Thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant?

In summary, the conversation discusses the feasibility of harnessing fusion power through unconventional means, specifically by confining plasma within a magnetic tube and heating it while accelerating it out of the tube. This could potentially produce a net energy surplus by allowing the superheated gases to mix and dissipate with air in a large air breathing turbine assembly. The conversation also explores the possibility of using an uncontrolled thermonuclear device within a large tubular enclosure filled with air, but it is deemed impractical due to the catastrophic impulsive load it would create. Finally, the conversation touches on the potential of using a tiny fusion pellet ignited by a laser, but notes the current limitations in technology.
  • #1
parsec
113
1
I know that confinement and stability are a big issues when it comes to harnessing fusion power in a controlled fashion, but what if we could do away with the stability constraint? (sorry if this is completely unfeasible, I don't really know very much about plasma and discharge physics).

My idea is to confine the plasma within a magnetic tube and apply heat to it whilst it accelerates out of the tube (much like many proposed plasma rocket schemes). I assume that as long as the plasma is confined within the tube at a critical density and temperature (whilst accelerating towards the "outlet"), the plasma will fuse and produce a net energy surplus.

The superheated hot gases could then be allowed to mix and dissipate with air in a large air breathing turbine assembly (possibly with a forward compressor stage) to drive a large turbine and produce power.

Crude I know, but is it feasible? I feel that such a scheme would encounter mostly engineering problems, rather than scientific problems which are showstoppers for most other fusion power plant designs. Given a large enough turbine and confinement area, I can't see why this isn't possible.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
My idea is to confine the plasma within a magnetic tube and apply heat to it whilst it accelerates out of the tube (much like many proposed plasma rocket schemes). I assume that as long as the plasma is confined within the tube at a critical density and temperature (whilst accelerating towards the "outlet"), the plasma will fuse and produce a net energy surplus.
Fusion plasma normal operate in near vacuum conditions. The particle densities are very low ~ 1014 /cm3.

If one could produce such a tube, then one might simply use direct conversion rather than injecting a hot plasma into a turbine or heating zone for input into turbine.

And one would need a compressor to compress gas/air, which would then be heated and expelled through a turbine in order to produce mechanical energy, which presumably would be used to drive a generator.
 
  • #3
I guess the point I'm getting at is, on a big enough scale, if the stability constraint can be removed, then surely the energy can be harnessed through relatively crude means?

Another hypothetical: What if an uncontrolled (explosive) thermonuclear device were detonated within a very large turbular enclosure filled with air. One end could feature a parabolic reflector and the other end would be open to allow the high pressure gases to escape the enclosure through a large turbine.

Provisions could be made on the parabolic end to allow the tube to "breathe" after the detonation so that the pressure wave and subsequent vacuum caused by the detonation does not cause counterflow and backspin the turbine. This could also feature a forward compressor stage.

Surely if the enclosure were large enough to withstand the stresses of the detonation (a mere engineering and logistics problem) then the energy can be harnessed.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
parsec said:
I guess the point I'm getting at is, on a big enough scale, if the stability constraint can be removed, then surely the energy can be harnessed through relatively crude means?
Yes, once.
You could have the containment fail, heat the air in the room and have a turnbine on one of the doors to capture the energy as the blast went through it.
I suppose you could also use an H Bomb and a large number of windmills.
 
  • #5
I guess the point I'm getting at is, on a big enough scale, if the stability constraint can be removed, then surely the energy can be harnessed through relatively crude means?

Another hypothetical: What if an uncontrolled (explosive) thermonuclear device were detonated within a very large turbular enclosure filled with air. One end could feature a parabolic reflector and the other end would be open to allow the high pressure gases to escape the enclosure through a large turbine.
Big enough would mean something like a km or so.

H-bombs are designed to destroy structures, really large areas such as cities. There is no practical way to harness the energy of a thermonuclear device, because the surrounding structure would be subject to a catastrophic impulsive load. Notice that for underground tests, the ground heaves! And large cavities develop and the ground/rock around the cavity melts!

That is why we prefer Controlled Thermonuclear reactions.
 
  • #6
Astronuc said:
H-bombs are designed to destroy structures, really large areas such as cities. There is no practical way to harness the energy of a thermonuclear device, because the surrounding structure would be subject to a catastrophic impulsive load. Notice that for underground tests, the ground heaves! And large cavities develop and the ground/rock around the cavity melts!

