy systems and the environment. [21] As I wrote before (another post), I think that a (the?) major incentive for space exploration, at least of our own solar system, would be the mastering of nuclear fusion, both for the enormous amounts of energy that it would make available to humankind ánd the possibilities to get unlimited amounts of Helium-3 from the outer gas giants (in particular Saturn, Uranus). [22] Plasma confinement with the aid of a magnetic field is the most common and also the most frequently investigated principle on the way to controlled nuclear fusion. [19] Inertial electrostatic confinement and nuclear fusion in the interelectrode plasma of a nanosecond vacuum discharge. [21]
More machines followed and the first international collaboration in nuclear fusion, on the T-3 tokamak, established the tokamak as a promising option for magnetic confinement. [19] This report reviews presentations made at the 15th IAEA Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion on experimental tokamak physics, particularly on advances in core plasma physics, divertor and edge physics, heating and current drive, and tokamak concept optimization. [19] Cold fusion is by definition a hypothetical form of nuclear fusion occurring without the use of extreme temperature or pressure. [23] Subsidies for technology could occur at a very basic level and we could make a gamble that nuclear fusion will finally pay off. [24] The report represents a general consensus of the nuclear fusion space propulsion system conceptual design community and proposes 15 recommendations. [21] The Report provides recommended design practices for conceptual engineering studies of nuclear fusion space propulsion systems. [21]
Nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and renewable energy (including biofuels) are the only energy sources capable of satisfying the Earth’s need for power for the next century and beyond without the negative environmental impacts of fossil fuels. [21] Engineering conceptual design, analysis, and assessment was performed on all major systems including artificial gravity payload, central truss, nuclear fusion reactor, power conversion, magnetic nozzle, fast wave plasma heating, tankage, fuel pellet injector, startup/re-start fission reactor and battery bank, refrigeration, reaction control, communications, mission design, and space operations. [21] We have a prototype nuclear fusion reactor, the Bussard Fusion Process WB-7, that is demonstrating fusion at the rates predicted for sustainable energy production. [25] Geoff Brumfiel Nuclear fusion reactors are all about control, but some and produces less long-lived radioactive waste. [21] RE: Decades in the making, Iter, a huge experimental nuclear fusion reactor in rural France, could be the site of. [26] A conceptual vehicle design enabling fast, piloted outer solar system travel was created predicated on a small aspect ratio spherical torus nuclear fusion reactor. [21] The plasma-material interface and its impact on the performance of magnetically confined thermonuclear fusion plasmas are considered to be one of the key scientific gaps in the realization of nuclear fusion power. [21] This special issue of Nuclear Fusion contains 13 informative papers that were initially presented at the 8th IAEA Technical Meeting on Fusion Power Plant Safety held in Vienna, Austria, 10-13 July 2006. [21] It is inappropriate to use the Maxwellian velocity distribution to calculate the rates of solar nuclear fusion reactions. [21] There are two basic types of nuclear weapons: those that derive the majority of their energy from nuclear fission reactions alone, and those that use fission reactions to begin nuclear fusion reactions that produce a large amount of the total energy output. [27]
All of a sudden, nuclear fusion is becoming an energy buzzword instead of an energy joke: One route to fusion is being hailed as having the potential to become a “holy cow game-changer,” another mainstream method is getting a multimillion-dollar boost, and a dark-horse candidate is stealthily moving forward as well. [28] It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling–ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.Yet the idea of nuclear fusion, in which atoms combine into more stable forms and release excess energy in the process, is not new. [29] Nuclear weapons possess enormous destructive potential derived from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion reactions. [30]
There are two basic types of nuclear weapons: those which derive the majority of their energy from nuclear fission reactions alone, and those which use fission reactions to begin nuclear fusion reactions that produce a large amount of the total energy output.[31]
From an enginering standpoint, what is more beautiful than a device that produces reliable power cheaply with minimal maintenance and no pollution?We can spend billions on fusion and it may turn out to be a dead end, or we can spend millions on wind turbines and enjoy energy independence. [2] With the cost of converting solar or wind power to electrical energy and with the battery cost and life time, fusion would be the answer. [2] The goal for magnetic fusion is to generate roughly 10 times as much energy as is needed to contain the plasma. [1] Dunne observed that 1 gram of fusion fuel would fulfill the energy needs of an American for a year. [1] I feel that finding alternative fuel is a more immediate need than exploring other energy sources (like fusion or solar). [2] ” I think that we can describe fusion as the grand solution,only after solving one huge problem.that of INITIATING the whole process.For dueterium & tritium to fuse, a tremendous energy is required,energy of the likes of a nuclear fission reaction, which makes the whole “non-radioactive” aspect & void. [2]
The enormity of the engineering challenge to build sufficient numbers of functional fusion powered generators in time to make a useful contribution to the coming century’s energy demands dictates that the technology be mainstream by the mid 2030 at the latest – a whole lot more money and effort needs to go into this program.[2] While I believe solar and wind can provide much of out power needs, I think fusion will provide the key to eliminating nearly all usage of fossil fuels and most internal combustion engines. [2] Under those conditions the fusion fuels become a gas-like form of electrically charge matter known as a plasma. (Its electric charge is what allows confinement by magnetic forces.) [2] Since the operating temperature for fusion is in the hundreds of millions degrees Celsius, hotter than any known material can withstand, engineers found they could contain a plasma — a neutral electrically conductive, high-energy state of matter — at these temperatures using magnetic fields.[1]
The former are considered “mono-energetic” whereas the latter Tokamak fusion process depends on a Gaussian energy distribution of heated particles. [32] Perhaps if a fusion physicist or two admitted that Tokamaks are not going to take us there, we might spend some energy on more promising things. [2]
Like the discovery of fire, the spread of agriculture, or the industrial revolution, viable energy from fusion will begin a new age of mankind. [2] The Farmsworth-Hirsch fusor is significant because it is the only other proven method to produce continuous fusion, albeit at less than net energy production. [32] Unfortunately the fusion achieved was endothermic, which means that the input energy exceeds the output energy, but our group of enthusiastic ameteur fusioneers at www.fusor,net, are working on the problem and making great progress. [2] Mature fusion technology could mean infinite energy resources that adapt readily from nano to mega systems. [2]
The Polywell uses an electric field to heat ions to fusion conditions. [3] Specifically, they want to harness fusion, the reaction that fuels the sun and other stars. [1] These include: no production of greenhouse gases from the fusion process; no long-lived radioactive waste (all waste will be recyclable within 100 years); inherent safety features; and almost unlimited fuel supplies. [2] PB11 fusion not only offers almost no radioactive waste but the fuel is abundent and low cost. [2] The creation and disposal of fusion wastes is orders of magnitude smaller than fission byproducts – and easier to isolate and maintain as well. [2] The radial, magnetic confinement method relies on “pinching” of a heated plasma and – like pinching a tube of toothpaste – has proven to be an inherently unstable fusion mechanism. [32] Tokamaks also depend on heating deuterium plasma to a very high temperature to promote fusion. [32]
The good news is that the first round of challenges are clearly defined, and motivations for meeting them are strong, as fusion fuels offer the irresistible combination of abundant supply with minimum environmental consequences. [2]Actually we need fusion, but I think ITER as approached is non-scalable, and like a hole into which money is poured. [2] A great breakthrough has happened in Italy with fusion demonstrated at normal experimental temperatures and pressure (unlike the difficult to achieve hot fusion of ITER etc) using nano nickel powder and hydrogen with a proprietary catalyst that produced from a input of 400w an output of 12400W. Now the process of commercialisation of this technology is underway. [2] If fusion can be sustained in this test, ingenuity and process innovations can undoubtedly bring this technology market. [2]
Fusion, solar, and wind need a sustained 50 year investment of more than 1 trillion dollars to get us where we need to be worldwide. [2] Though inertial and magnetic fusion scientists have a bit of a rivalry, Prager said both deserve support. [1] In the United States, government-funded labs are simultaneously pushing two tracks — inertial fusion and magnetic confinement fusion — but neither with the vigor needed to advance the field meaningfully, according to scientists. [1]
Problems with materials can be the showstopper as well as problems with the plasma and nuclear physics. [2]
Polywell can probably good work in pinch pulse mode, but will need for start reaction put more energy, then get from reaction, what is similar energy as today tokamak. [32]This same repulsion pushes electrical charges down power cables which are connected to the Polywell, and the electrical energy is removed, to be used in our planet’s power grid. [33] The net energy gain of a Polywell is proportional to the 5th power of it’s radius. [32] Problem of Polywell is low kinetic energy ions and low density of plasma. [32] Bussard’s work is being continued by Dr. Richard Nebel at Energy Matter Conversion Corporation in New Mexico, under a contract award from the U.S. NAVY. Current studies have been small in scale to study and perfect the Polywell containment concept. [32]
And, if you make the radius much more than 1.5 meters, the power output will exceed the strength of any known materials, and the Polywell will blow itself to bits, every time you power it up. [33] Vlasov-Poisson Calculations of Electron Confinement times in Polywell Devices Using a Steady-state Particle-in-cell Method. [3] The Polywell concept was developed to eliminate the short comings inherent with both the Tokamak and the Farmsworth-Hirsch fusor device. [32] There are alternative approaches, such as “polywell” and “dense plasma focus”, which could potentially lead to fusion energy much sooner and for a _much_ smaller investment than the tokamak approach. [2]What is needed to bring Bussard’s Polywell concept of fusion energy to commercial feasibility is an international effort, separate from any classified military efforts now being conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense. [32]
I am now a 47 year old Electrical Engineer and I am still just as enthusiastic and eager to find out when the first viable fusion reaction in which there is a net energy gain is demonstrated. [2] Because only a small percentage of particles at the far right end of the Gaussian tail achieve sufficient kinetic energy to fuse, the Tokamak fusion reaction is not efficient. [32] To initiate the fusion reaction does not need too much energy, about 1kW and can generate about 1MW heat energy. [32]
Since hydrogen bombs need a fission trigger to initiate the reaction, maybe fusion reactors also need a fission trigger to initiate the reaction. [2]
If I have my information correct, the majorit of the power in France comes from nuclear reactors that run on fission reactions. [2] “For dueterium & tritium to fuse, a tremendous energy is required, energy of the likes of a nuclear fission reaction, which makes the whole “non-radioactiv e” aspect & void [2]
Send me a message: I’m interested in your “Job #1882106: how much power does geothermal energy produce” job in Boston, MA. Please contact me about the position.[34] The development of fusion power would allow us to supercede not only any present-day energy “crisis”, but many political and economic problems as well. [2]ITER will test the ability of magnetic confinement to hold the plasma in place at high-enough temperatures and density for a long-enough time for the fusion reaction to take place. [2] The fission is for sure, but the fusion necessitates a few other factors; and the fission and fusion reactions involved need calibration. [2]
The Polywell device – like the Farmsworth-Hirsch fusor – is a continuous fusion device, and is not pulsed. [32] Polywell is similar principle concept like tokamak, therefore can have only similar results. [32]
The environment inside an operating jet engine is absolutely hellish requiring materials at the very limit of our technology; and the environment inside of an operating Polywell will be just as bad. [33]
Materials like ceramics become more attractive technically to consider than high-Z metals for reducing the masses of neutron-activated materials (such as used at or just behind the first wall) that then would have to be handled, treated and disposed of as nuclear waste. [2] Whole world feel scary from Japanese nuclear reactors (problem is any reactor is not protected before meteors), but exist nuclear reactors, without radioactive materials and without dangerous radiation, absolutely safe, like X-ray. [32]I’d been led to believe the radioactive material problem described wasn’t nearly as difficult as the products found in nuclear reactors. [2]
Nuclear energy (fusion and fission) deal with break bonds between nucleon. [6]On top of the availability of the fuel, since fusion is a nuclear process the amount of energy contained in the fuel is immense. [6] Bussard is the designer of the Rover nuclear thermal rocket, has a long history in the fusion field at the U.S. Dept. of Energy and developed the Bussard RamJet/RamScoop which in fiction was portrayed as part of the USS Enterprise’s warp nacelle. [35] Fusion has too often in media been portrayed as the “miracle cure” for energy scarcity to be lumped in with “nuclear” fears. [4] Unlike Wind and Solar, Fusion is a steady state, base-load power source similar to coal, nuclear, or hydro. [6] I think if you ask your average high school graduate who hasn’t had a day of higher education the difference between fission and fusion nuclear technology you’d be surprised how few people know or even have a modicum of understanding on the differences. [4] Most people that fear “nuclear” tend to know that it’s fission, not fusion that they fear. [4] I think one of the main PR things that would help would simply be to never refer to fusion as a “nuclear” reaction. [4]
