Questions Regarding Nuclear Fusion

Hello there physicists! I am here to ask a few straightforward questions regarding nuclear fusion accomplished here on Earth.

Question 1: How does a magnetic field contain the heat produced by nuclear fusion in the reactor? If we look at the example of Deuterium fusing with Tritium, a high energy nuerton is release with an ample amount of energy. I assume this energy is automatically transferred to heat. In order for the heat to be contained (and not incinerate absolutely everything that surrounds it), it would have to energize ions. Am I correct in saying that the heat is contained through fast moving ions that are held back with the magnetic field? If I am, then, what happens to the neutrons?(Yes, I know it was a series of questions).

Question 2: Why is the fusion process not sustainable on it's own? What I mean here is, if we were to simply bring the temperature high enough to start the fusion process, why then, could it not sustain itself and continue indefinitely so long as we supply the fuel (just like the Sun)? This arises from the fact that the current process of fusion established in the Tokamak produces less energy than the energy required to keep the fusion process going.

Question 3: Why is cold fusion considered "impractical?"

Thank you very much to all those who answer these questions. I greatly appreciate it!
 
Sorry about that. I didn't word that correctly. What was meant to be said was "a high energy neutron is released ALONG with an ample amount of energy." In other words, a neutron is released and so is an x amount of energy. Sorry again.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,554
4,267
Question 1: How does a magnetic field contain the heat produced by nuclear fusion in the reactor? If we look at the example of Deuterium fusing with Tritium, a high energy nuerton is release with an ample amount of energy. I assume this energy is automatically transferred to heat. In order for the heat to be contained (and not incinerate absolutely everything that surrounds it), it would have to energize ions. Am I correct in saying that the heat is contained through fast moving ions that are held back with the magnetic field? If I am, then, what happens to the neutrons?(Yes, I know it was a series of questions).
Heat is simply the motion of particles in a material. The charged particles that are being contained are moving very fast, and hence have alot of heat. They are kept that way via magnetic fields keeping them from impacting the walls of the reactor. The neutrons released are not charged and do not interact with the magnetic fields, so they pass right through and are caught by the shielding. When this happens they collide with the atoms in the shielding and transfer their kinetic energy into it, heating the material up.

Question 2: Why is the fusion process not sustainable on it's own? What I mean here is, if we were to simply bring the temperature high enough to start the fusion process, why then, could it not sustain itself and continue indefinitely so long as we supply the fuel (just like the Sun)? This arises from the fact that the current process of fusion established in the Tokamak produces less energy than the energy required to keep the fusion process going.
The magnetic confinement is not perfect. At such a high temperature and pressure combination many particles simply "leak" out of the containment fields and are lost. In addition, the plasma itself is usually used to generate magnetic fields to assist in confinement. The plasma runs into problems called instabilities that cause the plasma to be disrupted and unable to confine itself. So we can initially get the temperature up and the confinement up to where fusion is occuring, but very quickly the plasma becomes unstable and we lose part of the confinement.

All of this is before we even look at efficiencies in converting the generated power from the reactions into electrical power.

Question 3: Why is cold fusion considered "impractical?"
It is considered impossible, not impractical. Quite simply, all claims of cold fusion seem to violate the laws of nature. I will not go into details, as this subject is against PF rules.
 
Heat is simply the motion of particles in a material. The charged particles that are being contained are moving very fast, and hence have alot of heat. They are kept that way via magnetic fields keeping them from impacting the walls of the reactor. The neutrons released are not charged and do not interact with the magnetic fields, so they pass right through and are caught by the shielding. When this happens they collide with the atoms in the shielding and transfer their kinetic energy into it, heating the material up.



The magnetic confinement is not perfect. At such a high temperature and pressure combination many particles simply "leak" out of the containment fields and are lost. In addition, the plasma itself is usually used to generate magnetic fields to assist in confinement. The plasma runs into problems called instabilities that cause the plasma to be disrupted and unable to confine itself. So we can initially get the temperature up and the confinement up to where fusion is occuring, but very quickly the plasma becomes unstable and we lose part of the confinement.

