| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hi@anony habshi" |
| Date: |
29 May 2006 12:09:21 PM |
| Object: |
Basketball sized reactor produces nuclear fusion |
What size is the smallest hydrogen bomb ? Can we trap Helium 3
in low earth orbit satellites ?
excerpts
Particles of hydrogen and helium in the solar wind that strikes the
moon become embedded in the rocks and soil. This doesn’t happen on the
earth because our atmosphere and our magnetic field shield our planet
from these solar particles.
It has been estimated that helium 3 would have a cash value of $5.7
billion a ton in terms of its current energy equivalent to oil at <$40
per barrel oil.
At $40,000 to $60,000 per kilo for transporting materials from Earth
to the Moon, it is not cost effective to go to the Moon even for pure
gold (Au), at today's price of <$15,500 per kilogram. He3 equivalent
energy value in today’s dollars is $5.7 Million per kilogram making
this venture for the He3 fusion reactant worth the effort and cost.
While the vehicles for retrieving resources from the moon are being
designed and built, Taylor thinks the nation—and the world—can speed
research and development of
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Size of a basketball
The chamber, which is roughly the sizeof a basketball, relies on the
electrostatic focusing of ions into a densecore by using a spherical
grid, explained Wisconsin colleague John Santarius,a study co-author.
With some refinement, such Inertial Electrostatic Confinement(IEC)
fusion systems could produce high-energy neutrons and protons usefulin
industry and medicine. For example, the technology could generate
short-livedPET (positron emission tomography) isotopes on site at
hospitals, enablingsafe brain scans of young children and even
pregnant women. Portable IECdevices could bridge the gap between
today's science-based research andthe ultimate goal of generating
electricity, Santarius said.
~
This fall, the University of Wisconsinteam hopes to demonstrate a
third-generation fusion reaction between helium3 and helium 3
particles in the lab. The reaction would be completely voidof
radiation.
"Although helium 3 would be very exciting,"says Bryan Palaszewski,
leader of advanced fuels at NASA Glenn ResearchCenter at Lewis Field,
"first we have to go back to the moon and be capableof doing
significant operations there."
Economically unfeasible
Indeed for now, the economics of extractingand transporting helium 3
from the moon are also problematic. Even if scientistssolved the
physics of helium 3 fusion, "it would be economically
unfeasible,"asserted Jim Benson, chairman of SpaceDev in Poway,
California, which strivesto be one of the first commercial
space-exploration companies. "UnlessI'm mistaken, you'd have to
strip-mine large surfaces of the moon."
While it's true that to produce roughly70 tons of helium 3, for
example, a million tons of lunar soil would needto be heated to 1,470
degrees Fahrenheit (800 degrees Celsius) to liberatethe gas,
proponents say lunar strip mining is not the goal. "There's enoughin
the Mare Tranquillitatis alone to last for several hundred years,"
Schmittsaid. The moon would be a stepping stone to other helium 3-rich
sources,such as the atmospheres of Saturn and Uranus.
Benson agreed that finding fuel sourcesin space is the way to go. But
for him, H2O and not helium 3 is the idealfuel source. His personal
goal is to create gas stations in space by miningasteroids for water.
The water can be electrolyzed into hydrogen or oxygenfuel or used
straight as a propellant by superheating with solar arrays."Water is
more practical and believable in the short run," he said.
But proponents believe only helium3 can pay its own way.
"Water just isn't that valuable," Schmittsaid. Besides the helium, a
mining process would produce water and oxygenas by-products, he says.
Increases production and safety costs
"I don't doubt it will eventually work,"Kulcinski said. "But I have
serious doubts it will ever provide an economicpower source on Earth
or in space." That's because reactors that exploitthe fusion of
deuterium and tritium release 80 percent of their energyin the form of
radioactive neutrons, which exponentially increase productionand
safety costs.
In contrast, helium 3 fusion wouldproduce little residual
radioactivity. Helium 3, an isotope of the familiarhelium used to
inflate balloons and blimps, has a nucleus with two protonsand one
neutron. A nuclear reactor based on the fusion of helium 3
anddeuterium, which has a single nuclear proton and neutron, would
producevery few neutrons -- about 1 percent of the number generated by
the deuterium-tritiumreaction. "You could safely build a helium 3
plant in the middle of a bigcity," Kulcinski said.