About the only way a tokamak would be weapons-relevant would be to use it as a high-energy neutron source for fissile fuel breeding; this is actually a pretty interesting proposal, since you could use the fusion plant to breed plutonium fuel for fission reactors. [6] While fusion plants would likely replace the large, monolithic fission sites currently operating, compact modular fission devices will be a great option for filling in power for communities. [6] They need very good direct energy conversion efficiency for both X-Rays and Ion Beams to generate net power. c) The repeatability is less of an issue (they currently get fusion output form shots to around +/- 3%) than the ratio of the value of the Total Power Generated over the Lifetime of the Electrodes vs. Cost of Be Electrodes. [6] What we have realized as a community is that we are soon (next 10-20 years) going to have to figure out what is going to happen when you start trying to confine a burning plasma (i.e. one in which a significant amount of the energy is coming from fusion within itself rather than outside sources). [6] Fusion provides the ability to generate 1) clean, 2) efficient 3) energy with abundant fuel for 1000s of years. [6] The takeaway in either case: P-B11 fuel would bleed off a lot of its energy due to Bremmstrahlung losses, more in fact than it produces from fusion (by a factor of around 1.75, as I recall). [6] To make this would require some monkeying around with the neutron blanket, and would impact the fuel cycle of the fusion plant itself – so if, say, you plopped a fusion plant down in a risky country, it would be immediately obvious to observers if it was being used for weapons. [6]
NIF also has a commercial generator in the pipeline, the Laser Inertial Fusion Energy plant. [1] The primary advantage of Bussard’s spherical containment concept is that the fusion reaction is inherently stable, unlike many of it’s radial containment counterparts (such as the well funded Tokamak efforts). [32] The late Dr. Robert Bussard proposed a hybrid concept using magnetic and electrostatic spherical containment to support fusion reaction. [32]
For 6 million the DOD took away all knowledge of clean safe energy from The People, virtually assured a non viable product, and was able to keep massive funding to D-T fusion (Thermonuclear Weapons), and allows continued experiments for the development of thermonuclear weapons Bunker Buster B-61. [9] Fusion will be an important part of our energy portfolio; so will fission, wind, solar, hydro, and others. [6]When we speak about the efficicency of fusion, this actually is a comment on the amount of energy which can be extracted from a given amount of fuel. [6] In order to maintain a non thermal distribution and get fusion you must continually invest energy to counter the fact that particles scatter (and move towards a thermal distribution) 100 times before they fuse. [6] Fusion has been portrayed on film/television as a miracle cure for the energy problem. [4]
I believe that inertial fusion has a rocky path to a power plant, mostly because of the pulsed nature inherent to the concept. [6] Things like superconducting magnets and wire, high power electronics, advanced materials processing, high frequency electronics, high power computing and unique materials are supported from the fusion budget. [6]
Efforts under this Recovery Act award will validate the basic physics of the plasma fusion (polywell) concept, as well as provide the Navy with data for potential applications of polywell fusion. [5] Whereas there are a whole host of relatively immature technologies such as Focus Fusion, General Fusion, Polywell etc. and even the more mainstream Inertial Confinement experiments aren’t as mature. [6] The electrostatic devices have evolved over the decades from the simple spherical device this kid built, and which most anyone could build a tabletop/line powered version of, into a device designed by physicist Robert W. Bussard called Inertial-Electrodynamic Fusion, AKA “Polywell fusion”. [35]
Whilst Focus Fusion does create antiparallel beams of oppositely charged particles directly, negating the need for inefficient turbines, it is an inherently pulse-based device and in this sense shares many of the disadvantages of the inertial confinement devices such as NIF. [6] These are both completely unlike current controlled fusion systems such as the American NIF, European JET, or international ITER which use massive magnets or lasers to create magnetic and inertial confinement fusion. [9]
That’s primarily one of the reasons that fusion is considered safer than traditional nuclear fission; that, and the fact that there is the possibility for much higher energy outputs. [4] It is not clear what that licensing/regulatory process would be but it should be shorter than nuclear fission licensing as the IEC fusion is easier to shutoff and does not have nuclear fuel or waste. [5] The fusion of the fuel (hydrogen and boron) creates very few neutrons (it’s aneutronic), which means almost no nuclear waste is produced you could walk inside one a few seconds after a Focus Fusion generator has been turned off without any ill effects. [9]
Furthermore I thought Todd Rider (also at MIT) proved that aneutronic fuel cycles were impossible (although this was for plasmas in thermal equilibrium and I am not familiar enough with Focus Fusion to know whether it would avoid a Maxwellian plasma and be able to achieve fusion without thermalisation). [6] The first six chapters are a very back-of-the-envelope conceptual approach just to get a handle on the problems of fusion (which I found enormously helpful) then after that it goes into some detail for fluids, kinetics, MHD, transport, and plasma waves. [6] The key to Focus Fusion is a dense plasma focus device and a form of fusion called aneutronic fusion.[9]
Short term thinking could have killed each of these. 3) Then look at the potential for fusion; nearly unlimited power on a with no emission and miniscule waste. [6] From my limited knowledge of fusion: Tokamak fusion doesn’t require the use of frozen DT pellets — that would be NIF (which is a huge waste of money). [6] How does your Tokamak design compare against the “Focus Fusion” theory, in which you can use temperatures much hotter than conventional fusion in order to achieve aneutronic fusion? Focus Fusion is in theory more efficient, since it is supposed to produce electricity directly. [6]
Taking the whole thing as an ensemble, you get a pretty cost-effective design that relaxes some of the physics requirements on the actual fusion plant. [6] The codes which contain sufficient physics to simulation fusion plasmas are not quite well developed enough at this point. [6] The water itself wouldn’t work well for fuel, if that’s what you’re asking – well, it wouldn’t be water, as it would dissociate and ionize before you get close to fusion temperatures. [6] Focus fusion, if it works, would be a genuine replacement for fossil fuel. [9] Recent Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory test indicate scientists may be only five or so years away from the first demonstration of sustainable fusion. [6]
Ideally, to achieve effective electrostatic confinement fusion a number of these linear arrays would need to intersect as in the MIX device. [8] To build that device, Lerner and the other scientists at LPP Fusion need your help. [9] It also means that we are able to focus on the science of fusion and broader plasma physics that may not have direct applicability to the new reactor-sized device being built ( ITER ). [6]
Focus fusion and similar concepts are inherently pulsed, which is very harsh on reactor materials – but, on the other hand, is in many ways simpler to operate. [6] By this I mean we think we can confine plasmas long enough in magnetic fields to allow them to create sufficient fusion. [6] To me it is quite logical that the plasma pinch would produce the conditions necessary to facilitate fusion and I feel this blog post does not sufficiently explain why this would not be the case. [9] A few of us, myself included, work on code validation (i.e. comparing simulation results to experimental results), some on building new plasma diagnostics, others on pure theory. the fusion program at MIT is very diverse and covers a wide range of topics. [6] Is there somewhere I can go (other than a wikipedia page) that breaks down current Fusion technologies in a fairly easy to read manner? How does it work? How much better is it than fission and why? Etc. [6] This work is very important because we could have commercial fusion in as little as 5 years if the work is successful. [5] If we lose Alcator C-Mod, then a large part of the experimental fusion work in the U.S. is lost. [6] The U.S. fusion budget has been about 300M$ for 10yrs before ITER started construction at which point the budget increased slightly. [6] Definitely looks like a better approach than all the “big hammer” projects like ITER. Unfortunately the author reveals his basic stupidity with the very stale “cold fusion is junk science” statement. [9] This isn’t some kind of magical, inexplicable witchcraft like cold fusion: Focus Fusion appears to be based on cold, hard science. [9] Focus Fusion? This looks more like Bussard’s efforts on Inertial Electrostatic Confinement than any thing else. [9] I would recommend Stellarators and Inertial confinement fusion (specifically NIF), but I don’t have good links other than wikipedia. [6] The target chamber at the National Ignition Facility, where 192 lasers combine to create inertial confinement fusion. [9] You need confinement to achieve the astronomical (literally) temperatures necessary for fusion. [6] To answer your first question, the perfect example of a recent development and why we need to save C-Mod is I-mode (for some reason most things in fusion have silly names). [6] By 2020: A first commercial IEC Fusion plant, with an estimated cost of 2-5 cents per kilowatt hour. [5]
You pair it with tritium (another isotope of hydrogen, this time bred from lithium), and bam – there’s your fusion fuel. [6] An experimental facility called the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility was once proposed to answer these questions, but I haven’t heard about any progress for a long time. [6] Fusion in particular benefits from cross-pollenating with other fields, like materials science, computing, RF engineering, superconductors, and others. [6]
Fusion in contrast has only low level radioactive waste, as you said, this is basically from neutron irradiation of the vacuum vessel. [6] The problem with fusion isn’t the danger of explosion, but the fact that there is still a lot of radioactive waste created that is not easily disposed of. [4] It makes many problems that already exist in magnetic fusion more difficult. [6] It is also important to consider the considerable technology industries magnetic fusion overlaps with. [6]
Tokamaks have had a great track record at reaching higher and higher “triple products”, which is a figure of merit used in fusion to characterize the conditions towards ignition. [6] ITER is the best bet we have moving forward in fusion, but the loss of our domestic program would cripple our ability to produces scientists in the future working on these projects, and would throw away a half-century’s worth of technical expertise designing, building, and operating these machines. [6] We do still contribute to ITER, but we are able to investigate other problems that will face fusion beyond ITER. [6]
Not enough compression of the ion beams could be achieved to produce effective fusion. [8] Both inertial and magnetic confinement fusion require massive, billion-dollar setups that are hard to build and tough to fund. [9]
The question has partly been answered before but as an ME student with little to no knowledge in nuclear physics I’m curious to how to actually put the fusion reactor into a power generating cycle. [6] People already associate the term “nuclear power” with fission reactors, and that’s where most of the fear comes from. [4] Among the issues commission members discussed were the preliminary findings of a task force review of plant safety in the wake of the recent nuclear disaster in Japan, and how U.S. nuclear operators would handle natural disasters and the loss of power at their facilities. [36]
The point is not that the efficiency is higher, it’s that much less fuel is required if you are releasing nuclear energy as compared to chemical energy. [6] The nuclear industry cannot meet the market insurance test and, with substitute energy sources available, it is not needed. [36]
According to the report, the United States currently has more than 65,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at about 75 operating and shutdown reactor sites around the country. [36] Since half the fuel is not radioactive at all, the other half isn’t particularly useful for bombmaking, and any irradiated materials would be too low-grade to be useful for a “dirty bomb,” fusion reactors present a minimal nuclear proliferation risk. [6]This plant is still steaming and thus, there are pumps that are required to run for months and years to keep the nuclear core cool and the spent fuel rods cool. [36] I find it a bit sad how it is easier to build a nuclear bomb than a reactor. [9]
Like I said, my bachelor’s is in physics but my PhD is in nuke E, but if you look at my admin file as an MIT student it says “nuclear engineering – applied plasma physics.” [6]It is imporant to study burning plasmas and confiment but it is also important to study plasma-material interactions and nuclear materials and methods to heat and control the plasma. [6]
There are more than 20 years worth of nuclear fuel in the spent fuel pools. [36] A computer model is then used to forecast nuclear fuel supply and demand to 2030. [5] I think that once ITER comes online we will have the opportunity to show our case and let people know that we aren’t the same as the “nuclear” plants they are used to. [6]Personally, I did my undergraduate work in Physics and Math and I am currently working on my PhD in Nuclear Science and Engineering. [6] I’d like to believe that you are right, but I’ll remind you of the tale of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. [4]When the Japan Nuclear Disaster happened on March 11, 2011, positive radiation tests were reported from across the United States. [36] As for moving straight in to plasma physics, that’s not uncommon – I was physics undergrad and switched to nuclear engineering for my PhD, but we have grad students coming from mechanical or electrical engineering, nuke E, physics, materials science, even aero/astro (for whatever reason some schools administer their plasma programs through aeronautical engineering). [6]
Nuclear fission power, while a reliable energy source, has the disadvantage of generating long-lived byproducts which remain radioactive for millions of years. [6]Bussard claims that in a Polywell with superconducting coils the power output of the device scales as the seventh power of its radius, and the energy gain scales as the fifth power. [35] The Polywell device using magnetic fields removes the hindrance of the previously required grids in the fusion reactors (fusors). [9] Details of the polywell fusion reactor. (Polywell fusion and Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion are the same thing). [5] On the Talk Polywell site where people discuss the Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) fusion device work, there has been some points asked about the Mach Lorentz Thruster work of James Woodward and Paul March. [5]
With your help, Lerner and co will be able to buy some beryllium electrodes that will (hopefully) allow it build a deep plasma focus fusion device that becomes the first controlled fusion experiment to generate net energy to surpass the break-even point.[9] The amount of energy in a gram of a twinkie is 15 kilojoules per gram. – There are 20 kilojoules/gram in coal – There are 44 kilojoules/gram in gasoline – Now there are 350,000,000 kilojoules in a gram of deuterium/tritium fuel used in fusion reactors. [6]
Acoustic Fusion Technology Energy Consortium (AFTEC, consisting of: Boston University; Impulse Devices, Inc.; Purdue University; University of Mississippi; and the University of Washington Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound). [37] Fusion creates very large amounts of energy in a very small space; a 20 MW (megawatt) power plant (comparable to the UNC power plant) could fit in a 2-car garage. [37] The “inertial confinement” fusion programs haven’t produced much that’s useful in terms of usable energy, but they continue to get funding because they’re also selling them as a way to make sure our nuclear weapons work when actual nuclear weapons testing is banned. [10] With inertial confinement, hundreds of fantastically powerful lasers are pointed concentrically at a gold capsule containing a small amount of hydrogen. The pressure and the temperature of the capsule are raised to fusion levels and produce a burst of energy. [13]