All of this is before we even look at efficiencies in converting the generated power from the reactions into electrical power.



It is considered impossible, not impractical. Quite simply, all claims of cold fusion seem to violate the laws of nature. I will not go into details, as this subject is against PF rules.
^^For the above response...I hate the word impossible. I don't see why it can't be done. Maybe not with today's technology but who knows what the future will hold. Also, why is it against PF rules? Are they that high and mighty of themselves that they feel they can simply declare something as unfit to speak of? If that is the case of this forum, I do not wish to be a part of it. Many great ideas have been deemed silly and "impossible" at the time they were put forth, yet, like Quantum Mechanics, they are true no matter how unbelievable.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,554
4,267
^^For the above response...I hate the word impossible. I don't see why it can't be done. Maybe not with today's technology but who knows what the future will hold. Also, why is it against PF rules? Are they that high and mighty of themselves that they feel they can simply declare something as unfit to speak of? If that is the case of this forum, I do not wish to be a part of it. Many great ideas have been deemed silly and "impossible" at the time they were put forth, yet, like Quantum Mechanics, they are true no matter how unbelievable.
Then you should leave. It is against PF rules because it does not agree with current mainstream science. As that is what this forum is for, anything else does not belong. If it should turn out that it does work then it will be allowed, however currently it does not. This isn't because we are "too high and mighty" it is to avoid countless arguments over a great many crackpot ideas that have been shown to violate the laws of nature and do not work.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,546
1,668
^^For the above response...I hate the word impossible. I don't see why it can't be done. Maybe not with today's technology but who knows what the future will hold. Also, why is it against PF rules? Are they that high and mighty of themselves that they feel they can simply declare something as unfit to speak of? If that is the case of this forum, I do not wish to be a part of it. Many great ideas have been deemed silly and "impossible" at the time they were put forth, yet, like Quantum Mechanics, they are true no matter how unbelievable.
Cold fusion has not been demonstrated, and previous claims of cold fusion have been discredited. The topic generally attracts crackpots and nonsense, therefore we have banned it as a topic of discussion.

As Drakkith indicated, the majority (~80) of the energy in d+t fusion is carried off by the neutron. It interacts with and heats the first wall. That thermal energy could conceivably be converted into electrical energy by various thermo-mechanical conversion cycles. However, the desire is to use direct conversion as much as possible in order to maximize efficiency.

Besides the loss of energy from neutrons, the plasma radiates energy from cyclotron radiation, brehmstrahlung and recombination of ions with electrons.

The current challenge for magnetic confinement is to improve stability and increase confinement times in order to produce more energy than consumed.
 
Cold fusion has not been demonstrated, and previous claims of cold fusion have been discredited. The topic generally attracts crackpots and nonsense, therefore we have banned it as a topic of discussion.

As Drakkith indicated, the majority (~80) of the energy in d+t fusion is carried off by the neutron. It interacts with and heats the first wall. That thermal energy could conceivably be converted into electrical energy by various thermo-mechanical conversion cycles. However, the desire is to use direct conversion as much as possible in order to maximize efficiency.

Besides the loss of energy from neutrons, the plasma radiates energy from cyclotron radiation, brehmstrahlung and recombination of ions with electrons.