That is why we prefer Controlled Thermonuclear reactions.
Astronuc,

Correct you are. Exploding an H-bomb and trying to "catch" the energy is
totally infeasible. As you stated, there's no way that some mechanism
smaller than a city designed to capture this energy is going to survive - it
will be vaporized by that amount of energy.

However, if one can make the H-bomb smaller so that it can generate an
amount of energy that we can deal with - then THAT appears to be
feasible. That, of course; is what ICF - Inertial Confinement Fusion or
"laser fusion" is all about. In this case, the "H-bomb" would be a little
tiny fusion pellet - about the size of a BB. That's the scale of the size
of H-bomb that we can "handle".

The problem is although the physics of the H-bomb does scale down to
small size; the physics of the only device currently capable of igniting
the H-bomb; the A-bomb; doesn't scale down. A-bombs only come in
sizes of very big, and bigger.

So one has to dispense with the A-bomb and use something else to ignite
the fusion reaction. That's what the laser is for. However, to ignite a
fusion pellet the size of a BB; you need a laser as big as a sports stadium.

We are currently building such a huge laser at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory; it is called the NIF or National Ignition Facility.

The movie; "Laser Bay Flyover" gives one an idea of how truly massive
this laser is. In some of the scenes, you can see people moving about;
which gives you an ideal of the scale of this truly massive facility.

http://www.llnl.gov/nif/project/mm_flyover_lg.html

Although it is HUGE; that is what it takes to get even a little BB-sized
"H-bomb" up to nuclear fusion conditions. [ As the text accompanying
the movie explains; the movie only shows Laser Bay #2 or only HALF
of NIF. It's twin Laser Bay #1 is in the other half of the building. ]

http://www.llnl.gov/nif/programs/index.html

http://www.llnl.gov/nif/project/news_status.html

Other NIF movies are available at:

http://www.llnl.gov/nif/project/lib_movies.html

I don't think many really appreciate the magnitude of what one has to
do to get even a very small amount of material up to fusion conditions.
Fusion conditions are not just a small step from the temperatures and
pressures of other Earth-bound machines. Even the conditions in outer
layer of the Sun; is not hot enough for fusion. The fusion reactions in
the Sun go on only in the interior.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited:
  • #7
You've preempted my next question, which is can the device be scaled down.

This facility is very impressive. What are the energy densities required to fuse a small pellet (say 1 cubic centimeter)?

Do you have an idea of the smallest pratical fission device that could be used to initiate uncontrolled fusion? If the process could be scaled such that the enclosure required is even a km long, it's possible this could be practical.

I'm a firm believer that any and every human endeavour can be disseminated into a base energy cost. Surely the energy surplus afforded by such a device could outweigh its initial energy cost in assembly and materials. Controlling radioactive discharge could be problematic, but that's another engineering problem.

I imagine that if small fission initiated fusion devices could be loaded regularily in an automated fashion, energy could be pulsed into the large turbine assembly. Its great rotational inertia could act as a low pass filter to produce base load generation rather than huge pulsed energy transients.


Would a compression stage improve the efficiency of such a design? In conventional gas turbine setups it clearly does, but this scenario isn't mere heat addition, as there's a distinct blast (pressure) wave created by the device. I'm finding the thermodynamics unintuitive.
 
  • #8
parsec said:
You've preempted my next question, which is can the device be scaled down.

This facility is very impressive. What are the energy densities required to fuse a small pellet (say 1 cubic centimeter)?

Do you have an idea of the smallest pratical fission device that could be used to initiate uncontrolled fusion? If the process could be scaled such that the enclosure required is even a km long, it's possible this could be practical.
parsec,

The smallest POSSIBLE fission device will destroy a city! In order to have
a fission device, there has to be a "critical mass". Fission devices don't work
until you have this minimal critical mass. However, a fission device based
on even the minimal critical mass has the energy to destroy a city.

You can't trap and contain that much energy.

Would a compression stage improve the efficiency of such a design? In conventional gas turbine setups it clearly does, but this scenario isn't mere heat addition, as there's a distinct blast (pressure) wave created by the device. I'm finding the thermodynamics unintuitive.

If you are talking about a mechanical compressor - NO!

Mechanical compressors are orders of magnitude TOO WEAK to do
anything in terms of compression for nuclear fusion.

In inertial confinement fusion, it is the radiation that compresses the
fusion fuel via ablation of the outer layers. The radiation can compress
hydrogen gas to densities exceeding that of LEAD! No mechanical
compressor can do anything like that. In this realm, don't think about
doing things "mechanically".