People use ignition (the fusion energy produced removes the need for external heating) as a measure of progress, but as spadflyer12 mentioned ignition in ICF is different than ignition in MCF. If you achieve ignition in MCF in steady state you can produce infinite power (because you can produce power without requiring external power and the startup energy becomes negligible). [6] Wow I was always under the assumption that we have always been in a state in which the power into a fusion reaction was lower than the power out. [6]
The full scale IEC fusion reactors would be about 4 meters in radius and weigh about 14 tons and generate 1GW and 8 meters for about 128GW. Power will be 5-20 times cheaper. [5] Within seconds of hitting the off switch a fusion reactor is producing no power and needs no cooling. [6]
It is the case that a fusion reactor will eventually create energy just using the steam cycle. [6] The second major advantage is that Focus Fusion emits most of its energy in the form of an ion beam and X-rays, both of which can be converted very efficiently into electricity (conventional deuterium-tritium fusion power produces heat, which is then turned into electricity via huge steam turbines). [9] IEC/Electric fusion devices are smaller, significantly more economical, non radioactive, has had working prototypes producing 10 kv of energy, much more likely to be a viable option, and could come to reality in about 5 6 years from appropriation of 200 million dollars (less than the cost of one day of economic support for the Middle East oil wars without a single loss of life 1/90th of what has been spent on D-T fusion). [9] Inertial fusion devices such as NIF, won’t really make good energy sources. [6]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Map of Proposed New Nuclear Power Plants if President Obama’s New Budget is passed giving the U.S. Department of Energy $34Billion in taxpayer funding to revitalize the U.S. Nuclear Industry. [36]President Obama and U.S. Energy Secretary Chu have placed $34Billion in their new budget to fund a nuclear power revival in the United States. [36] U.S. Energy Secretary Chu made a deal to bring nuclear waste here from Italy and is working on agreements for other countries to ship their waste here for reprocessing in Idaho or Texas, and then, because it is still dangerous, to be stored in the U.S. at taxpayer expense. [36]
In comparison to conventional fission reactors it generates minimal nuclear waste, is significantly harder to use to make a nuclear weapon, and is inherently MUCH safer.[6] NIF is a fantastic technological achievement, but I’m not as optimistic about ICF as I am about MCF. I think that ICF should continue to be pursued (especially if it can be done using nuclear weapons money), but I believe there to be more technical hurdles on the way to a power plant. [6] The commission, which issued its final report in January, is advocating for a consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste storage and management facilities, which deal with the nation’s high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel from power plants. [36] Most all of the centralized power plant technologies (coal, oil, nuclear fission) work by boiling a working fluid (almost always water). [6] Included in this presentation and PowerPoint is a discussion of how nuclear power plants work, how to cool a reactor during an accident, the effect of hot particles when inhaled, and concerns involving the long-term storage of nuclear waste. [36]People in the U.S. are afraid of nuclear nuclear technology – shit even the insurance industry in the U.S. is afraid of it because the only way new nuclear power plants get built is if the U.S. government takes a portion of the liability in case of an accident. [4] It should be noted that the radiation levels downwind and around nuclear power plants in the U.S. tested positive as well. [36] The U.S. government is building a treatment plant to stabilize and contain 56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. [36]
The Commission was specifically not tasked with rendering any opinion on the suitability of Yucca Mountain, proposing any specific site for a waste management facility, or offering any opinion on the role of nuclear power in the nation’s energy supply mix. [36] It should be noted that Nuclear Power Plants in the United States have been leaking radioactive materials into the air and water for years. [36] They were going through the earthquake in Japan last year, the same one that spawned a tsunami that overwhelmed the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. [38]
Fusing that much fuel over the course of a year would provide all the power (at current U.S. consumption) for about 140 million people, nearly half the U.S. from the top inch of Boston Harbor alone. [6] Based on DOE budget estimates, DOE will be requesting between $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 a year from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to help build ITER. If current trends of declining or flat budgets continue, almost all of the fusion energy sciences budget will be consumed by ITER. The Committee encourages DOE to find a solution to this problem without compromising the scientific and technical expertise residing at U.S. universities, labs, and industrial partners. [6] Try “Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy” by our very own Prof. Freidberg. 4)Yes, we focus on D-D reactions. [6] For a summary: A Tokamak is a donut shaped vessel where we heat up plasma to ~10keV (100M degrees), to create fusion energy out of hydrogen isotopes. [6] On Alcator C-Mod we have discovered a new plasma regime for operating at tokamak fusion reactor which is actually very exciting in our field. [6]
Although tritium is scarce, the first fusion reactors will be based on deuterium and tritium reactions. [6]
I’m pessimistic about the polywell as a practical fusion power plant, but I believe it is still being investigated by the navy as a neutron source. [6] Orbital theory simulation was applied to an electron trap that uses a cube shaped magnetic cusp known as a Polywell device. [7] Bussard has recently teamed up with Jim Benson, owner of Benson Aerospace. the company developing the Dream Chaser spaceplane, to further evaluate Polywell and if all goes well get funding for a demonstration reactor. [35]Polywell is a really neat idea and it looks so pretty, but I don’t like that it relies on having a non thermal ion distribution. [6]
What fusion can do is fill the niche of large base-load power supplies (since it will be far easier to build a high-output fusion device than a smaller one) without the risk of radioactive waste or carbon pollution. [6] U.S. Physicist Dr. Robert W. Bussard has produced proven consistent multiple working prototypes of a fusion device that does not need to release neutrons as part of the fusion process. [9] His was a device called a “FUSOR”, invented by Filo T. Farnsworth. the U.S. developer of scanned television. and co-evolved by Farnsworth and Robert Hirsch. the former director of the U.S. Office of Fusion Energy. [35]
Unlike current fission reactors which take 4-6 years to build, these IEC fusion reactors might be buildable in 1-3 years. [5] While the world’s only major fusion power effort ITER continues to trundle along, with an eventual first-fusion date of 2027 at a cost of more than $20 billion to taxpayers, there’s a small lab in New Jersey that says it can produce fusion power within a year, with a total spend of just a few million dollars. [9] It means the external power used to heat the plasma equals the fusion power out. [6] I think it is still a little to early to come to a firm conclusion about the economic viability as we still don’t exactly know what a fusion power plant looks like. [6] The walls of a fusion reactor are heated from radiation, just like the walls in a coal plant. [6]
In the mean time, there is a tremendous amount that can be done in support of ITER for when it does come online and for support of fusion devices beyond ITER. This is where C-Mod and other tokamaks can contribute. [6] Tokamaks are not only well established, but they outperform all other fusion devices. [6]
Only one I’d add to that is Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy by Jeffrey Freidberg – that’s the one we use for our introductory grad plasma course, and it covers the bases pretty well. [6] The fusion energy produced per machine pulse – and I should point out that these machines do produce fusion, they just don’t make enough (yet) – has increased by about a factor of a trillion over that same time period. [6] Then there’s our counterpart, “inertial confinement fusion” or “inertial fusion energy”, which largely motivated the switch in that they aren’t confined in the same sense we are. [6] It detailed the past versions of this inertial electrostatic confinement fusion device. [8]The initial inertial electrostatic confinement fusion device trialed was the MIX. [8]
Traditional nuclear fission reactors, as you know, produce long-lived radioactive waste. [6] “By 1965,” the NRC reports, “when the first 10-year extension of the Act was being considered, a handful of nuclear power reactors was coming into operation, and the nuclear industry considered itself on the verge of expanding into large-scale nuclear power generation. [36] Nearly three months since the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the NRC continues to work on improving safety regulations for nuclear plants in the U.S. In mid-May, the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation made public inspection reports from U.S. nuclear power plants. [36]
The DOE also is storing an additional 2,500 tons of spent fuel and large volumes of high‐level nuclear waste, mostly from past weapons programs, at a handful of government‐owned sites [36] Just look at how Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors continue to be basically ignored by every government on the planet except China, despite their superiority to classical nuclear reactors in every way except the “makes nuke bomb fuel” way. [9]
After he returned, Russ attended a TEDxNewEngland event last year, where a couple of nuclear scientist grad students from MIT, Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan, presented a new way to fire nuclear power that’s many times more efficient than conventional nuclear. [38] Arnie and Maggie Gundersen came to the Statehouse last week hauling a poster-sized map that detailed the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and the monitoring wells that dot the grounds. [36]
Sequoia at LLNL is set to be the fastest computer in the world and is primarily for use in plasma physics calculations for NIF and nuclear weapon simulations. [6]
Well, fusion is vastly more environmentally friendly than coal or nuclear fission, so the non-tokamak fusion alternative would very quickly replace all the world’s coal and nuclear fission power plants. [37] Fusion produces no greenhouse gases and, unlike conventional nuclear fission reactors, it produces no noxious radioactive wastes that last for thousands of years. [39]
What it doesn’t do is ask the question of how plasma fusion competes with inertial-confinement fusion as an RD target, or how either of them competes with other forms of non-fossil energy production (e.g., wind, solar, and geothermal) or with battery technology. [10] Fusion has been achieved in IEC devices for ages. the problem isn’t in achieving a few fusion events. it is in getting more energy out than what you put in. [11]The theory about the formation of a wiffleball like magnetic structure in the center of the device is a bit more iffy. it’s very hard to test wither such a structure forms or not, but it is not essential for achieving fusion in the polywell. the wiffleball hinges a lot on wither electrons express diamagnetic behavior when subjected to intense magnetic fields. [11] Alex is founder and chief scientist at FPG. In 1999 he invented the MIX concept, which formed the basis for the experiments at FPG. For several years he was experimental physicist at EMC2, where he worked with R.W. Bussard and N. Krall on Polywell IEC fusion experiments. [12] While ITER is only trying to make D-T fusion to break even, the polywell guys are going for broke with P-B11 aneutronic fusion and direct conversion. [11]
The basic problem of fusion is that what it really competes with is fission, both are power sources where you have to manage radiation, instead of just dumping it into the environment. (The way coal does.) [10] I agree with you when you say that fission and fusion are both power sources where you have to manage radiation. [10] I’m not all that sure regular fusion would be a lot cleaner, given that most of the ‘waste’ of a fission plant is actually just fuel that’s been contaminated enough to need reprocessing. [10]
Isn’t it past time we stopped reading and listening to these know-it-all “pundits,” like WIll and the other gasbags? When and by whom was it decided that there is a group of people who are able to offer intelligent, informed opinions on any public matter that comes up, be it fusion, Greece, biology, energy, macroeconomics, North Korean politics, or anything else? There are no such people. [10] This is at least ~10^5 times higher than the energy output (mJ) of the theoretical maximum possible fusion events based on the surface field ionizing the fill deuterium. [37] Quite a few people have built these, though most don’t achieve fusion, and even if they do, the design will never produce more energy than it consumes. [11] The ions are going to be slow moving and therefore have very little energy at the top of the gradient. but when they wizz trough the bottom of the potential well they will be moving more than fast enough that any ion-ion collision that hit’s at the right way will end up in a fusion event. [11] If the energy from the fusion products could be retained by the liquid, then the liquid itself could be used to transfer heat to another fluid, such as water vapor, which would then drive a turbine. [39]
At the time I wrote my summary of alternatives to tokamak fusion, I hadn’t heard about Bussard’s reactor. [37] The tokamak tries to make fusion from random movement in a thermal plasma confined in a giant donut shaped magnetic field. [11]
It’s to the point where we hear almost nothing about cold fusion which isn’t bunk or fiction, even though it could potentially create power without pollution. [40] If fusion hit big soon, it would swallow any other power generation technology. [41] Now that is what i would call disruptive technology. we can forget all the old arguments about power generation. with aneutronic fusion even the evangelical greens would be satisfied. altho I suspect they would probably find something else to complain about. it’s what they do to make a living after all. [11]
The fusion produces high-energy neutrons that escape the plasma and hit a liquid-filled blanket surrounding it. [39] Compared with deuterium-deuterium fusion, deuterium-tritium fusion occurs 1000 times more easily, produces more energetic neutrons, and could increase the neutron yield by about three orders of magnitude. [39]The fusion process creates neutrons, which we detected using a scintillator, a device in which radiation interacts with a liquid that gives off light pulses that can be measured. [39]
Now, once we get out into space, fusion has obvious advantages over fission, in terms of fuel availability. [10] Fusion produces light isotopes, which tend to have much shorter half lives than fission products. [10] It is hard to imagine that mere sound waves can possibly produce in the bubbles, even briefly, the extreme temperatures and pressures created by the lasers or magnetic fields, which themselves replicate the interior conditions of stars like our sun, where fusion occurs steadily. [39]
American and Russian nuclear engineers and physicists have succeeded in slowing down the fission reaction to produce useful power, like Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, (a mixed blessing!). [13] Inside that glass flask, there are many kinds of processes going on–the dynamics of the fluid, shock wave propagation, plasma formation, chemical reactions, nuclear processes–and you need to understand and treat them carefully. [39]
