Could Induced Fission Be Achieved by Combining Proton and Electron Beams?

[jlefevre76]

If you set up a proton beam, intersected the proton beam with an electron beam, and made sure the electron beam (or possibly the proton beam) was high enough energy to compensate for the missing electron anti-neutrino, could you produce a neutron beam?

Could the neutron beam then be used to induce fission in U235 or some other fissile material (or possible a non-fissile material)?

I've heard "cross sections" of particles make it difficult to produce collisions, so I'm wondering how feasible of an idea this would be. (Statistically, would they combine often enough to make it worth it in terms of energy released?) I know induced fission is physically possible, however, would you get a greater amount of energy from the fission than energy required to generate the fission when all variables are then accounted for? (I'm guessing if that were the case, we'd already have applications for it.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

I've drawn a figure to help describe the basic idea, please see the attached file.

 

[anorlunda]

This article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source. discusses ways to generate neutrons including accelerators.

A neutron source is a required part of every reactor to kick things off. The chain reaction is the source thereafter.

 

[jlefevre76]

This article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source. discusses ways to generate neutrons including accelerators.

A neutron source is a required part of every reactor to kick things off. The chain reaction is the source thereafter.

Understood, every nuclear reactor, as I understand, uses reactor grade uranium (higher U235 to U238 ratio). Rods of the reactor grade uranium are placed in graphite sleeves to act as a moderator (allows transmission of the neutrons from rod to rod). In the case of nuclear reactors, the uranium itself is a source of neutrons. Is that not correct? In the case of a nuclear reactor, we actually don't want a "chain reaction" if you mean chain reaction in the way it's usually used.

 

[anorlunda]

Understood, every nuclear reactor, as I understand, uses reactor grade uranium (higher U235 to U238 ratio). Rods of the reactor grade uranium are placed in graphite sleeves to act as a moderator (allows transmission of the neutrons from rod to rod). In the case of nuclear reactors, the uranium itself is a source of neutrons. Is that not correct? In the case of a nuclear reactor, we actually don't want a "chain reaction" if you mean chain reaction in the way it's usually used.

No, that is substantially wrong in the details. Try reading this first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor#Fission

 

[jlefevre76]

Surely they have to distinguish them by some means (they are two very different physical processes caused by varying rates of the reaction, as reactor grade uranium will contain 3-5% U235, and weapons grade 20-80%, according to Wikipedia). Perhaps runaway chain reaction versus controlled chain reaction? Subcritical versus supercritical might be an appropriate distinction (the article seems to indicate).

In either case, this is honestly the first time I've heard a nuclear reactor process to be called a "chain reaction." Technically, it is, I wasn't disagreeing with that point, I've only ever heard "chain reaction" used in the context of nuclear weapons.

 

[anorlunda]

The question has been answered. Thread closed.