The current challenge for magnetic confinement is to improve stability and increase confinement times in order to produce more energy than consumed.
Say that it becomes possible in the future. What would you say then? I am not suggesting that it is by any means a great area to spend money and resources on, but, suggesting that it is impossible limits the creativity of the mind. I personally hate the word. It clouds the minds of many whom try to solve the simplest problems in complex ways just because there is a barrier stopping them from thinking outside their own realm of knowledge.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,546
1,668
Say that it becomes possible in the future. What would you say then?
Then we would allow discussion of cold fusion.
I am not suggesting that it is by any means a great area to spend money and resources on, but, suggesting that it is impossible limits the creativity of the mind. I personally hate the word. It clouds the minds of many whom try to solve the simplest problems in complex ways just because there is a barrier stopping them from thinking outside their own realm of knowledge.
Anything can be imagined to be possible, especially in fiction. We do not permit discussion of overly speculative topics at PF. There are many other sites that do.
 

jim hardy

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
Dearly Missed
9,813
4,866
""There are many other sites that do. ""

http://www.fusor.net/

is a site for cold fusion hobbyists.

you might find discussions there.

old jim
 

Morbius

Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
5
Hello there physicists! I am here to ask a few straightforward questions regarding nuclear fusion accomplished here on Earth.

Question 1: How does a magnetic field contain the heat produced by nuclear fusion in the reactor?
Suppose we have D-T fusion. The energy of the reaction 17.6 MeV / reaction ends up as the kinetic energy of the product He4 ( 3.5 MeV ) and the product neutron ( 14.1 MeV ). The He4 is an ion and charged, so the magnetic field traps it. The neutron is not trapped by the magnetic field.
Question 2: Why is the fusion process not sustainable on it's own? What I mean here is, if we were to simply bring the temperature high enough to start the fusion process, why then, could it not sustain itself and continue indefinitely so long as we supply the fuel (just like the Sun)? This arises from the fact that the current process of fusion established in the Tokamak produces less energy than the energy required to keep the fusion process going.
In order to keep the reaction going, you have to trap the energy produced. You essentially have no hope of trapping that high energy neutron. At present, however, we can't even trap the He4. Inertial confinement fusion hasn't produced a big enough plasma to trap the He4 alpha particle. It is hoped that NIF will change that. In magnetic fusion, the He4 is trapped, but magnetic fusion plasmas have so many instabilities, that they fall apart.
Question 3: Why is cold fusion considered "impractical?"
Because cold fusion doesn't exist!!! It was all a big mistake by a couple of chemists.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Suppose we have D-T fusion. The energy of the reaction 17.6 MeV / reaction ends up as the kinetic energy of the product He4 ( 3.5 MeV ) and the product neutron ( 14.1 MeV ). The He4 is an ion and charged, so the magnetic field traps it. The neutron is not trapped by the magnetic field.


In order to keep the reaction going, you have to trap the energy produced. You essentially have no hope of trapping that high energy neutron. At present, however, we can't even trap the He4. Inertial confinement fusion hasn't produced a big enough plasma to trap the He4 alpha particle. It is hoped that NIF will change that. In magnetic fusion, the He4 is trapped, but magnetic fusion plasmas have so many instabilities, that they fall apart.

Because cold fusion doesn't exist!!! It was all a big mistake by a couple of chemists.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Thank you very much for your response. Honestly, question 2 was the most important for me. I don't care too much for cold fusion as I know about the chemists you speak of. I just don't like it when people place so much certainty on a field we know so little about. We live in a wonderful world full of surprise and excitement. When I think of physics, it reminds of the stories I used to read as a child where there were extraordinary things, aliens, monster, etc. I loved it. Physics is my storybook at my current age. It is one of the few things that lets my imagination run wild. I don't wish to place a limit on my creativity, that is all. Anyone can say that it can't be done. It takes a man with courage and determination to suggest otherwise when all others laugh. Please don't take my response as ignorance. I know very little with respects to nuclear physics and I have no expert opinion in the subject, I just would like to suggest people keep an open mind. Thank you again!
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,554
4,267
""There are many other sites that do. ""

http://www.fusor.net/

is a site for cold fusion hobbyists.

you might find discussions there.