This core-trapped plasma can reach fairly high densities and may serve as a target for fusion collisions with the recirculating ion beams. [12] One of the major obstacles that limits the fusion output in IEC devices is the result of repulsive electrostatic forces arising from the ions themselves. [42]
That, we thought, was a fundamental problem for single-bubble sonoluminescence, because we calculated we would need at least 10 times that pressure level to implode the bubbles strongly enough to trigger thermonuclear fusion. [39] The world’s largest experiment using this method, called inertial confinement fusion, is at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility, in California. [39] General Fusion Inc., in Vancouver, B.C., Canada, has come up with an approach that combines sonofusion and laser inertial confinement. [39]
Just prior to FPG, he was employed by MIT to work at the largest fusion experiment in the world, the JET tokamak in the UK. [12] If somebody used deuterium and managed to get significant fusion, there would be enough neutrons to be dangerous. [11] As a lapsed fusion physicist, I’d like to offer some limited pushback against the idea of magnetic confinement fusion (what PPPL does) as an unrealistic pipe dream. [10]
Their reactors are all of the same design and are run by nuclear engineers. [13] Ideally, the fluid would run at the temperatures of the pressurized water used in fission nuclear reactors–about 340 degrees centigrade. [39] There is a small additional supply of He-3 in our old nuclear bombs in the form of radioactive tritium gas (H-3), which decays into, of all things, He-3 in about 13 years (half-life). [13] It needs the same kind of unwavering dedication and the kinds of people that got us the first nuclear submarine and the first man on the moon. [13]
After all the choice of the Pressurized Water Reactor was more or less an accident, (the British went with the graphite reactor, which was better for making bomb fuel), and based on Rickover’s success in making a mobile power plant out of it and the U.S. government subsidization of civilian nuclear power. [10] Our nuclear fission reactors operate like a slow ‘A’ bomb, splitting heavy plutonium or uranium atoms into smaller elements and giving off power. [13]
The “triple product” plotted in blue is a useful proxy for progress in magnetic confinement reactors; the most recent reactors (JET, for example) reached breakeven, the condition of producing more energy through fusion reactions than was required to sustain the plasma at a fusion-capable temperature. [10] The first is at 14.1 MeV, from the pulsed neutron generator; the second, however, is at 2.45 MeV. This is the exact energy level a neutron produced in a deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction is expected to have. [39] The neutrons are an important measure of the output of the process, because they carry most of the energy released in the fusion reaction. [39]
Any ion that gains enough energy to climb all the way out of the potential well will be lost. any that looses energy will get stuck further down the well. the ones that leave are a non issue. those that get stuck is a potential big issue. they can potentially poison the fusion reaction. [11] Now that fusion reactions are taking place, can we somehow harness the energy they are releasing? Well, not so fast. [39]
Description : Focus fusion reactors use a plasma focus device and hydrogen-boron fuel to achieve fusion. [37] The plasma in the polywell is not a thermalized plasma at all. the bremsstrahlung is from electron ion encounters. most notably it will be an issue when Boron is used as a fuel. this is due to the high cross section of Boron compared to the lighter fuel types. [11]
Building one that could make net power is a tad harder. especially since the polywell crowd has put the bar a lot higher than the ITER crowd. [11] The method of operation and confinement between polywell and tokamak is so different that in fact the only thing they have in common is that they both have electromagnets in their designs. they both are fusion designs, and they share 2 of the possible fusion reactions. [11]
The cost of building a polywell fusion reactor-based power plant will be a small fraction of that of a traditional fission reactor system. [17] Even if he manages to build a working Polywell, professional fusion scientists are not at all convinced the design can produce more power than it takes in. [14] For him, the fusor is a stepping stone to building something called a Polywell reactor — a fusion technology he believes could change the world. [14] It is as follows: Plasma Fusion (Polywell) Demonstrate fusion plasma confinement system for shore and shipboard applications; Joint OSD/USN project. 2.0 The “2.0” is the amount of funding in millions. [43]
If this can be harnessed for energy production, it may end up as distributed power generation rather than centralized power generation envisioned for hot fusion. [16] The Bussard Reactor holds the promise of clean cheap abundant energy from fusion. [44]Suppes is not the first to dream of solving the world’s energy problems with fusion. [14]The problem with controlling fusion is that it’s fusion – the direct conversion of matter into energy. [45] Cold Fusion, also known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions, Controlled Electron Capture Reaction. [15] Please note that if cold fusion really exists, it will probably not bear the same amount of energy. [16]The most favorable energy balance any fusion machine has achieved is about 10:1, and physicists have been steadily improving the ratio over decades with better tokamak-based designs. [14]
You could express the opinion that since tokamak fusion requires huge amounts of engineering and is a multi-billion dollar industry in itself that the military industrial complex (emphasis on the industrial) has discouraged spending on alternatives that may produce a demonstrable over-unity reactor at a fraction of the $4.8 billion dollars (2002 dollars at that) that the DoE estimates ITER will cost. [16] Most US/British journals would refuse to publish not because they doubted the ability of the scientists to produce good quality data, but because they have a knee-jerk reaction that cold fusion is junk science. [16]
That may explain why the U.S. Navy has contracted Rick’s company, EMC2 Fusion, (formerly run by Dr. Bussard until his death) to do several different measurements on the plasma including density, and magnetic fields. [43] Two other major fusion efforts, magnetic plasma containment in Europe and laser fusion in the U.S., have each spent billions trying to achieve the break even point. [17]
The “fusion” stuff, for example, is very slowly improving but not there in part because there’s no federal or private money for either newer versions of tokamak reactors, or even for trying alternative forms of plasma fusion that might work better than tokamaks (although I’ve heard Lockheed’s Skunkworks people have been fooling around with a polywell-style fusion reactor proposal). [10] The first is making the fusion reaction self-sustaining–in other words, arranging the setup so it produces a continuous neutron output without requiring the external neutron generator. [39]
The appeal of the standard U-235 fuel cycle is that fuel-grade uranium cannot produce a nuclear weapon; it needs to be further refined by about an order of magnitude in purity. [10] This includes our coal, oil, and gas fired utilities, our automobiles, trucks, and trains, and even our nuclear fission utility power plants. [13] Now known as low energy nuclear reaction (LENR), it’s returned to the limelight, but this time as a potential success story. [40] It’s a lot more expensive about 10-20 times more expensive than regular sources but since fuel is only about 14% of the costs of a nuclear plant, it’s not a total budget-breaker. [10]
Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed they’d produced a nuclear reaction using a device that produced large amounts of heat using heavy water and palladium electrodes. [40]
Once the Navy brought the project back under it’s stewardship they put a sucessfull replication of the WB-6 results as a milestone for progressing with a bigger test article (WB-8) WB-8 is being built as we speak. so despite the Information embargo there is indications that the polywell may be a workable design indeed. [11] There is no magnetic confinement of the ions in the polywell. [11]
The late physicist Robert Bussard worked for decades to try to show Polywell fusion could work, using a variety of Wiffle-Ball configurations. [17] Polywell fusion, on the other hand, has spent somewhere on the order of double digit millions, with the last funding round of only $12 million provided by the U.S. Navy. [17] There have been a couple posts like this already so I’ll take the bait and ask: where has the polywell fusor been “universally deemed to be the proven method of fusion”. [16] In comparison, Polywell fusion is a bargain-basement technology. [17]
There’s a place for safer nuclear power as well, involving fission as well as future fusion – or maybe even fission-fusion hybrids. [43] The first occurrence of hot fusion was in the Hydrogen Bomb and the first occurrence of cold fusion was a bottle making bubbles. [16] This is a credible journal but not the first choice because the most obvious choices refused to publish an article on cold fusion no matter how credible the source. [16] If you had proof of cold fusion, the first place you’d submit it to would normally be Physical Review Letters. [16] A basic quantum physics result is that there is basically no way in heck that cold fusion will ever work, unless there is some new unknown physics taking place. [16] The U.S. Navy continues to support a small effort in “cold fusion”. [45] I feel like I’ve been reading about cold fusion for as long as I’ve been old enough to read about science. [16]
There were extensive experiments in inertial confinement fusion, and some continue to this day, but progress has proven to be a great deal slower than we had hoped. [45]Part of it is dictated by the hard times we’re living in, said Richard Nebel, who heads a team looking at an unconventional kind of fusion technology. [43]
Betavoltaics/Nuclear Batteries “For 50 years, people have been investigating converting simple nuclear decay into usable energy, but the yields were always too low,” Fauchet explained. [15] At 30 km/sec, even the nuclear lightbulb(with an ISP a bit over 3000(compared to liquid H2 and O2 of 450) probably couldn’t carry enough reaction mass to do the job) and travel time from Luna orbit to earth impact would only be 12,800 seconds(about 3 hours), not nearly enough time to do everything the movie wanted to do. [46] The method of recording nuclear tracks is a solid is an old one but it has the advantage that the recording material can be placed very close to the reaction. [16] “Nuclear catalyst” the most sensible phrase, given the theory (false or not) is that palladium can be used as a nuclear equivalent to a chemical catalyst (i.e. not used up in the reaction it assists). [16]
This facility would be used to test, discover, and understand the complex challenges of fusion plasma material interactions, nuclear material interactions, tritium fuel management, and power extraction. [21] The capabilities of a DT fusion neutron source for driving a spent nuclear fuel transmutation reactor are characterized by identifying limits on transmutation rates that would be imposed by tokamak physics and engineering limitations on fusion neutron source performance. [21] Such a device might provide a simpler path to thermonuclear weapons than one that required development of fission weapons first, and pure fusion weapons would create significantly less nuclear fallout than other thermonuclear weapons, because they would not disperse fission products. [27] At the third International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems, we presented computational results which suggested that ”breakeven” experiments in inertial confinement fusion (ICF) may be possible with existing driver technology. [19] This paper suggests it is time for a policy change to make the fusion breeder a goal of the U.S. fusion program and the U.S. nuclear energy program. [21]The nuclear potential diffuseness of 0.95 fm which fits the fusion excitation function over a broad energy range fails to reproduce the elastic scattering. [21] The pilot plant mission encompassed component test and fusion nuclear science missions plus the requirement to produce net electricity with high availability in a device designed to be prototypical of the commercial device. [21] Magnetic fusion development toward DEMO will most likely require a number of fusion nuclear facilities (FNF), intermediate between ITER and DEMO, to test and validate plasma and nuclear technologies and to advance the level of system integration. [21] The chosen electrode configuration and potential well parameters provide power densities of nuclear DD fusion in a nanosecond vacuum discharge noticeably higher than those achieved in other similar IECF systems. [21] It is concluded that the CFETR baseline mode can meet the minimum goal of the Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) mission and advanced physics will enable it to address comprehensively the outstanding critical technology gaps on the path to a demonstration reactor (DEMO). [21] This use aims to lest components in an integrated fusion nuclear environment, for the first time, to discover and understand the underpinning physical properties, and to develop improved components for further testing, in a time-efficient manner. [21] Radial profiles of nuclear burn in directly driven, inertial-confinement- fusion implosions have been systematically studied for the first time using a proton emission imaging system sensitive to energetic 14.7MeV protons from the fusion of deuterium (D) and 3-helium (He3) at the OMEGA laser facility. [21]
Present results demonstrate the combined effects of entrance channel mass asymmetry and the dissipative property of nuclear matter on the pre-scission neutron multiplicity in fusion -fission reactions. [21] These studies were motivated by the application of solid-state nuclear track detectors (SSNTDs) in fusion experiments to measure energetic ions escaping from high-temperature plasmas. [21] Consideration of the nuclear electric quadrupole terms in the expression for the fusion Coulomb barrier suggests that this electrostatic barrier may be substantially modified from that calculated under the usual plasma assumption that the nuclei are electric monopoles.[21] A Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) is a necessary complement to ITER, especially in the area of materials and components testing, needed for DEMO design development. [21] If these goals could be achieved, the FNSF would further provide a ready upgrade path to the Component Test Facility (CTF), which would aim to test, for 6 MW-yr/m2 and 30% duty cycle, the demanding fusion nuclear engineering and technologies for DEMO. This FNSF-CTF would thereby complement the ITER Program, and support and help mitigate the risks of an aggressive world fusion DEMO R&D Program. [21] Speciation by monobrachial centric fusions : A test of the model using nuclear DNA sequences from chromosomal rearrangements in a model termed speciation by monobrachial centric fusions. [21] Among them controlled thermonuclear fusion has may assets due to its non-radioactive fuel with plentiful supply, its non radioactive and non polluting ashes, its safety, its weak environmental impact, and its irrelevance to nuclear proliferation in a normal setting. [21] This hypothesis, called the surfdyn concept, is compatible with all published data, explains the peculiarities of cold fusion, and must be supported by an adequate theory describing the nature and mechanisms of the different nuclear processes. 44 refs. [21] The compact (R0~1.2-1.3m) Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) is aimed at providing a fully integrated, continuously driven fusion nuclear environment of copious fusion neutrons. [21] On a cosmological scale, nuclear matter cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron emission) rather than evolve in one direction by fusion.[21]
