Giant nuclear powered combustion engine

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the feasibility of a nuclear-powered piston engine, specifically contrasting it with Project ORION, which utilizes nuclear explosions for propulsion. Dr. Gregory Greenman asserts that a nuclear piston engine is impractical due to the extreme heat and energy of nuclear explosions, which would vaporize any containment structure. The conversation also references Project Pacer, which employs nuclear explosions to power turbines, suggesting that while nuclear-powered reciprocating engines have not been theorized, they could theoretically exist in a modified form.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear propulsion concepts, specifically Project ORION.
  • Familiarity with thermodynamic principles related to heat engines.
  • Knowledge of nuclear explosion mechanics and containment challenges.
  • Awareness of turbine efficiency compared to piston engines in power generation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the engineering principles behind Project ORION and its propulsion methods.
  • Explore the design and operational mechanics of Project Pacer and its use of nuclear explosions.
  • Investigate the properties and potential applications of advanced materials like carbon-carbon in high-temperature environments.
  • Study the theoretical frameworks for electromagnetic containment of nuclear reactions.
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, physicists, and science fiction writers interested in advanced propulsion systems and nuclear engineering concepts.

Antiphon
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
4
Has enyone (in the realm of fiction even) proposed making an enourmous
piston engine that would use nuclear weapons instead of atomized
hydrocarbons? (Sure, it would have to be BIG. But its possible, no?)
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
You could consider Project ORION a nuclear-piston engine, without the engine-proper. :-p
 
Antiphon said:
Has enyone (in the realm of fiction even) proposed making an enourmous
piston engine that would use nuclear weapons instead of atomized
hydrocarbons? (Sure, it would have to be BIG. But its possible, no?)

Antiphon,

With the exception of Project ORION - in which a spacecraft is propelled
by ejecting a nuclear weapon and when the weapon exploded some distance
away and some momentum recovered by a big "pusher plate" - I would say
that a nuclear piston engine is NOT possible.

The problem is that any nuclear explosion; even the smallest that we could
ever make; is much too large and hot to contain with any kind of piston
and cylinder as in an engine.

In ORION, one only recovers a portion of the energy - which saves the ship.

The "first wall" of any type of piston engine is going to be vaporized
when it sees the nuclear device explode. [ It's a tough enough job to
consruct the "first wall" for a BB-sized fusion capsule. ]

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Morbius said:
The "first wall" of any type of piston engine is going to be vaporized when it sees the nuclear device explode.
Yet the Orion pusher plate would not be vaporized.
 
Project Pacer fitted with piston engines instead of turbines

Antiphon said:
Has enyone (in the realm of fiction even) proposed making an enourmous piston engine that would use nuclear weapons instead of atomized hydrocarbons?
I would call it a reciprocating heat engine. I suspect the reason why nuclear-powered reciprocating heat engines have not been theorized is that turbines tend to be more efficient. There are designs for nuclear explosions powering turbines. Richard Garwin described one called Project Pacer in his book . That design involved a large excavated cavern lined with steel and fitted with turbines. Water is injected in-between explosions. This helps keep things cool and provides steam for the turbines. Explosions occur once per day. Fusion bombs are used, instead of fission bombs, for greater efficiency. 365 fusion bombs are used per year.

If you could make a fusion-explosion turbine power plant such as this, there seems to be no reason why you could not make a fusion-explosion reciprocating power plant. There would be a difference, though, in that you are thinking of one giant piston, whereas a truer analog of the Project Pacer power plant would be a steel-lined cavity with many small reciprocating steam engines fitted to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what if instead of turbines or pistons couldn't u contain such a blast with an electromagnetic field then as far as heat goes couldn't u use that new metal we discovered called carbon carbon which is supposed to with stand the heat of the sun?
 
Well I suppose you could make a fission-powered piston engine if you use very small amounts of fissile material and an external neutron source to "ignite" it. How to get a very high flux of thermal neutrons that you can turn on and off on demand without using more energy then the engine makes would be a problem though.
 
Even if you could get it to work, wouldn't the amount of energy you'd need to create, move and detonate the nuclear devices severely offset the total efficiency of the whole process?
 
hitssquad said:
Yet the Orion pusher plate would not be vaporized.
With Orion they allowed for some ablation of the pusher plate, but even that was minimized by spraying a thin layer of oil on the plate before each shot.

You can read some details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)"

There are some nice illustrations here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xeni/sets/72157594329917915/"

There is also a book: Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship By George Dyson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Orion was problematic for a number of reasons - mass of a huge number of detonators being one.

Please also note that the thread to which robo warrior responded has a last post of Jul15-05. It is 4 years, 4 months old.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K