old jim
That is NOT cold fusion. It is a proven way of doing fusion on a tabletop scale. The fusor has commercial uses as a neutron source, but unless some kind of crazy breakthrough comes along it will never provide anywhere close to breakeven power.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,554
4,267
I know very little with respects to nuclear physics and I have no expert opinion in the subject, I just would like to suggest people keep an open mind. Thank you again!
And you think that labeling things as impossible is close minded? It is necessary! It's not even a choice! The laws of nature require us to label many things as being impossible. Not because anyone is close minded, but because if they weren't labeled that then untold thousands of people would be working in vain on something that will absolutely never see the light of day. I suggest to you that you learn real science before suggesting that anyone keep an open mind on a subject that effectively was an error or mistake in the first place.
 

jim hardy

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
Dearly Missed
9,813
4,866
""That is NOT cold fusion. It is a proven way of doing fusion on a tabletop scale. The fusor has commercial uses as a neutron source, but unless some kind of crazy breakthrough comes along it will never provide anywhere close to breakeven power.""

that's why i so carefully chose my words. I suppose same could be said of hot fusion, though.

To people with perhaps an "excess of imagination" like myself and the OP it's a delightful site.
Farnsworth's background as a practical vacuum tube designer made him naturally look to the electric field for confinement rather than magnetic. You dont need big wires to make a stout electric field.
And if you read his patents you'll see Farnsworth was a master at the highfalutin' math for electric fields.
If you ever pass through SE Idaho be sure to stop in Rigby, his hometown, and see the little Farnsworth museum . It's full of hand made vacuum tubes from the mid 20th century.

no discussion of cold fusion here.

old jim
 
103
0
Course when the earth was flat and the sun went round it any suggestion that this might not be the true state of affairs would have been vigorously derided by the authorities of the day and the author of such fantastic untruths would have met a grizzly demiseo:)
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,554
4,267
that's why i so carefully chose my words. I suppose same could be said of hot fusion, though.
What do you mean?

To people with perhaps an "excess of imagination" like myself and the OP it's a delightful site.
I don't see how you consider this an "excess of imagination". I myself am trying to build a fusor at home. It's just really hard for someone with no hands on experience with any of the concepts behind it.

If you ever pass through SE Idaho be sure to stop in Rigby, his hometown, and see the little Farnsworth museum . It's full of hand made vacuum tubes from the mid 20th century.

no discussion of cold fusion here.

old jim
Really? If I'm ever up there I'll be sure to stop by, I'm sure I'd enjoy it alot.
 

jim hardy

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
Dearly Missed
9,813
4,866
What do you mean?

i meant - hot fusion isn't making any electricity either. And, well, i wanted to not sound like a commercial for the site.
I didn't quite know how to take your statement about 'practical...tabletop fusion...' whether you were dismissing it or pointing that fact out.
i am aspergers positive so you have to be blunt with me.

I don't see how you consider this an "excess of imagination". I myself am trying to build a fusor at home. It's just really hard for someone with no hands on experience with any of the concepts behind it.
Still it's a hobby site.
Not to disrespect hobbyists for after all they are responsible for most innovation.
They love what they are doing and will pour their souls into their avocation. Einstein, Wright Bros, Lindbergh and Steve Jobs all had day jobs..

Really? If I'm ever up there I'll be sure to stop by, I'm sure I'd enjoy it alot.
Get your National Parks map.. It's almost halfway between West Yellowstone and Craters of the Moon.
Near Craters of the Moon is Arco Idaho and the expeimental breeder reactor that ran in 1950s. Another worthwhile visit.
A local eatery features the "Atomic Burger" in honor of Arco's being first civilian use of nuclear generated electricity.


Best of luck with your fusor.
Mine is just a daydream and some parts in a box.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,554
4,267
i meant - hot fusion isn't making any electricity either. And, well, i wanted to not sound like a commercial for the site.
I didn't quite know how to take your statement about 'practical...tabletop fusion...' whether you were dismissing it or pointing that fact out.
i am aspergers positive so you have to be blunt with me.
I mean that a fusor will not be producing electricity in its current form. Either shielding the grids or removing them is required in order to reduce the losses incurred by the grid. You are correct in that magnetic confinement and inertial confinement have yet to produce power, however both of those have shown extensive work and improvement and could be said to be technically feasible. A standard fusor is not. Unless you just want a small device capable of producing neutrons.