One key quantity to be determined in the design of burning-plasma devices (CIT, ITER, reactors, etc.) is the level of plasma current (I) required to meet the desired plasma performance goals (ignition, high Q, etc.) and device objectives (fusion power, wall loading, current drive power, etc.). [19] I would also add that any other D-T based fusion concept is at some point going to have to deal with the extremely messy issues ITER is largely built to deal with (Tritium breeding, can we find any materials that can withstand the power exhaust and survive for ~30 years, can we build a reactor which doesn’t lose its structural integrity due to the intense neutron fluxes). [24]
Operation at high ?p (?2.0) and high q? (4-5) with relatively small ??p (3) and fusion output power (2.5 GW) and is consistent with the present knowledges of the plasma physics of the tokamak, namely the Troyon limit, the energy confinement scalings, the bootstrap current, the current drive efficiency (NB current drive with the total power of 70 MW and the beam energy of 1 MeV) with a favorable aspect on the formation of the cold and dense diverter plasma-condition. [19]
Using it to solve the world’s energy problems is a bit more complicated, as the power required to sustain these devices tends to be larger than the fusion power produced,” explained William Nevins, a fusion scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. [14] They’re following up on preliminary indications that a relatively low-budget, high-voltage gizmo known as a Polywell fusion device could produce more energy than it consumes – that is, if the gizmo is scaled up to the appropriate size. [43] With the right engineering, Bussard said, the Polywell reactor could be 100,000 times more efficient than any other fusion device. [14]
His analysis shows that IEC Polywell reactors running a boron-11 fuel cycle can work, and they should be much quicker and easier to achieve than tokamak-based reactors.[18]
If that’s the case, the Polywell would make a horrible power plant. [14] Some very big names in plasma physics, like Nicholas Krall, who wrote Principles of Plasma Physics are interested in the progress of the Polywell reactor. [43] Nevins challenged Bussard’s claims about the Polywell in a paper published in Physics of Plasmas in 1995. [14]Nebel emphasizes polywell is “risky, because the physics may not work. [43] There is no doubt that if Polywell can be made to work a shore installation would probably be the first and easiest application. [43] With a confirmed fusion reaction under his belt, Suppes is ready to be the first amateur to take on the Polywell. [14]
The notion is to zap a small enough area with enough energy transmitted by one of any number of means – laser (photons), electrons, plasmas, and some even more exotic – to spark one of a number of theoretical fusion reactions; and that trigger would spark more fusions. [45] There’s a huge difference between mere fusion reactions and an actual fusion reactor that will sustainably produce power. [16] The device detects neutrons — subatomic particles that are produced during a fusion reaction. [14] The other concept is the Farnsworth fusor, which uses a high-voltage cage to direct beams of ions to a fusion reaction. [17] The most spectacular was “laser trigger” fusion reaction, which is a subset of the entire “inertial confinement” approach. [45]
The Polywell was the brainchild of the late Robert Bussard, a physicist who swore the technology he developed could deliver the promise of real fusion energy that has eluded fusion scientists for decades. [14] Polywell operates by creating a converging potential well of tens of thousands of volts and dropping ions into it. [16]
Say Ewald and Alvarez, the mainstream press got sidetracked into a relatively abstract debate about what the disaster meant for the use of nuclear power in the U.S. “My girlfriend is usually my sanity check, but she was starting to get worried as well, because no local media were reporting it,” says Alvarez. [14] Why use electricity generated by any power source (i.e. coal, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, nuclear power plant) to make hydrogen, only to turn that hydrogen back into electricity. [18]
Dr. Bussard’s experiments while working for the U.S. Navy achieved fusion at rates 100,000 times greater than previous IEC fusion devices. [18]
In 1998, the United States Department of Energy divulged that the United States had, “. made a substantial investment” in the past to develop pure fusion weapons, but that, “The U.S. does not have and is not developing a pure fusion weapon”, and that, “No credible design for a pure fusion weapon resulted from the DOE investment”. [27]Thermonuclear bombs work by using the energy of a fission bomb to compress and heat fusion fuel. [27] In an further adaptation, the amplified waves can be made to preferentially increase the energy of fuel ions within the plasma to enhance the fusion reactivity of the fuel ions. [21] Fusion is an incredible power source simply because of it’s energy density – to put things in context; ~100kg of uranium is enough to power a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier for 24/7, 365, for 20+ years. [26] The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H- fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars. [21] The present work addresses two important issues for the industrial use of fusion: plasma radiation control, as a part of the more general power handling issue, and high density tokamak operation. [19] Although creating test environments is an achieved goal of Sandia`s overall program, this work and other military tasks protected by appropriate security regulations will continue, making full use of the same pulsed power technology and accelerators as the fusion -for-energy program. [21]
Most fusion schemes cannot compete with fission even the most advanced Powerpoint tokamaks have a plant power density an order of magnitude worse, which means they will be an order of magnitude more expensive. [24] A LFFH combines current Laser Inertial Confinement fusion technology with that of advanced fission reactor technology to produce a system that eliminates many of the negative aspects of pure fusion or pure fission systems. [21] Today I will focus on two major program areas at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL): the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the development of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) energy. [21]A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. [27] The evidence in support of Andrea Rossi’s “cold fusion” or “LENR” (low energy nuclear reaction) based Energy Catalyzer continues to grow. [23]
Cold Fusion reduces deuteron-deuteron distance, addressing Coulomb barrier, and Hot Fusion heat up plasma into extreme high temperature, addressing kinetic energy.[21] In this paper a laboratory investigation is made on magnetic reconnection in high-temperature Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) plasmas. [19] The microinstability properties of discharges with negative (reversed) magnetic shear in the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) and DIII-D experiments with and without confinement transitions are investigated. [19]
This paper is based a new concept for inertial-electrostatic spherical colliding beam fusion (POLYWELL) on the use of magnetohydrodynamically stable quasi-spherical polyhedral magnetic fields to contain energetic electrons that are injected to form a negative potential well that is capable of ion confinement. [19] Two metal fuel sub-critical fast reactor concepts, cooled by PbLi and PbBi, respectively, for a fusion transmutation of waste reactor are introduced. [21]
Virtually all thermonuclear weapons deployed today use the “two-stage” design described above, but it is possible to add additional fusion stages–each stage igniting a larger amount of fusion fuel in the next stage. [27] This has long been noted as something of a misnomer, as their energy comes from the nucleus of the atom, just as it does with fusion weapons. [27] Two system codes, General Atomics System Code (GASC) and Tokamak Energy System Code (TESC), using different methodologies to arrive at CFETR performance parameters under the same CFETR constraints show that the correlation between the physics performance and the fusion performance is consistent, and the computed parameters are in good agreement. [21] Advanced Fusion Test Reactors (AFTR) designs have been developed using BITTER type magnets which are capable of steady state operation. [19] This paper presents the results of a multi-system codes benchmarking study of the recently published China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR) pre-conceptual design (Wan et al 2014 IEEE Trans. [21]
In fusion plasma reactors, fast ion generated by heating systems and fusion born particles must be well confined. [21] MAGO/MTF uses a magnetic field and preheated, wall- confined plasma fusion fuel within an implodable fusion target. [19] The use of flibe enables both fusion fuel production (tritium) and neutron moderation and multiplication for the fission blanket. [21] When the fission bomb is detonated, gamma rays and X-rays emitted first compress the fusion fuel, then heat it to thermonuclear temperatures. [27] In the Teller-Ulam design, which accounts for all multi-megaton yield hydrogen bombs, this is accomplished by placing a fission bomb and fusion fuel ( tritium, deuterium, or lithium deuteride ) in proximity within a special, radiation-reflecting container. [27]
Fusion wouldn’t be necessary any time soon if we started massively deploying fission reactors, but I’m assuming that isn’t going to happen. [24] Consider pebble bed fission reactors to cover the gap to fusion. [25]
The fusion fuel plasmas that can be used with the present confinement system and method are not limited to neutronic fuels only, but also advantageously include advanced fuels. [19] These notes present a brief survey of some of the current diagnostic techniques used in magnetic fusion plasma devices. [19] A TG-Green scintillator coating has been applied, for the first time, to a fusion plasma diagnostics for the detection of fast-particle losses on the AUG tokamak. [21] The input energy is about 107 Mev to generate a muon which is over five times the output if we assume that 100% of the muons actually catalyze a D-T fusion event that liberates ~18 Mev.[23] Other presenters at the conference also presented evidence supporting cold fusion, including Antonella De Ninno, a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment (Rome), who reported both excess heat and helium gas. [23] That effect is modeled here by considering the fusion of hydrogen-like atoms whose electron probability density is used in Poisson’s equation in order to derive the corresponding screened Coulomb potential energy. [21] A fusion scheme can consider two factors in its design: to increase kinetic energy of nuclei and to alter the Coulomb barrier. [21]This study investigates the neutronics design aspects of a hybrid fusion -fission energy system called the Laser Fusion -Fission Hybrid (LFFH). [21] Their big challenge, fierce debate, is how to manage the transition from fusion (safe, proven, but old technology) to zero-point energy. [25] In energy technology priority discussions, fusion takes varying positions in different countries. [21]
In its capacity as lead laboratory, Sandia coordinates DOE-supported pulsed power fusion work at other government operated laboratories, with industrial contractors, and universities. [21] Because of the conditions for fusion, which will be deduced, the fusion fuel is in the plasma state. [19] In contrast to direct, hydrodynamic compression of initially ambient-temperature fuel (i.e., ICF), MAGO/MTF involves two steps: (a) formation of a warm (e.g., 100 eV or higher), magnetized (e.g., 100 kG) plasma within a fusion target prior to implosion; (b) subsequent quasi-adiabatic compression by an imploding pusher, of which a magnetically driven imploding liner is one example. [19]Implications for the magnetic self- confinement of fusion plasma are considered. [19]Here we report on the confinement of fusion plasmas by magnetic fields. [19] In order to achieve high performance plasma discharges in the DIII-D magnetic fusion tokamak, impurity levels must be carefully controlled. [19] The edge of all fusion experiments, reversed field pinches, tokamaks and stellerators, is characterised by the flow of plasma toward material surfaces and by the outflo. [19] The results obtained are essential input for benchmarking models, which include plasma response, in order to extrapolate the RMP imposed 3D plasma structure toward the next step fusion experiment ITER. The measurements of the plasma structure presented indicate that the underlying magnetic topology is rotation dependent and may therefore stimulate direct measurements of the components of the magnetic field in future. (orig.) [19] The magnetic field resulting from the large current compresses the plasma to fusion conditions, and this process can be pulsed over short timescales (10-6 s). [21]
For monopole-quadrupole fuel cycles like p-B-11, the fusion cross-section may be substantially increased at low energies if the protons are injected at a small angle relative to the confining magnetic field. [21] Therefore, magnetized fuel allows the use of efficient drivers that are not suitable for laser or particle beam fusion due to insufficient focus or too long pulse length. [19] Another is inertial electrostatic confinement, which uses an electric field to heat ions to fusion conditions. [26]Magnetized target fusion is a hybrid between magnetic fusion and inertial confinement fusion. [26] This page has aggregated data from forum posts, threads, listings, online discussions, newsgroups, messageboards, and other online sources which contain user generated content for the term: inertial confinement fusion. [26] The results obtained are compared with available data on inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (IECF). [21] Demonstration of radiation symmetry control for inertial confinement fusion in double Z-pinch hohlraums. [21] Daedalus was powered by electron driven Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) to implode the pellets at a frequency of 250Hz. [21]
As a result in a Fusion -Driven Actinide Incinerator (FDI) both radiations from the plasma: corpuscular (i.e. neutrons and ions) and photons are drastically reduced. [21]The muon’s half-life is 2.2 ms so it quickly decays and the He-5 kicks out a 14 Mev neutron to become He-4 +energy – the “missing mass” when you fuse two nuclei (which is 2.5 Mev in thermonuclear fusion – I have no idea what it would be in rhis reaction). [23] No matter what they say, fusion is NOT a chemical reaction, and no matter how many times they say it this won’t be a true thing. [23] The ignition and burn of magnetized fuel involves very different dominant physical processes than does ”conventional” ICF. The fusion time scale becomes comparable to the hydrodynamic time scale, but other processes that limit the burn in unmagnetized fuel are of no consequence. [19]
Snark aside, in the fusion community we’re actually now building a reactor scale experiment, ITER, (scheduled for completion in 2020 though that looks unlikely) which, if successful, would pretty clearly demonstrate that fusion is viable. [24] An experimental ” cold fusion ” device produced this pattern of “triple track” (shown at right), which scientists say is caused by high-energy nuclear particles resulting from a nuclear reaction. [23] Since then, the theory of cold fusion — or “low-energy nuclear reaction,” as its champions now call it — has popped in and out the public’s eyes, notably hitting the cover of Time magazine in 1989. [23]
