Can Iron Fusion Reactors Achieve Controllable States and Optimal Temperatures?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter laketahoe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fusion Iron
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility of achieving controllable states and optimal temperatures in iron fusion reactors. Participants explore theoretical aspects of fusion and fission processes, the energy dynamics involved, and the implications of using iron as a fusion fuel. The conversation includes technical reasoning, conceptual clarifications, and debates over the underlying physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that if iron is the last element to undergo fusion, it could be expected to achieve a controlled state, proposing that adjustments could be made to the fusion process based on the reactor's needs.
  • Others argue that fusing iron requires overcoming significant repulsive forces due to the high number of protons, making it impractical compared to lighter elements like hydrogen or helium.
  • It is noted that iron does not release energy when fused; instead, it consumes energy, which contradicts the idea of using iron in fusion reactors for energy production.
  • Some participants discuss the energy binding curve, suggesting that the energy dynamics for fusing elements around iron are less favorable than for lighter elements.
  • There are claims that the fusion processes occurring in stars do not translate to practical solutions for earthbound reactors, highlighting the complexity of stellar fusion compared to potential terrestrial applications.
  • Participants express confusion and challenge each other's understanding of nuclear processes, particularly regarding the energy required to strip electrons from iron compared to hydrogen.
  • Some contributions reference the temperatures involved in stellar processes and the potential for iron to be a sustainable and containable energy source, though this remains contentious.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the viability of iron fusion and the underlying physics. Disagreements persist regarding the energy dynamics of fusion and the practicality of using iron as a fuel source.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the energy requirements for fusing iron, the definitions of controllable states in fusion reactors, and the dependence on specific conditions for achieving fusion. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations of nuclear processes without definitive resolutions.

laketahoe
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
If iron is the last element to undergo fusion wouldn't it be expected to be at a controlled state. Ie: if the pile wants to go toward Hydrogen, bump up the fusing protons. If it to go beyond the Iron tipping point toward Uranium, adsorb protons. From the Binding Energy Curve, the reactor may be less than 5,000K to 10,000K and be containable. What do you think?? :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that you need to reconsider.

If it takes all these troubles of trying to strip away one electron from H or D, just to get bare nucleus to initiate fusion, imagine trying to strip away twenty six (!) electrons just to get bare iron nucleus! Not only that, you have to over come not just the repulsive force of one proton against another proton (as in the H/D fusion), but instead the repulsive force equivalent to 26 protons against another 26 protons!

Zz.
 
Another point is that Iron does not undergo fusion or fission without a net input of energy. It will not "want" to go towards towards either Hydrogen or Uranium. Fusing Iron will consume energy, not produce it.
 
ZapperZ said:
I think that you need to reconsider.

If it takes all these troubles of trying to strip away one electron from H or D, just to get bare nucleus to initiate fusion, imagine trying to strip away twenty six (!) electrons just to get bare iron nucleus! Not only that, you have to over come not just the repulsive force of one proton against another proton (as in the H/D fusion), but instead the repulsive force equivalent to 26 protons against another 26 protons!

Zz.

This conjecture does not start at H and move up the elements to Fe. The slope of the Energy Binding Chart is flat there and Iron and Isotopes and protons take less energy or more fission depending on the reactor control strategy. One could contemplate down to fuseing Al. or fissing out to Uu to reycle Uranium rods to cool the reactor. ... L
 
laketahoe said:
This conjecture does not start at H and move up the elements to Fe. The slope of the Energy Binding Chart is flat there and Iron and Isotopes and protons take less energy or more fission depending on the reactor control strategy. One could contemplate down to fuseing Al. or fissing out to Uu to reycle Uranium rods to cool the reactor. ... L


I have no idea what you just said here.

Do you know how to calculate simple repulsive forces between, say two charges at +Q, versus two charge, same distance, with each at +26Q?

Do you also know that to fuse, you need BARE nuclei? How much energy do you think you need to strip away all of the electrons in an Fe atom, versus a hydrogen atom?

Zz.
 
Why are you even asking about Iron when physics shows that fusing 2 Iron atoms USES energy. The only reason you get energy from fusion of lighter particles is because their resulting mass after fusing is less than the original masses added together. Fusing 2 iron atoms together results in a higher mass atom than the 2 added together so you have to add energy. There is a reason stars blow the F up when they reach Iron and have nothing lighter left.
 
ZapperZ said:
I have no idea what you just said here.