Helium 3 fusion is also ideal for poweringspacecraft and interstellar
travel. While offering the high performancepower of fusion -- "a
classic Buck Rogers propulsion system" -- helium3 rockets would
require less radioactive shielding, lightening the load,said Robert
Frisbee, an advanced propulsion engineer at NASA's Jet
PropulsionLaboratory in Pasadena California.
Recently Kulcinski's team reports progresstoward making helium 3
fusion possible. Inside a lab chamber, the Wisconsinresearchers have
produced protons from a steady-state deuterium-helium3 plasma at a
rate of 2.6 million reactions per second. That's fast enoughto produce
fusion power but not churn out electricity. "It's proof of
principle,but a long way from producing electricity or making a power
source outof it," Kulcinski said. He will present the results in
Amsterdam in midJuly at the Fourth International Conference on
Exploration and Utilizationof the Moon.
Scientists estimate there are about1 million tons of helium 3 on the
moon, enough to power the world for thousandsof years. The equivalent
of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tonscould supply the
entire United States' energy needs for a year, accordingto Apollo17
astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.
.
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Basketball sized reactor produces nuclear fusion |
29 May 2006 12:30:32 PM |
|
|
< While the vehicles for retrieving resources from the moon
< are being designed and built, Taylor thinks the nation=97
< and the world=97can speed research and development of
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Sounds smarter than quagmiring for oil in Iraq -- even if it doesn't
work.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Basketball sized reactor produces nuclear fusion |
29 May 2006 01:51:33 PM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Sounds smarter than quagmiring for oil in Iraq...
oil != coal.
Nuclear is about the grid. Oil is about liquid fuels.
You've been posting here long enough to know the difference.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President ***** Cheney
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basketball sized reactor produces nuclear fusion |
30 May 2006 01:12:03 PM |
|
|
I currently favor Inertial Electrostatic Fusion (IEF) as developed by
Dr. Robert Bussard, using clean pb11.
There is not presently a demand for quantities of He3, but should
important researchers like Harrison Schmidt have a major breakthrough,
then the economics might turn in favor of finding new sources of He3.
Until then, being no significant market, there will be no significant
investment in developing He3 resources.
Jim Benson
(speaking personally, not for SpaceDev)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basketball sized reactor produces nuclear fusion |
29 May 2006 12:45:01 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
What size is the smallest hydrogen bomb ?
Pretty friggin big.
Can we trap Helium 3
in low earth orbit satellites ?
Not economically.
<snip news service gee-whiz speculation>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Basketball sized reactor produces nuclear fusion |
29 May 2006 03:50:36 PM |
|
|
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:36ork3-4so.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
| In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
| > What size is the smallest hydrogen bomb ?
|
| Pretty friggin big.
An elephant is pretty friggin big. A 600 lb water bomb is smaller than an
elephant,
it's about the size of an 18-wheeler's fuel tank. Hydrogen bombs are mostly
H2O,
the oxygen is not required but it comes cheap and stops the hydrogen
leaking.
No much is needed, E = mc^2.
Androcles.
|
| > Can we trap Helium 3
| > in low earth orbit satellites ?
|
| Not economically.
|
| <snip news service gee-whiz speculation>
|
| --
| Jim Pennino
|
| Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basketball sized reactor produces nuclear fusion |
29 May 2006 05:35:04 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics The Sorcerer <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:36ork3-4so.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
| In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
| > What size is the smallest hydrogen bomb ?
|
| Pretty friggin big.
An elephant is pretty friggin big. A 600 lb water bomb is smaller than an
elephant,
it's about the size of an 18-wheeler's fuel tank. Hydrogen bombs are mostly
H2O,
the oxygen is not required but it comes cheap and stops the hydrogen
leaking.
No much is needed, E = mc^2.
Androcles.
|
| > Can we trap Helium 3
| > in low earth orbit satellites ?
|
| Not economically.
|
| <snip news service gee-whiz speculation>
|
| --
| Jim Pennino
|
| Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Crap, the babbling loon has morphed again.
Killfile update time...
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pooh Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Basketball sized reactor produces nuclear fusion |
29 May 2006 04:57:49 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
What size is the smallest hydrogen bomb ?
What size is your brain ?
Graham
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