In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material ( enriched uranium or plutonium ) is assembled into a supercritical mass –the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction –either by shooting one piece of sub-critical material into another (the “gun” method) or by compressing a sub-critical sphere of material using chemical explosives to many times its original density (the “implosion” method). [27] The United States Atomic Energy Commission chairman announced that the Plowshares project was intended to “highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests”. [27] Nuclear provides significant energy already, is “green,” and manages to be both these things while using reactor technology mostly developed in the 1950s. [24] As a gneral point, in alogical world, the high tech ‘advanced’ countries would develop greater energy efficiency and alternative sources (note when I say alternative I mean all sources, including fission nuclear, arguably the biggest potential contributer for the next 50 years or so). [25] Fusion reactions do not create fission products, and thus contribute far less to the creation of nuclear fallout than fission reactions, but because all thermonuclear weapons contain at least one fission stage, and many high-yield thermonuclear devices have a final fission stage, thermonuclear weapons can generate at least as much nuclear fallout as fission-only weapons. [27] The public records for devices that produced the highest proportion of their yield via fusion-only reactions are possibly the Soviet peaceful nuclear explosions of the 1970s, with 98% of their 15 kiloton explosive yield being derived from fusion reactions, a total fission fraction of 0.3 kilotons in a 15 kt device. [27]
If room temperature fusion reactions could be realized commercially, as Fleishchmann and Pons claimed to have achieved inside an electrolytic cell, it promised to produce abundant nuclear energy from deuterium–heavy hydrogen–extracted from seawater.[23] Investigating the degree of “stigma” associated with nuclear energy technologies: A cross-cultural examination of the case of fusion power. [21]
Mr. Savinar’s data is based, in part, on M.K. Hubbert’s analysis first presented in 1956 in his paper “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels”. [25] Nuclear propulsion and power plants can enable high Ispand payload mass fractions because they require less fuel mass. [21] A control for a power source which includes nuclear fuel interspersed with thermionic converters, is described. [21] Edward Teller, in the United States, proposed the use of a nuclear detonation to power an explosively pumped soft X-ray laser as a component of a ballistic missile defense shield, this would destroy missile components by transferring momentum to the vehicles surface by laser ablation. [27] In 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established under the mandate of the United Nations to encourage development of peaceful applications for nuclear technology, provide international safeguards against its misuse, and facilitate the application of safety measures in its use. [27] A thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg) can produce an explosive force comparable to the detonation of more than 1.2 million tons (1.1 million tonnes) of TNT. Thus, even a small nuclear device no larger than traditional bombs can devastate an entire city by blast, fire, and radiation. [27] Apart from their use as weapons, nuclear explosives have been tested and used for various non-military uses. [27]
Oil, coal and natural gas make up 82% of energy consumption in the U.S. Nuclear can in principal replace most carbon-based electricity generation (coal and oil and natural gas), but in practice there are places geography makes it hard. [24] The growth of nuclear energy will be driven by its margin of economic advantage, as well as by threats to energy security and by growing evidence of global warming. [21] The thermionic reactor control system design studies conducted over the past several years for a nuclear electric propulsion system are described and summarized. [21] The relevant reactor control system studies are discussed in qualitative terms, pointing out the significant advantages and disadvantages including the impact that the various control systems would have on the nuclear electric propulsion system design. [21]Third and fourth generation nuclear designs are inherently much safer than even the very safe reactors we have now which are based on 1950s designs. [24]
Additional test ports at the outboard mid-plane will be reserved for test blankets with advanced designs or exotic materials, and electricity production for integrated high fluence testing in a DT fusion spectrum. [21] Remarkably, Maxwell’s equations provide such strong constraints on the physics of toroidal fusion plasmas that even a black-box model of a plasma answers many important questions. [19] Summarizing, all the above problems may be solved with synergic union of fusion with fission embodied in the concept of FDI – small and less expensive. [21] Each of these components is known as a “stage”, with the fission bomb as the “primary” and the fusion capsule as the “secondary”. [27]
The first DEMO hot fusion plant is currently scheduled for 2033. [23] This document is a progress report on two technical studies carried out during 1986, both of which relate to the implementation phase of FNT. The first, which is a follow-up to FINESSE, focuses on specific key questions for: (1) very near-term (0 to 3 years) non- fusion experiments and facilities, and (2) FNT testing in a fusion facility. [21] We have subjected a silica core fiber optic cable to 4 years of low-level neutron and gamma radiation from Princeton’s TFTR controlled fusion experiment The accumulated dose was 200 Gy. [21] My personal hope is that he chooses to give frequent interviews on Coast to Coast AM, and other media outlets that have frequently favorably discussed cold fusion over the years. [23]
Methods As part of a prospective, randomized, controlled FDA trial, 73 patients underwent anterior interbody fusion using either the SAC(56%) or the BAK device (44%). [21] The tokamak characteristics, concerning fusion, electromagnetic confinement and turbulence are reviewed. [19] The temperature gradient rises, as does the confinement time defined by analogy with the fusion context, while micro-turbulence is suppressed. [19]
Discharges with negative central magnetic shear (NCS) hold the promise of enhanced fusion performance in advanced tokamaks. [19] Such toroidal magnetic confinement for fusion could present some advantages over conventional tokamaks. [19]
Just wanted to point out that ITER and the NIF both use stupidly inefficient methods of attempting sustainable fusion. [26] The use of a fusion component testing facility to study and establish, during the ITER era, the remaining scientific and technical knowledge needed by fusion Demo is considered and described in this paper. [21]
The fusion neutron fluence and operational duty factor anticipated for this “scientific exploration” phase of a component test facility are estimated to be up to 1 MW-yr/m(2) and up to 10%, respectively. [21] Neutron albedo material is disposed immediately adjacent the inboard wall, and is movable, preferably in vertical directions, so as to be brought into and out of neutron modifying communication with the fusion neutrons. [21]
The Cascade inertial confinement fusion reactor fits the requirements of low radioactive inventories and inherent safety and is therefore a candidate for non- nuclear construction throughout. [21] The repeated detonation of nuclear devices underground in salt domes, in a somewhat analogous manner to the explosions that power a car internal combustion engine (in that it would be a heat engine ) has also been proposed as a means of fusion power, in what is termed PACER. [27]
The use of a subterranean shaft and nuclear device to propel an object to escape velocity has since been termed a “thunder well”. [27] Calculations by Bassler showed that digging a canal or tunnel would be too expensive, therefore Bassler determined that the use of nuclear explosive devices, to excavate the canal or tunnel, would be the most economical. [27] Due to the inability of the physicists to reduce the fission fraction of small, approximately 1 kiloton, yield nuclear devices that would have been required for many civil engineering projects, when long term health and clean-up costs from fission products were included in the cost, there was virtually no economic advantage over conventional explosives, except for potentially the very largest of projects. [27] A proposed means of averting an asteroid impacting with Earth, assuming low lead times between detection and Earth impact, is to detonate one, or a series, of nuclear explosive devices, on, in, or in a stand-off proximity orientation with the asteroid, with the latter method occurring far enough away from the incoming threat to prevent the potential fracturing of the near-Earth object, but still close enough to generate a high thrust laser ablation effect. [27]
Tactical weapons have involved the most variety of delivery types, including not only gravity bombs and missiles but also artillery shells, land mines, and nuclear depth charges and torpedoes for anti-submarine warfare. [27] This report summarizes the status of radioiodine control in a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant with respect to capture, fixation, and disposal. [21] It is very difficult to use traditional techniques, such as simple image comparison, to adequately perform the inspection process of the nuclear fuel pellet. [21] Plus wind energy alone is physically capable of generating at least 20% or more of today’s electrical power needs. Plus newer, more efficient fission nuclear plants, plus there are very promising advancements in bio-fuel development, both for producing ethanol as well as hydrogen fuel for vehicle use. [25] Other investigated uses for peaceful nuclear explosions were underground detonations to stimulate, by a process analogous to fracking, the flow of petroleum and natural gas in tight formations, this was most developed in the Soviet Union, with an increase in the production of many well heads being reported. [27]
Lots of people associated with the catastrophic AGW bandwagon and the policy coalition are capable of noticing that most of the nuclear downside scenarios that stir the crowd to rapturous ecstasy at green revival meetings are not plausibly worse than, say, reenacting all those Cold War H-bomb tests every few years. [24] This dissertation presents a history of the community of nuclear arms control experts in the United States during the middle and later years of the Cold War, the age of thermonuclear ballistic missiles. [21]
Denial and dirty tricks caused us to waste 23 years and tens of billions of dollars on failed nuclear projects as though nothing had happened. [23] The Defense Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site processes high-level radioactive waste from the processing of nuclear materials that contains dissolved and precipitated metals and radionuclides. [21] The first article, “Basic Nuclear Material Control and Accountability Concepts as Might be Applied to the Uranium from the US-Russian HEU Purchase,” describes safeguards sybsystems necessary for effective nuclear material safeguards. [21] Nuclear material control and accounting for uranium enrichment facilities authorized to produce. [21] This session demonstrates nondestructive assay (NDA) measurement, surveillance and analysis technology required to protect, control and account (MPC and A) for special nuclear materials (SNM) in sealed containers. [21] Analysis of the uncertainty involved in nuclear device asteroid deflection shows that the ability to protect the planet does not imply the ability to also target the planet, which is the case with all non-nuclear alternatives, such as the controversial gravity tractor technology. [27] The Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963) restricted all nuclear testing to underground nuclear testing, to prevent contamination from nuclear fallout, whereas the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) attempted to place restrictions on the types of activities signatories could participate in, with the goal of allowing the transference of non-military nuclear technology to member countries without fear of proliferation. [27] The Operation Plowshare program included 27 nuclear tests designed towards investigating these non-weapons uses from 1961 through 1973. [27] As of March 2009, the U.S. is the only nation that compensates nuclear test victims. [27] Dunn reviews the history of the nuclear age, traces the erosion of the technical barriers to nuclearization, identifies those countries most likely to obtain the bomb, and proposes essential policies for the U.S. to follow to attempt both to contain the bomb’s spread and to deal with an increasingly nuclearized world.[21] With the advent of miniaturization, nuclear bombs can be delivered by both strategic bombers and tactical fighter-bombers, allowing an air force to use its current fleet with little or no modification. [27]
Potential applications of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) diagnostic techniques to tokamak experiments are evaluated. [19] Nuclear structure and heavy-ion fusion., which includes the wedge range filter charged-particle spectrometry program and the magnetic recoil neutron spectrometer. [21] While the nuclear -product yields observed to date are so small as to require careful further checking, rates observed over short times appear sufficiently large to suggest that significant neutrons and triton yields could be realized — if the process could be understood and controlled. [21] It has been argued by the New York Times, especially after the September 11, 2001 attacks, that this complication is the sign of the next age of nuclear strategy, distinct from the relative stability of the Cold War. [27]
After the Van Allen Belts surrounding Earth were published about in 1958, James Van Allen suggested that a nuclear detonation would be one way of probing the magnetic phenomenon, data obtained from the August 1958 Project Argus test shots, a high altitude nuclear explosion investigation, were vital to the early understanding of Earth’s magnetosphere. [27] Underground nuclear explosive data from peaceful nuclear explosion test shots have been used to investigate the composition of Earth’s mantle, analogous to the exploration geophysics practice of mineral prospecting with chemical explosives in ” deep seismic sounding ” reflection seismology. [27] The abandoned technology that can be used is nuclear powered Orion. [22] The objective of this project was to investigate the feasibility of using the bubble dosimeter as an alternative to the present methods used to verify nuclear arms treaties. [21]
This effect is a result of the nonspherical potential shape and the spatial quantization of the nuclear spins of the fully stripped ions in the presence of a magnetic field. [21] In this configuration, ions and electrons may have adequate density and temperature so that upon collisions ions are fused together by nuclear force, thus releasing fusion energy. [19]
To perform the simulations and design of the LFFH engine, a new software program named LFFH Nuclear Control (LNC) was developed in C++ to extend the functionality of existing neutron transport and depletion software programs. [21]
Essentially, the entire worldwide energy mining and production sectors would disappear, along with the thermal power industry there would be no more petroleum or gas industry, or nuclear fission industry, no need for wind power or biofuels or any other source of power. [25] All existing nuclear weapons derive some of their explosive energy from nuclear fission reactions. [27]
The reactors then produce another 479kWh of energy for another 3-4 hours without needing that initial electrical input — the low-level nuclear reaction continues on its own. [23] Thorium fluoride reactors could for example power the world for millenia without making any material that would be usable for a warhead and with an extremely minimal amount of nuclear waste. [24] The Department of Energy`s nuclear weapons laboratories are addressing many of these challenges, including nuclear weapons builddown and nonproliferation, nuclear waste storage and burnup, reactor safety and fuel enrichment, global warming, and the long-range development of fusion energy.[21]
The described direct, or in situ, conversion of the energetic ion energy provides an efficient and economical means of delivering power to a fusion reactor. 4 figures. [21]Simultaneous achievement of high energy confinement, ?E, and high plasma beta, ?, leads to an economically attractive compact tokamak fusion reactor. [19] Detailed fusion reactor design included analysis of plasma characteristics, power balance/utilization, first wall, toroidal field coils, heat transfer, and neutron/x-ray radiation. [21]
