fusion with lasers

Discussion in 'General Electronics Chat' started by cjdelphi, May 8, 2011.

  1. cjdelphi

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 26, 2009
    272
    2
    theres a couple of huge experimental reactors in which both's aim is to create fusion, in theory energy out is way more than goes in...... Lasers and plasma

    since they are 'overunity' are they banned from being discussed?
     
  2. tom66

    Senior Member

    May 9, 2009
    2,613
    214
    No, such reactors are not overunity. Otherwise the laws of physics would be being rewritten as we speak.

    The fusion reactors you talk about convert fuel (hydrogen) into heat (millions of degrees K), hopefully in a very efficient manner, similar to our own sun. Like our own sun, they will eventually run out of fuel. Unlike our sun, they can be refuelled.
     
  3. Markd77

    Senior Member

    Sep 7, 2009
    2,803
    594
  4. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,789
    945
    Why so much radiation shielding is needed for a 'supposedly' clean energy source should be the question 'greenies' might want to ponder. Cleaner than fission perhaps, but <snip> dirty if hard radiation emissions are considered.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2011
  5. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Hard radiation, yes. Long lived radiation, maybe. But compared to conventional fission tech it is clean. With fission the materials start off highly toxic both chemically and radiologically and get worse, with fusion it starts off with water and ends with helium and a few unstable isotopes. I would have to say the comparisons favor fusion, if we could ever get it to work on demand.
     
  6. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,789
    945
    Bill, you should look into some of the newest reactor tech's being proposed. Some of them are able to utilize the 'waste' product we so carefully store and can thereby reduce the amounts of waste to less than 10% of what is created now. The mixture of isotopes is also less long lived after this process and can be declared 'low level' in around 300 years vs. the thousand of years now projected for our nuclear waste.

    Molten Salt reactors and Uranium 238 reactors are just two of the ones I'm thinking of.
     
  7. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,789
    945
  8. KJ6EAD

    Senior Member

    Apr 30, 2011
    1,425
    363
    Some of the newer small light water and liquid sodium fission reactors are so close to being intrinsically safe that they are sometimes referred to as nuclear batteries, though I think the term should have been reserved for isotopic decay thermoelectric designs. We need lots of new fission reactors now while we work on Mr. Fusion to power our flux capacitors.
     
  9. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Still, Uranium is highly toxic, and there is no getting around it. Plutonium is even worse. Hydrogen, not so much.
     
  10. tom66

    Senior Member

    May 9, 2009
    2,613
    214
    The amount of radiation being produced would be a fraction of that of our sun, and could be adequately shielded against.

    You can buy Uranium on Amazon.com. Hydrogen is not toxic unless it replaces oxygen in which case you can't breath it. It is the most abundant substance in the universe.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2011
Loading...