In the nuclear realm, you are talking about forces and energies that are
MILLIONS of times greater than mechanical forces and energies.

Compressors and turbines are of ZERO use here - they would just be
destroyed by the high temperatures and pressures. A turbine exposed
to a nuclear blast isn't going to capture energy - it's just going to be
turned into a gas - vaporized. No material can withstand the temperatures
and pressures and maintain any structural integrity.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited:
  • #9
I meant a compressor used in a brayton cycle context, not so much to get closer to the pressures and temperatures required for fusion, but to increase the amount of energy extracted from the dissipative medium (in this case air) after the heat addition process. (akin to the compression that happens in internal combustion engines before fuel addition and combustion. without this compression, no useful work would be extracted from the heat addition process)

I am curious as to whether harnessing a fusion blast wave would require a compression stage, much like conventional internal combustion engines do, assuming that the hot gases expand to ambient temperature and pressure aft of the turbine.

Why does fission require a critical mass? I always thought it required critical density, after which more neutrons are are generated and captured than allowed to escape, causing a self sustaining chain reaction. This being mass dependent seems unintuitive.

Given a large enough structure and enough dissipative medium, surely it's not IMPOSSIBLE. This is merely logistics. The energy can be trapped and contained so long as it is allowed to dissipate before interacting with the frame and walls of such a structure and the turbine. As long as the intense local energies and pressures can be converted into large mass flow rates of high velocity gases at much lower temperatures and pressures, a conventional turbine should be able to extract useful energy. This may be hugely impractical though, as you suggest.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
parsec said:
Why does fission require a critical mass? I always thought it required critical density, after which more neutrons are are generated and captured than allowed to escape, causing a self sustaining chain reaction. This being mass dependent seems unintuitive.
parsec,

NOPE - it's mass! It's a combination of density AND geometry. Suppose
I have a long thin "pencil" of uranium that has been compressed to your
critical density. It is still going to leak neutrons out the sides.

It's the combination of density AND geometry that gives you the term
"critical mass" not "critical density"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

Given a large enough structure and enough dissipative medium, surely it's not IMPOSSIBLE. This is merely logistics. The energy can be trapped and contained so long as it is allowed to dissipate before interacting with the frame and walls of such a structure and the turbine.

You need a building with linear dimensions of MILES - miles east/west,
miles north/south and miles up/down. That's what you are going to
have to do to contain the nuclear fireball.

Show me how we are going to build something many miles high without it
collapsing under its own weight.

Even if you could collect this energy - how are you going to store it.

Enough energy is released to meet your demand for a significant time;
but all this energy is going to be released in less than a second. So you
will have to store this energy until it can be used. How are you going to
store that amount of energy? Are you going to use 100X the world's
supply of lead to store this energy in a battery? At some point you hit
real limits - you can't use more lead than exists on the planet. You can't
have structures that can't support themselves because materials don't
have as much strength as you'd like...

IMPOSSIBLE is a much, much better word than "logistics" in this case.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #11
I've done some reading on laser ICF. The lasers that have and are being constructed are quite impressive in size and scale.

Has any work been done into controlled fission initiators for ICF? I know that there are some nuclear weapon designs that use cylindrical beam guides to implode a fusion device using x-rays from a fission device.

It seems that energy density is a limiting factor in attaining successful ICF ignition using lasers. Hohlraums are used to attain much higher photon energies (X-ray) at the expense of efficiency. Would it be possible to create fission criticality for a short transient to generate the energy densities required for fusion?

I'm imagining a spherical fissile device with beam halls to channel hard x-rays onto the target. The device could be brought in and out of criticality for a short period of time (mechanically) within some moderative medium, to lessen the destructive effects of the sharp power release.

In such a scenario, the energy released would not be on the scale of a typical fission weapon that is designed to release energy until it blows itself apart or attains subcriticality through some other mechanism.
 
  • #12
parsec said:
I'm imagining a spherical fissile device with beam halls to channel hard x-rays onto the target.
parsec,

Fission reactions DON'T give you X-rays - they give you GAMMA rays and neutrons.

NEITHER gamma rays nor neutrons are very good for compressing and heating a plasma;
in comparison to X-rays.