Major goals of Sandia`s fusion program including the following: (1) complete a particle accelerator to deliver sufficient beam energy for igniting fusion targets; (2) obtain net energy gain, this goal would provide fusion energy output in excess of energy stored in the accelerator; (3) develop a technology base for the repetitive ignition of pellets in a power reactor. [21] Magnetic confinement fusion tokamaks are complex devices where a large amount of power is required to make the fusion reactions happen. [19]
If this technology proves out at the full scale as it has so far at the small demo scale, the Bussard fusion reactor would render virtually all other energy sources including petroleum obsolete over just a very few short years. [25] The fusion breeder is a fusion reactor designed with special blankets to maximize the transmutation by 14 MeV neutrons of uranium-238 to plutonium or thorium to uranium-233 for use as a fuel for fission reactors. [21] A fusion pilot plant study was initiated to clarify the development needs in moving from ITER to a first of a kind fusion power plant, following a path similar to the approach adopted for the commercialization of fission. [21] A boosted fission weapon is a fission bomb that increases its explosive yield through a small amount of fusion reactions, but it is not a fusion bomb. [27] A fission weapon is required as a “trigger” for the fusion reactions, and the fusion reactions can themselves trigger additional fission reactions. [27]
In order to increase the fusion reactions rate, it is needed to improve the energy confinement. [19] For the most basic fusion reaction, the $pn \\to d\\pi^0\\pi^0$ reaction, we observe in addition a very pronounced resonance-like energy dependence in the total cross section with a maximum 90 MeV below the $\\Delta\\Delta$ mass and a width of only 50 MeV, which is five times smaller than expected from a conventional $t$-channel $\\Delta\\Delta$ excitation. [21] By means of the proposed model the effect of a superstrong magnetic field on laboratory Hydrogen fusion reactions is investigated here for the first time showing that, despite the considerable increase in the cross section of the $% dd$ reaction, the $pp$ reaction is still too slow to justify experimentation. [21]
Protons from the fusion reactions D(3He,p)4He and D(d,p)3H have been observed in a small plasma focus device operated with a 3He-D2 gas mixture. [21] In this paper, the possible application of these techniques to the problem of tritium inventory control in fusion reactors with carbon-based plasma facing materials, as in ITER, is proposed.[21] All three concepts permit’stationary’ plasma confinement in a stationary fusion reactor. [19] Stable high-beta plasmas are required for the tokamak to attain an economical fusion reactor. [19] The use of advanced (high-modulus) composites in superconducting magnets for tokamak fusion reactors is discussed. [19]
Because of the immense military power they can confer, the political control of nuclear weapons has been a key issue for as long as they have existed; in most countries the use of nuclear force can only be authorized by the head of government or head of state. [27] Since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) operates a multinational, on-site-inspector-based safeguards program in support of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), many (but not all) of the technologies reported in this document are in routine use or under development for IAEA safeguards. [21] The deployment of nuclear energy will be inhibited by concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear waste and nuclear reactor safety. [21]
They could sure use a source of jobs and a new source of energy to replace their destroyed conventional nuclear power industry. [23] The Laboratories` work in the early 1960`s emphasized the use of pulsed radiation environments to test the resistance of U.S. nuclear weapons to enemy nuclear bursts. [21] If the need arises to use nuclear explosive devices to prevent an asteroid impact event, it may face the legal issue that presently the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty technically ban nuclear weapons in space. [27]
He told FoxNews.com that his new device takes in nickel and hydrogen and fuses them in a low-grade nuclear reaction that essentially spits out sheer power, validating the strange science. [23] There are a dozen competing theories to explain how nuclear reactions can produce so much energy without emitting dangerous radiation. [23]Editor’s Note: It’s interesting to note that this particular power plant (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), uses the same nuclear reactor design as the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, which was seriously damaged in the 2011 Pacific Ocean tsunami. [21] A physicist in Italy claims to have demonstrated a new type of power plant that provides safe, cheap and virtually unlimited nuclear power to the world, without fossil fuels or radiation concerns. [23] The E-Cat represents a way to eliminate our need for fossil fuels and an alternative to conventional nuclear power. [23] People who say “we need to start building new nuclear power plants now” are serious in their beliefs (they might still be wrong) and people who aver on nuclear power don’t actually believe what they’re saying about warming, they just want to be part of the club out there yelling. [24]The work condition of nuclear power plant (NPP) is very bad, which makes it has faults easily. [21]
At a 2009 meeting of the American Chemical Society, chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss of SPAWAR revealed what she and colleagues claimed was the first clear visual evidence that low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) devices work. [23] “The goal would be twofold: first, to deter leaders of nuclear states from selling weapons to terrorists by holding them accountable for any use of their own weapons; second, to give leader every incentive to tightly secure their nuclear weapons and materials.” [27] Even before the first nuclear weapons had been developed, scientists involved with the Manhattan Project were divided over the use of the weapon. [27] Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing was first drawn to public attention in 1954 when the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb test at the Pacific Proving Grounds contaminated the crew and catch of the Japanese fishing boat Lucky Dragon. [27] Historically the first method of delivery, and the method used in the two nuclear weapons used in warfare, was as a gravity bomb, dropped from bomber aircraft. [27] Nuclear weapons have been used twice in the course of warfare, both times by the United States near the end of World War II.[27] In the years after the end of the Cold War, there have been numerous campaigns to urge the abolition of nuclear weapons, such as that organized by the Global Zero movement, and the goal of a “world without nuclear weapons” was advocated by United States President Barack Obama in an April 2009 speech in Prague. [27] The most commonly used fissile materials for nuclear weapons applications have been uranium-235 and plutonium-239. [27] Nuclear weapons delivery –the technology and systems used to bring a nuclear weapon to its target–is an important aspect of nuclear weapons relating both to nuclear weapon design and nuclear strategy. [27] A major challenge in all nuclear weapon designs is to ensure that a significant fraction of the fuel is consumed before the weapon destroys itself. [27] Almost all of the nuclear weapons deployed today use the thermonuclear design because it is more efficient.[27] Neptunium-237 and some isotopes of americium may be usable for nuclear explosives as well, but it is not clear that this has ever been implemented, and even their plausible use in nuclear weapons is a matter of scientific dispute. [27]
Compactable control element assembly for a nuclear reactor. on the Z Pulsed Power Facility, indicating that significant magnetic confinement of charged burn products was achieved and suggesting a relatively low-mix environment. [21]
Polywells, for instance, should have 62,500x the power production of ITER at similar conditions, thus the 100MW prototype only costs a couple hundred million. [24] A thermonuclear fusion device with magnetic confinement control such as Tore Supra concentrates a huge amount of high power electro-technical and electronic equipments. [19] Lithium-based surfaces are now being used in major magnetic confinement fusion devices and have observed profound effects on plasma performance including enhanced confinement, suppression and control of edge localized modes (ELM), lower hydrogen recycling and impurity suppression. [21] An arrangement is provided for controlling neutron albedo in toroidal fusion devices having inboard and outboard vacuum vessel walls for containment of the neutrons of a fusion plasma. [21]
The ensuing fusion reaction creates enormous numbers of high-speed neutrons, which can then induce fission in materials not normally prone to it, such as depleted uranium. [27] In the boosted bomb, the neutrons produced by the fusion reactions serve primarily to increase the efficiency of the fission bomb. [27] Such fusion weapons are generally referred to as thermonuclear weapons or more colloquially as hydrogen bombs (abbreviated as H-bombs ), as they rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen ( deuterium and tritium ). [27]
This enhancement is required for a fusion power reactor based on cusp confinement to be feasible. [19] High fields, obtainable in the near term only from resistive magnets, are used to provide high values of ntausub(E) and fusion power density, and to facilitate operation in the DD-DT advanced fuel mode. [19] Breeding fissile fuels has not been a goal of the U.S. fusion energy program. [21]
The paper discusses the viability of lithium-based surfaces in future burning-plasma environments such as those found in ITER and DEMO-like fusion reactor devices. [21]The first fusion reactor, ITER, and the most modern stellarator, Wendelstein 7-X, are under construction. [19]
Basic characteristics of a steady state tokamak fusion reactor is presented. [19] Design study has been made of superconducting magnet system for JAERI Experimental Fusion Reactor (JXFR) of tokamak type. [19] Design study has been made of superconducting magnets for a Tokamak experimental fusion reactor: toroidal field magnet design, poloidal field magnet design, refrigeration system design, magnet safety analysis, and magnet assembling and disassembling system design. [19]
The original observations reported in this work bring highly valuable new pieces of information both to the physics of the tokamak edge layer and to the construction of an ‘integrated operational scenario’ required to successfully operate fusion devices. [19]The idea could also be used to stabilize interchange and ballooning modes in tokamaks and other interchange-limited fusion devices. [19]
This letter claims that process of stimulated emission of radiation can be used to induce a fusion reaction in a HD molecule to produce Helium-3. [21] A double-pump irradiation scheme can produce hybrid expansion regimes wherein a slow hydrodynamic expansion is followed by a fast CE, leading to ion overtaking and producing multiple ion flows expanding with different velocities, which can lead to intracluster fusion reactions in homonuclear deuterium clusters. [21]
The ABC effect — a long-standing puzzle in double-pionic fusion — has been reexamined by the first exclusive and kinematically complete measurements of solid statistics for the fusion reactions $pn \\to d\\pi^0\\pi^0$, $pd \\to ^3$He$\\pi\\pi$ and $dd \\to ^4$He$\\pi\\pi$ using the WASA detector, first at CELSIUS and recently at COSY — the latter with a statistics increased by another two orders of magnitude. [21]
The parameter space in which magnetized fuel operates is remote from that of both ”conventional” ICF and magnetic confinement fusion devices. [19] In order to understand the physics underlying the fast ion loss mechanism, scintillator based detectors have been installed in several fusion devices. [21] This paper presents four working computer models developed by the computational physics group of the National Magnetic Fusion Energy Computer Center. [19] The physics and technology requirements of the CFNS are much less than the requirements of a pure fusion power source. [21] Similar correlations between the structure of potential wells and the neutron yield, as well as the scaling of the fusion power density, which increases with decreasing virtual cathode radius and increasing potential well depth, are considered.[21] This Fusion Power Program Plan treats the technical, schedular and budgetary projections for the development of fusion power using magnetic confinement. [19]
Fission products like Cs-137 and Sr-90 did occur in nature prior to 1945, being produced in the natural nuclear fission reactor at Oklo, but almost all traces of them had long since decayed away before the rise of even the earliest known human painting. [27] The only countries known to have detonated nuclear weapons–and that acknowledge possessing such weapons–are (chronologically by date of first test) the United States, the Soviet Union (succeeded as a nuclear power by Russia ), the United Kingdom, France, the People’s Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. [27] The design of a three-level distributed control system for fire detection and monitoring in a nuclear power plant is presented. [21] It occurred to me that you might be quibbling with my use of the word “serious” insofar as people who have no idea what they are talking about may still believe quite sincerely that global warming is a massive problem and nuclear power is not an effective solution to the problem. [24]
In view of the unique, destructive characteristics of nuclear weapons, the International Committee of the Red Cross calls on States to ensure that these weapons are never used, irrespective of whether they consider them lawful or not. [27] In 1962, Linus Pauling won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to stop the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, and the “Ban the Bomb” movement spread. [27] Surrounding a nuclear weapon with suitable materials (such as cobalt or gold ) creates a weapon known as a salted bomb. [27]
In a normal nuclear reaction, atoms collide to generate heat, but the resulting fission produces radiation that must be contained; exposure to even small amounts can be lethal. [23] The results are “the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons from low-energy nuclear reactions,” she added. [23] After multiple successful tests of the E-Cat by third parties, and now proof of nuclear reactions, it is frustrating (but predictable) that the mainstream media is not paying hardly any attention to this technology. [23]
A control drive is described for the control rod for a sodiumcooled ; nuclear reactor with a pivoting cover consisting of a braced support and a motor ; device as well as an installation for the accelerated ejection of a control rod ; for emergency shutdowns. [21]
On February 28, 1954, the U.S. detonated its first deliverable thermonuclear weapon (which used isotopes of lithium as its fusion fuel), known as the “Shrimp” device of the ” Castle Bravo ” test, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands. [30]Teller pushed the notion further, and used the results of the boosted-fission ” George ” test (a boosted-fission device using a small amount of fusion fuel to boost the yield of a fission bomb) to confirm the fusion of heavy hydrogen elements before preparing for their first true multi-stage, Teller-Ulam hydrogen bomb test. [30] An insight by Los Alamos mathematician Stanislaw Ulam showed that the fission bomb and the fusion fuel could be in separate parts of the bomb, and that radiation of the fission bomb could first work in a way to compress the fusion material before igniting it. [30] The basics of the Teller-Ulam design for a hydrogen bomb: a fission bomb uses radiation to compress and heat a separate section of fusion fuel. [47] Virtually all thermonuclear weapons deployed today use the “two-stage” design described above, but it is possible to add additional fusion stageseach stage igniting a larger amount of fusion fuel in the next stage. [48] “Mike” used liquid deuterium as its fusion fuel and a large fission weapon as its trigger. [30]