Do you know how to calculate simple repulsive forces between, say two charges at +Q, versus two charge, same distance, with each at +26Q?

Do you also know that to fuse, you need BARE nuclei? How much energy do you think you need to strip away all of the electrons in an Fe atom, versus a hydrogen atom?

Zz.

This doesn't intend to strip electrons to bare Hydrogen then rebuild it. We start from Al to Fe then Fe to U depending how much is needed to de-energize the Pile. (Sorry that I was away for so long' couldn't help it)
 
loreak said:
Why are you even asking about Iron when physics shows that fusing 2 Iron atoms USES energy. The only reason you get energy from fusion of lighter particles is because their resulting mass after fusing is less than the original masses added together. Fusing 2 iron atoms together results in a higher mass atom than the 2 added together so you have to add energy. There is a reason stars blow the F up when they reach Iron and have nothing lighter left.

This scheme fuses up to Iron and releases energy. We are fusing two Al up to an Ni and Hydrogen. If the pile wants to go unstable add protons, fuse higher than Iron and de-energise the pile.
 
laketahoe said:
This doesn't intend to strip electrons to bare Hydrogen then rebuild it. We start from Al to Fe then Fe to U depending how much is needed to de-energize the Pile. (Sorry that I was away for so long' couldn't help it)


1. You still haven't answered my question on the coulomb repulsion force.

2. Who said anything about stripping hydrogen atom? I'm asking about the energy in striping Fe atom to its bare nucleus.

3. I don't think you have neither a clue on what you are doing, nor are you understanding the responses that you've been given.

One of the things we try to do in this forum is not only to provide responses, but also to try and give you some skills, hints, or ideas so that you yourself can come up with the necessary answers. It is the most effective means of learning that I know of. It is why, for example, I asked you if you know how to calculate the coulomb force between two like charged particles, and even tried to guide you into considering the difference in the magnitude of such a force when one goes from a bare H nucleus to a bare Fe nucleus.

If you don't understand what you were told, ask. Don't continue to try and perpetuate your misunderstanding by ignoring something that is crucial in what you're trying to do.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
laketahoe said:
This scheme fuses up to Iron and releases energy. We are fusing two Al up to an Ni and Hydrogen. If the pile wants to go unstable add protons, fuse higher than Iron and de-energise the pile.
Um - no.
 
  • #11
I'm just amazed that someone would believe that what stellar "engines" of fusion don't accomplish, would be some simple solution here on earth. :rolleyes:
 
  • #12
[PLAIN]http://www.alaskajohn.com/physics/charts/binding_energy.jpg

All the elements that makeup the Earth are from the fusions pile of the stars and seem to be stable at a containable. Iron Fe 56 is around the highest made in a normal star and has the largest MeV. The trick is to use the properties of Fe at the peak thus flattest section of the curve. To go say from H to He, as we do in a Hydrogen explosion, yields 7.0 Mev. However to go from Al to Fe we only get a yeild of 0.3 MeV. On the fission side from say Fe to Xe (Zenon) we get an absorption of energy of -0.3 Mev. The Hydrogen process with its 7.0 MeV is unsustainable, stellar hot, uncontainable and thus unusable as a energy source on Earth. In contrast the Iron range pile is none of the above as exhibited by the temperatures gradients of the Sun from outer part of its corona reaching 15 million K and yet its temperature at the Suns surface to be 5,000 K http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l1/corona.html . It is still a debate that the Sun has a shell of iron and at the surface temperature of 5,000 K. Thes argues that the Iron pile is possibly useable by humans. sustainable, and containable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
laketahoe said:
It is still a debate that the Sun has a shell of iron and at the surface temperature of 5,000 K. Thes argues that the Iron pile is possibly useable by humans. sustainable, and containable.
No - it's not debatable that the sun's surface is Fe. The thunderbolts site is a crackpot site.

It is clear from this post that one doesn't clearly understand nuclear processes such as fusion or fission.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
I'm just baffled by this; how can anyone think something so patently wrong? An amateur with a telescope can refute these claims. For god's sake, you're talking about using the death-knell of a star for the purposes of earthbound fusion with an energy PAYOUT?! This is insane.
 
  • #15
This thread is done.Zz.
 

Similar threads

High School How Does an IEC Fusion Reactor Work?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
How Can Plasma Be Created and Ignited in Toroidal Fusion Reactors?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Is the NERVA Program's Decline a Setback for Nuclear Space Propulsion?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K