The way you make X-rays with fission is to allow the fission energy to make an object
VERY, VERY HOT - like MILLIONS of degrees - that's how you get X-rays from fission.
That's what atomic bombs do to drive hydrogen bombs. But that's a ONE SHOT scheme -
objects heated to MILLIONS of degrees don't survive.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #13
I was under the impression that the difference between X-rays and Gamma rays is their creation mechanism. I always remember some gamma rays having similar photon energies to X-rays. It's been a while since my physics undegrad though.

Is it possible to use wavelength doubling optics to create X-rays from Gamma rays?
 
  • #14
parsec said:
I was under the impression that the difference between X-rays and Gamma rays is their creation mechanism.

Is it possible to use wavelength doubling optics to create X-rays from Gamma rays?
parsec,

Gamma rays are the results of nuclear transitions - that is nucleons in the nucleus change
state, and release energy due to the strong nuclear force. That is the genesis of gamma
rays.

X-rays are the result of electron transitions - that is electrons surrounding the nucleus
change state and release energy due to the Coulomb force. Since the Coulomb force is
a MILLION times weaker than the strong nuclear force; the energy of the transitions is
less.

Gamma rays don't behave much like waves - they behave more like particles.

You can't optically reflect, refract, frequency, or wavelength double in an optical
fashion with gamma. Optics relies on the properties of the electrons as charge
carriers of the Coulomb force to be able to move and in essence "short out" the wave,
for example - which is how you get reflection.

There is NO analogous reaction for gammas - so you can't do optics with gammas.
The wavelength is just too small for the electrons to do for gammas what they do
in the case of X-rays. You don't have the "collective effects" with gammas; so
envision them more like neutral particles.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Plasma Propulsion

There are a number of projects that have been underway for quite some time ragarding plasma propulsion. My favorite is being developed by AdAstra, based in Texas and Costa Rica and is called VASIMR. It just recently received an increase in funding from NASA.

http://www.adastrarocket.com/vasimr.html [Broken]

It contains the plasma with magnetic fields and heats it with RF and lasers.

This project is a plasma rocket, but there is plasma turbine project somewhere out there as well.

Usarian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Parsec,

In response to your original suggestion, which I believe has not yet been fully addressed, I believe you are generally correct. In fact, what you suggest, in my opinion, is the most efficient scaleable method for using the hot plasma generated by some (yet technologically elusive) sustainable small-scale continuous fusion source. Such a setup would function very similar to a current Brayton cycle gas turbine, in which the compression and turbine sections would be largely unchanged, but with the combustors being replaced by some kind of plasma stream injectors. Due to the extreme temperatures of this plasma, the conduit which transfers this plasma from it's fusion reactor source to the turbine would probably need to use electromagnetic confinement, and the mass flow rate of plasma would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the air mass flow rate through the turbine in order to reach the desired 3,000 F (1600 C) or lower air temperatures. The whole cycle can be made even more efficient by then using the exhaust gasses from the turbine in a heat recovery steam generator to drive a steam turbine, similar to present day combined cycle gas/steam turbine power plants.

In fact, I don't see a reason that the turbine part of this whole thing would need to be scaled up more. I think a current 200MW-300MW modified gas turbine would do just fine. As Dr. Greenman pointed out, it is the generation of this plasma from thermonuclear fusion that is the difficult part, as getting a sustained reaction in a small enough to control portion is very difficult.
 
  • #17
The crux of my hypothetical involved a gas turbine design facilitating the controlled diffusion of explosive fission initiated plasma into an air stream. This hot mixture, like you suggest, would be used to drive a turbine.

Apparently it's impossible to build a detuned fission device capable of initiating fusion on a manageable scale. I don't know what the smallest explosive fission device is (either a primitive standalone fission weapon or a modern/refined fusion initiator), but I would have thought that something with a yield of less than a kiloton would be able to be used as a fusion initiator and contained within a structure (either directly in the gas turbine flow stream, much like a conventional combustion chamber, or injected into the flow stream from elsewhere like you suggest).

I would have thought given a big enough structure, enough thermally opaque gas (to stop the structure from overheating) and large enough flow rates, this would be possible... but apparently it isn't.
 
  • #18
Usarian said:
There are a number of projects that have been underway for quite some time ragarding plasma propulsion. My favorite is being developed by AdAstra, based in Texas and Costa Rica and is called VASIMR. It just recently received an increase in funding from NASA.

http://www.adastrarocket.com/vasimr.html [Broken]

It contains the plasma with magnetic fields and heats it with RF and lasers.