One good sign, which InstaPundit readers already know about: “Obama’s team has at least one person who knows about Polywell fusion: Nobel-winning physicist Steven Chu, who will be taking over the Energy Department.” [28] SOME GOOD NEWS: From Dean Esmay, a Polywell Fusion update. (Via Classical Values, which asks: “Why hasn’t Polywell Fusion been funded by the Obama administration?” Yeah, you’d think at least a little of that stimulus money could go for something promising like this. [28]
This fission stage made fusion weapons considerably more “dirty” than they were made out to be. [30] There’s a place for safer nuclear power as well, involving fission as well as future fusion or maybe even fission-fusion hybrids. [28]
In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material ( enriched uranium or plutonium ) is assembled into a supercritical mass –the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction –either by shooting one piece of sub-critical material into another (the “gun” method) or by compressing using explosive lenses a sub-critical sphere of material using chemical explosives to many times its original density (the “implosion” method). [47] Many of the Los Alamos scientists who had built the bomb began to call for “international control of atomic energy,” often calling for either control by transnational organizations or the purposeful distribution of weapons information to all superpowers, but due to a deep distrust of the intentions of the Soviet Union, both in postwar Europe and in general, the policy-makers of the United States worked to attempt to secure an American nuclear monopoly. [30] The International Atomic Energy Agency was created in 1957 to encourage peaceful development of nuclear technology while providing international safeguards against nuclear proliferation. [47]
“Presidency in the Nuclear Age”, conference and forum at the JFK Library, Boston, October 12, 2009. [30]
A SECOND LOOK AT COLD FUSION? “Now a new study has produced evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the new name for the controversial process labeled ‘cold fusion’ two decades ago.” (Via Classical Values ).[28] The Soviet Union started development shortly thereafter with their own atomic bomb project, and not long after that both countries developed even more powerful fusion weapons called “hydrogen bombs.” [30] The first fusion bomb was tested by the United States in Operation Ivy on November 1, 1952, on Elugelab Island in the Enewetak (or Eniwetok) Atoll of the Marshall Islands, code-named ” Mike.” [30]Hungarian physicist Edward Teller toiled for years trying to discover a way to make a fusion bomb. [30]
Throughout the 1950s and the early 1960s a number of trends were enacted between the U.S. and the USSR as they both endeavored in a tit-for-tat approach to disallow the other power from acquiring nuclear supremacy. [30] On July 16, 1945, in the desert north of Alamogordo, New Mexico, the first nuclear test took place, code-named ” Trinity “, using a device nicknamed ” the gadget.” [30] Testing underground continued, allowing for further weapons development, but the worldwide fallout risks were purposefully reduced, and the era of using massive nuclear tests as a form of saber-rattling ended. [30] The news of the first Soviet bomb was announced to the world first by the United States, which had detected the nuclear fallout it generated from its test site in Kazakhstan. [30] Early delivery systems for nuclear devices were primarily bombers like the United States B-29 Superfortress and Convair B-36, and later the B-52 Stratofortress. [30] A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention / National Cancer Institute study claims that fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests would lead to perhaps 11,000 excess deaths amongst people alive during atmospheric testing in the United States from all forms of cancer, including leukemia, from 1951 to well into the 21st century. [47] A nuclear fireball lights up the night in the United States nuclear test Upshot-Knothole Badger on April 18, 1953. [30]
Starting in 1951, the Nevada Test Site (in the Nevada desert) became the primary location for all U.S. nuclear testing (in the USSR, Semipalatinsk Test Site in Kazakhstan served a similar role). [30] After stepping so close to the brink, both the U.S. and the USSR worked to reduce their nuclear tensions in the years immediately following. [30] These policies and strategies were satirized in the 1964 Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove, in which the Soviets, unable to keep up with the US’s first strike capability, instead plan for MAD by building a Doomsday Machine, and thus, after a (literally) mad U.S. General orders a nuclear attack on the USSR, the end of the world is brought about. [30] Jump up ^ Specifically the 1970 to 1980 designed and deployed U.S. B83 nuclear bomb, with a yield of up to 1.2 megatons. [48] With only fission bombs, nuclear war was something that possibly could be “limited.” [30]
Testing was used as a sign of both national and technological strength, but also raised questions about the safety of the tests, which released nuclear fallout into the atmosphere (most dramatically with the Castle Bravo test in 1954, but in more limited amounts with almost all atmospheric nuclear testing). [30] The 140 kiloton Soviet Chagan (nuclear test), comparable in yield to the Sedan test of 104 kt, formed Lake Chagan, reportedly used as a watering hole for cattle and human swimming. [47] The 1962 Sedan nuclear test formed a crater 100 m (330 ft) deep with a diameter of about 390 m (1,300 ft), as a means of investigating the possibilities of using peaceful nuclear explosions for large-scale earth moving. [47]
One was an increase in efficiency and power, and within only a few years fission bombs were developed that were many times more powerful than the ones created during World War II. The other was a program of miniaturization, reducing the size of the nuclear weapons. [30] As of 2014, two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of nuclear warfare, both times by the United States near the end of World War II. On 6 August 1945, a uranium gun-type fission bomb code-named “Little Boy” was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. [47]
A LOOK AT the future of fusion: “The long-term future of energy may well lie in clean, plentiful fusion power but will the reactors that produce that power carry a ‘Made in the USA’ label?” There’s a brief mention of the Bussard fusion project, which would make that more likely. [28] Government scientists in both the U.S. and the USSR had insisted that fusion weapons, unlike fission weapons, were “cleaner,” as fusion reactions did not produce the dangerously radioactive by-products of fission reactions. [30]
A Polywell fusion reactor uses electromagnets to generate a magnetic field that traps electrons, creating a negative voltage, which then attract positive ions. [29] While technically true, this hid a more gruesome point: the last stage of a multi-staged hydrogen bomb often used the neutrons produced by the fusion reactions to induce fissioning in a jacket of natural uranium, and provided around half of the yield of the device itself. [30]
When the nucleus of uranium-235 absorbs a neutron, it undergoes nuclear fission, splitting into two “fission products” and releasing energy and, on average, 2.5 neutrons. [30] It was clear to a number of scientists at Columbia that they should try to detect the energy released in the nuclear fission of uranium from neutron bombardment. [30] In nuclear fission, the nucleus of a fissile atom (in this case, enriched uranium ) absorbs a thermal neutron, becomes unstable and splits into two new atoms, releasing some energy and between one and three new neutrons, which can perpetuate the process. [30]
Scientists on both sides of the conflict were well aware of the possibility of utilizing nuclear fission as a weapon, but at the time no one was quite sure how it could be done. [30] Paintings created after that period may contain traces of caesium-137 and strontium-90, isotopes that did not exist in nature before 1945. ( Fission products were produced in the natural nuclear fission reactor at Oklo about 1.7 billion years ago, but these decayed away before the earliest known human painting.) [47] President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s doctrine of “massive retaliation” in the early years of the Cold War was a message to the USSR, saying that if the Red Army attempted to invade the parts of Europe not given to the Eastern bloc during the Potsdam Conference (such as West Germany ), nuclear weapons would be used against the Soviet troops and potentially the Soviet leaders. [30] In the United States during the Cold War years, between “one quarter to one third of all military spending since World War II devoted to nuclear weapons and their infrastructure.” [30] This view argues that, unlike conventional weapons, nuclear weapons successfully deter all-out war between states, and they succeeded in doing this during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. [47] The most immediate culmination of this work was the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, in which the U.S. and USSR agreed to no longer test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, underwater, or in outer space. [30]
If the need arises to use nuclear explosive devices to prevent an asteroid impact event, it may face the legal issue that the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty ban nuclear weapons in space. [47] First strike meant the first use of nuclear weapons by one nuclear-equipped nation against another nuclear-equipped nation. [30] China is the only nuclear weapons state to have guaranteed the non-first use of nuclear weapons.[30] The end of the Cold War failed to end the threat of nuclear weapon use, although global fears of nuclear war reduced substantially. [30] It uses material from the Wikipedia article History of nuclear weapons. [30] The simplest form of nuclear weapon is a gun-type fission weapon, where a sub-critical mass of fissile material (such as uranium-235) would be shot at another sub-critical mass of fissile material. [30]
As of 2014, two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of nuclear warfare, both times by the United States near the end of World War II. [47] Nuclear weapons delivery the technology and systems used to bring a nuclear weapon to its targetis an important aspect of nuclear weapons relating both to nuclear weapon design and nuclear strategy. [48]
The first claimed detonation of a nuclear weapon by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was the 2006 North Korean nuclear test, conducted on October 9, 2006. [30]The only countries known to have detonated nuclear weapons–and that acknowledge possessing such weapons–are (chronologically by date of first test) the United States, the Soviet Union (succeeded as a nuclear power by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, the People’s Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. [47]
The first nuclear weapons were gravity bombs, such as this ” Fat Man ” weapon dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. [47] In 1963, all nuclear and many non-nuclear states signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, pledging to refrain from testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, underwater, or in outer space. [30] Jump up ^ In the United States, the President and the Secretary of Defense, acting as the National Command Authority, must jointly authorize the use of nuclear weapons. [48]
On January 25, 1939, an experimental team at Columbia University conducted the first nuclear fission experiment in the United States in the basement of Pupin Hall. [30]
Such a weapon would potentially prove to be a simpler path to thermonuclear weapons than one requiring the development of fission weapons first, and pure fusion weapons would create significantly less nuclear fallout than other thermonuclear weapons, as they would not disperse fission products. [31] In 1998, the United States Department of Energy divulged that the United States had “made a substantial investment” in the past to develop pure fusion weapons but that “the U.S. does not have and is not developing a pure fusion weapon” and that “no credible design for a pure fusion weapon resulted from the DOE investment.” [31] By chaining together numerous stages with increasing amounts of fusion fuel, thermonuclear weapons can be made to an almost arbitrary yield; the largest ever detonated (the Tsar Bomba of the USSR ) released an energy equivalent of over 50 million tons (50 megatons ) of TNT. Most thermonuclear weapons are considerably smaller than this, due to practical constraints arising from the space and weight requirements of missile warheads. [31]
According to Dr. Eugene Mallove, a noted scientist and cold fusion analyst, during a test conducted by Motorola, the giant U.S. electronics manufacturer, on the Patterson Power Cell. [49] An apparent variation on cold fusion, the Patterson Power Cell uses a thin film to achieve the same spectral results, a finding apparently confirmed by Professor George Miley at the University of Illinois. [49]
When the fission bomb is detonated, gamma and X-rays emitted first compress the fusion fuel, then heat it to thermonuclear temperatures. [31] Your mistake is to assume that the energy used to create fusion conditions is completely lost. [50]
(50 source documents arranged by frequency of occurrence in the above report)
1. (114) controlled nuclear fusion: Topics by Science.gov
3. (57) Fusion Bomb | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing – eBooks | Read eBooks online
4. (49) magnetically confined tokamak: Topics by WorldWideScience.org
5. (40) History of nuclear weapons: Information from Answers.com
6. (31) What do you think about fusion? – Engineering Challenges
7. (22) Cold fusion experimentally confirmed
9. (19) Nuclear Issues | Agriculture Defense Coalition
10. (17) Safe Nuclear Fusion Reactor | EE Times
11. (16) George Will backs plasma-fusion research
12. (15) DIY Nuclear reactor
13. (15) Cold Fusion Gets a Boost From the US Navy – Slashdot
14. (15) Bubble Power – IEEE Spectrum
15. (14) diy | OnEarth Magazine
16. (13) Summers, Lomborg, Tabarrok, and Cowen on climate change
17. (13) Nuclear weapon | Wikipedia TLDR
18. (11) The latest on fusion power, via S. Korea and New Jersey! – The Trek BBS
19. (10) moonproject
20. (10) Next Big Future: 9/6/09 – 9/13/09
21. (8) Pressure for Results Mounts as Fusion Research Crawls Forward – Scientific American
22. (8) Weekend Pundit: June 2014 Archives
23. (8) Peak Oil Doomsters debunked, end of civilization called off | The Fabius Maximus website
24. (8) Classical Values :: April 2009 Archives
25. (6) inertial confinement fusion – internet discussions | BoardReader
26. (6) Instapundit Search Results fusion
27. (6) Random Thoughts: Alternatives to tokamak fusion
28. (6) Electrostatic Confinement Fusion FPGeneration Style
29. (5) friends forever: Nuclear weapon – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
30. (5) 17 yr old creates nuclear fusion in his basement
31. (5) 28 April 2013 – Chaos Manor – Jerry Pournelle
32. (4) FP Generation fusion project was funded and built prototypes | Science and Technology
33. (4) Honda’s FCX makes European debut
34. (4) Have you ever wondered?
36. (3) The Polywell Blog: The Serious Need For Data
37. (3) The Polywell Nuclear Reactor
38. (3) Cold Fusion — Will It Save The World Or Be Forgotten?
39. (2) Interstellar Conundrum: Is Stross Right?
40. (2) Science – EpicTopic
41. (2) E Ink Founder’s Startup Goal: Power The World With Efficient Nuclear Power | WBUR
42. (2) Stillness in the Storm : Science Conspiracy: Suppressed Free Energy Science
43. (2) SciTech Connect: Scaling law of electron confinement in a zero beta polywell device
44. (1) Federal Funding Reenergizes Mit Fusion Reactor 2015 | JP News Network
45. (1) how much power does geothermal energy produce in Boston, MA | Bullhorn Reach
46. (1) The Future May Smell Like Skunk
47. (1) May | 2011 | Prometheus Fusion Perfection
48. (1) nerd nite nyc
49. (1) Hubble grills a confused galaxy – Bad Astronomy : Bad Astronomy