Is Beta Positive Decay a Viable Energy Source for Long-Term Power?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the feasibility of using beta positive decay, specifically through the decay of Sodium-22, as a long-term energy source. Participants explore the theoretical implications of using Magnesium-24 to produce Sodium-22 and the subsequent energy release from positron annihilation, considering both the potential energy output and the practical challenges involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes using Magnesium-24 to generate Sodium-22 through proton bombardment, suggesting that the resulting positron annihilation could produce significant energy for electricity generation.
  • Another participant questions the practicality of the proposal, noting the high energy requirement to accelerate protons to 20 MeV and the energy losses associated with the process.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that using superconductive linear accelerators might reduce the energy needed to propel deuterons, potentially making the process more efficient.
  • Some participants emphasize the long-term energy output of 80,000 j/s over 2.6 years as a significant advantage, despite the challenges in energy input and losses.
  • There are repeated assertions that the energy required to accelerate particles to 20 MeV exceeds the energy that could be harvested from the decay process, raising doubts about the viability of the proposed energy source.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the feasibility of using beta positive decay as a viable energy source. While some highlight potential benefits, others strongly contest the practicality due to energy input requirements and losses, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the energy required for proton acceleration and the efficiency of energy recovery from the decay process, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

TWest
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Okay, I have had a idea for some time and I want to see if it will work.

first you get Magnesium 24 launch protons at 20 Mev then a decay happens. Now you have Na22 sodium 22 beta positive decays into a anti electron of 1 Mev with its counter particle they annihilation into 2 gamma rays which produce heat due to electrical resistance now you use that pressure to make electricity. you lose all but 1/20th but you have a battery of 80,000 j/s for 2.6 years or 28 Tj/kg over half life then it halves at a slope but i do not want to calculate that. Mass into energy in a small area you have a long source of energy for robots and stuff.

EQ = ((6.022 x 10^23/22000) = 1 mev = 1mev *( 6.022 x 10^23/22000) * 1..6 10^-19 = 80,000 (j/s) 1/20th, small container
super conducting accelerators-------> decay force ----------> anti-matter annihilation------> Heat or electricity.

a lot of energy in a Small container more than every oil barrel on the world.That is what I was thinking, Is it possible?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
TWest said:
Okay, I have had a idea for some time and I want to see if it will work.

first you get Magnesium 24 launch protons at 20 Mev then a decay happens. Now you have Na22 sodium 22 beta positive decays into a anti electron of 1 Mev with its counter particle they annihilation into 2 gamma rays which produce heat due to electrical resistance now you use that pressure to make electricity. you lose all but 1/20th but you have a battery of 80,000 j/s for 2.6 years or 28 Tj/kg over half life then it halves at a slope but i do not want to calculate that. Mass into energy in a small area you have a long source of energy for robots and stuff.

EQ = ((6.022 x 10^23/22000) = 1 mev = 1mev *( 6.022 x 10^23/22000) * 1..6 10^-19 = 80,000 (j/s) 1/20th, small container
super conducting accelerators-------> decay force ----------> anti-matter annihilation------> Heat or electricity.

a lot of energy in a Small container more than every oil barrel on the world.


That is what I was thinking, Is it possible?
This is not practical considering the energy required to produce 20 MeV protons, and the energy losses from scattered protons.

Mg24(p,p'd)Na22 is not practical.
 
Would you be able to propel the positively charged deutons at 20 mev the energy could be less, due to 30T for little energy due to superconductive linear accelerators.

less energy by my resistance more by magnetic push
1/R=A R is lower A > than Rcu, energy to push it
but still long periods of energy loss 80,000/s isn't bad for long periods like a 2.6 year battery for 1 kg of fuel, 28 Tj.
GJ -------> tj
 
Last edited:
It takes at least 20 MeV of energy to accelerate a particle to 20 MeV. Since you get less energy back than this, it's not a viable source of energy.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
It takes at least 20 MeV of energy to accelerate a particle to 20 MeV. Since you get less energy back than this, it's not a viable source of energy.

its 20 Mev per 1 mev in packet of 1 kg a small amount for a 2.6 yr 80 kj /s or 200Tj for 20 Tj 1 kg enough for a robot or space shuttle

80,000 per second for 2.6 yr is the key. 20 per 1 (6.3*10^23)/(1.6^-19) = Mev Mj = 80 kj/s for 16 Mj/s over 2.6 years in 1 small packet of 1 kg. storage not creation for long distances. EE mass of protons(1/20000)C^2 = (E/dt(1/2 Decay)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
11K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
12K
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K