This project is a plasma rocket, but there is plasma turbine project somewhere out there as well.

Usarian

Holy crap that's so cool. How do they stop the plasma from melting everything??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Qaiphyx said:
Holy crap that's so cool. How do they stop the plasma from melting everything??
The plasma is confined by a magnetic field, and the charged particles (ions and electrons) are kept away from the solid walls by the magnetic pressure (it's actually a little more complicated than that statement).
 
  • #20
I think the way where going at fussion is wrong yah the SUN use massive amount of heat and pressure to initiate fusion but its really is a pain to do it on Earth so why not work on lowering the activation energy to fuse the two nuclei so that you do not need to constrain the massive temps that you have to input to reach fusion?
 
  • #21
Astronuc said:
The plasma is confined by a magnetic field, and the charged particles (ions and electrons) are kept away from the solid walls by the magnetic pressure (it's actually a little more complicated than that statement).

Edit: whoops, misread your answer. What is magnetic pressure?

Edit again:
k found it

Magnetic Pressure is an energy density associated with the magnetic field. It is identical to any other physical pressure except that it is carried by the magnetic field rather than (in the case of gas) kinetic energy of the gas molecules. Interplay between magnetic pressure and ordinary gas pressure is important to both the fields of magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics. Any magnetic field has an associated pressure that is contained by the boundary conditions on the field, and a gradient in field strength causes a force due to the magnetic pressure gradient; this force is called the magnetic pressure force.


How exactly do they create magnetic pressure? I don't understand that.


also in this diagram
vasimr.jpg


It talks about "Cold plasma"

What is that?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Marcwhydothe said:
I think the way where going at fussion is wrong yah the SUN use massive amount of heat and pressure to initiate fusion but its really is a pain to do it on Earth so why not work on lowering the activation energy to fuse the two nuclei so that you do not need to constrain the massive temps that you have to input to reach fusion?
Because one cannot alter to Coulomb field of the nuclei.


The 'activation' energy is simply the need to overcome the Coulomb repulsion of two positively charged nuclei, and one cannot alter the charge on the nucleus - easily. There is some thought of using negatively charged muons in place of electrons to get two D nuclei sufficiently close to fuse (muon-catalyzed DD fusion). The problem with that approach is that the lifetime of the muon is 2.20 microseconds.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Qaiphyx said:
Magnetic Pressure is an energy density associated with the magnetic field. It is identical to any other physical pressure except that it is carried by the magnetic field rather than (in the case of gas) kinetic energy of the gas molecules. Interplay between magnetic pressure and ordinary gas pressure is important to both the fields of magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics. Any magnetic field has an associated pressure that is contained by the boundary conditions on the field, and a gradient in field strength causes a force due to the magnetic pressure gradient; this force is called the magnetic pressure force.


How exactly do they create magnetic pressure? I don't understand that.
One has to understand the motion of ions/electrons in the magnetic field.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/maspec.html#c2

also in this diagram
vasimr.jpg


It talks about "Cold plasma"

What is that?
Probably barely ionized, or the ion temperature is well below the electron temperature. I'd have to read the specs in order to provide a definitive statement.
 
  • #24
Astronuc said:
One has to understand the motion of ions/electrons in the magnetic field.

Isnt the modern way of looking at electrical repulsion this:
" forces are transmited through particles"
If the electrical force is based on the transmition of a particle AN interuption in this transmision to make fusion would that be possible.
( of course I have No idea how you would about that)
Ok i know this is out there but do you think that the speed of the the nuclei at the massive temeperatures required opposes the transimition of force and because of the changing distance due to temperature become more and more "THE TRANSMISION OF THE FORCE DOES NOT OCCUR? AND THEREFORE A SELECT FEW FUSE?"
hmm
 
  • #26
A chemical reaction is a process that always results in the interconversion of chemical substances.[1] The substance or substances initially involved in a chemical reaction are called reactants. Chemical reactions are usually characterized by a chemical change, and they yield one or more products which are, in general, different from the reactants. Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds, although the general concept of a chemical reaction, in particular the notion of a chemical equation, is applicable to transformations of elementary particles, AS WELL AS NUCLEAR.



In chemistry, activation energy, also called threshold energy, is a term introduced in 1889 by Svante Arrhenius that is defined as the energy that must be overcome in order for a chemical reaction to occur. Activation energy may otherwise be denoted as the minimum energy necessary for a specific chemical reaction to occur. The activation energy of a reaction is usually denoted by Ea, and given in units of kilojoules per mole.


By definition there is an activation energy isn't there? PLus doesn't it make it easier to denote the energy required for successful fusion of nuclei asthe activation energy
 
  • #27
Marcwhydothe said:
Isnt the modern way of looking at electrical repulsion this:
" forces are transmited through particles"
If the electrical force is based on the transmition of a particle AN interuption in this transmision to make fusion would that be possible.
( of course I have No idea how you would about that)
Ok i know this is out there but do you think that the speed of the the nuclei at the massive temeperatures required opposes the transimition of force and because of the changing distance due to temperature become more and more "THE TRANSMISION OF THE FORCE DOES NOT OCCUR? AND THEREFORE A SELECT FEW FUSE?"
hmm
I don't believe the electric field is due to exchange of a particle in the way gluons are considered the exchange particles for the color force of quarks.

In nuclear fusion, the objective is to get the two nuclei to 'fuse' into a composite nucleus which restructures very rapidly before breaking apart again (to put it crudely). The number of nucleons and charge is preserved (along with total energy and momentum).

The temperature is simply a manifestation of the kinetic energy of the ions (nuclei), and that kinetic energy is needed to overcome the coulomb repulsion to get the nuclei sufficiently close so that nuclear forces can operate.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Astronuc said:
I don't believe the electric field is due to exchange of a particle in the way gluons are considered the exchange particles for the color force of quarks.

In fact, they are, but it doesn't matter in this context, the classical picture is entirely adequate. The classical picture is obtained by considering the virtual-photon exchanges in the high-number/low energy limit (and is actually a pain!).

As Astronuc said: we can consider the electrostatic interaction between two nucleae as completely classical, and it is essentially impossible, in "reasonable" circumstances, to try to change that.

What is obtained by going to high temperatures, is simply that the kinetic energy of the nucleae is high enough (through thermal motion) so that they can overcome the potential barrier. The heating doesn't change the electrostatic repulsion, it simply gives more energy to the nucleae to overcome it. As astronuc stated here:

The temperature is simply a manifestation of the kinetic energy of the ions (nuclei), and that kinetic energy is needed to overcome the coulomb repulsion to get the nuclei sufficiently close so that nuclear forces can operate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
In fact, they are, but it doesn't matter in this context, the classical picture is entirely adequate. The classical picture is obtained by considering the virtual-photon exchanges in the high-number/low energy limit (and is actually a pain!).

Ah yes thanks for pointing our that flaw in my idea excellent kinetic energy doesn't prevent it it just overcomes it.

?"But I wonder is it possible to prevent transimition of forces?"
 
  • #30
Astronuc said:
I don't believe the electric field is due to exchange of a particle in the way gluons are considered the exchange particles for the color force of quarks.
I stand corrected as vanesch pointed out aove.

The same question actually came up in another thread to which humanino provided a good response:
Photon as electrical force carrier
 

1. What is a thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant?

A thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant is a type of power generation system that uses nuclear fusion reactions to produce electricity. It involves the use of a plasma, a state of matter consisting of highly charged particles, as the fuel source for the fusion reactions.

2. How does a thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant work?

In a thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant, a plasma is heated to extremely high temperatures using powerful magnets and lasers. This causes the particles to collide and fuse, releasing large amounts of energy. The energy is then used to heat water and produce steam, which drives a turbine to generate electricity.

3. What are the advantages of a thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant?

One of the main advantages of a thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant is that it produces clean energy without emitting greenhouse gases or other pollutants. It also has a virtually unlimited fuel supply, as it uses hydrogen isotopes found in seawater. Additionally, it has the potential to produce large amounts of energy, making it a promising solution for meeting future energy demands.

4. What are the challenges of developing a thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant?

One of the biggest challenges of developing a thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant is the extremely high temperatures and pressures required for the fusion reactions to occur. This requires advanced technologies and materials that can withstand these extreme conditions. Additionally, the process of controlling and sustaining the plasma is still being researched and developed.

5. Is a thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplant safe?

While there are risks associated with any type of nuclear technology, researchers and engineers are working to design and implement safety measures in thermonuclear plasma turbine powerplants. These include using multiple layers of containment and emergency shutdown systems. Additionally, the fuel used in these powerplants is not radioactive, reducing the risk of nuclear accidents and long-term storage of radioactive waste.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
513
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top