Still it's a hobby site.
Not to disrespect hobbyists for after all they are responsible for most innovation.
They love what they are doing and will pour their souls into their avocation. Einstein, Wright Bros, Lindbergh and Steve Jobs all had day jobs..
I have no idea what your getting at. Where did you get any of this from us saying cold fusion isn't possible?


A local eatery features the "Atomic Burger" in honor of Arco's being first civilian use of nuclear generated electricity.


Best of luck with your fusor.
Mine is just a daydream and some parts in a box.
Nice! I'll have to remember to eat there one day. My fusor is some parts in my closet at the moment lol. Maybe one day...
 

jim hardy

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
Dearly Missed
9,813
4,866
""Still it's a hobby site.
Not to disrespect hobbyists for after all they are responsible for most innovation.
They love what they are doing and will pour their souls into their avocation. Einstein, Wright Bros, Lindbergh and Steve Jobs all had day jobs.. ""

I have no idea what your getting at. Where did you get any of this from us saying cold fusion isn't possible?
i guess i'd lumped cold fusion hobbyists and fusor hobbyists together because they're both outside the mainstream research community......

as you observed they are quite different processes.

Direct collection of charge from a fusor could be that crazy breakthrough.


old jim
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,554
4,267

jim hardy

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
Dearly Missed
9,813
4,866
What do you mean? Breakthrough for what?
from your earlier post -

""The fusor has commercial uses as a neutron source, but unless some kind of crazy breakthrough comes along it will never provide anywhere close to breakeven power.""

the fused nuclei should be highly energetic, like mev,
if they could be collected as a small current at preposterously high voltage
the product V X I would be significant

i mention more in jest than any seriousness that a Tesla coil run backwards might be an approach.
But we're getting into Doc Brown and Flux Capacitor realm here, so i'll save my ramblings for a science fiction thread.

old jim
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,554
4,267
Well, the problem with a fusor is that many of the ions or electrons will collide with the grid and be lost. (In addition to causing it to deteriorate over time) It just isn't possible to hit breakeven with a standard grid in a fusor. That is why several other things are being tried, such as the polywell. The polywell is similar to a fusor, except that the grid is magnetically shielded so that the electrons are confined in the middle and any that leak out of the confinement are attracted to the positive voltage of the grid and re-enter instead of simply being lost. The magnets confine the electrons and keep them from impacting the grid. That to me is the kind of "breakthrough" that might make a fusor work. Even if it isn't called a fusor anymore.

Edit: It looks like you are proposing a power generation method known as Direct Conversion, where high velocity positive ions are slowed down and their energy is converted directly to electricity instead of being converted to heat and then to electricity.
 

cmb

733
9
Well, the problem with a fusor is that many of the ions or electrons will collide with the grid and be lost.
That's one of the problems, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it is the most significant problem.

The ions form visible ion channels in the most energetically favourable regions of the e-field (between the grid wires). Those ion channels will undergo thermalisation (up and down scattering) and so some will be able to make it to the grounded shell, and collide with the shell where they generate secondary electrons, causing more ionisation at the ends of the beams, causing more ions in those particular ion channels. There is a self-generating nature to ions in the beam channels that miss the grids.

Ions formed elsewhere that do go on to strike the grid are short-lived and do not go on to generate further ions.

The main loss appears to be electrons - albeit from the grid wires. A fusor is a big 'discharge lamp' (then 'thermionic diode' once the grid heats up enough), and it is allowing (rather than blocking) electron current flow from the cathode to the grounded anode shell. It is a continuous current dump through a diode. This would appear to be the biggest source of energy loss.

Farnsworth's first designs (and subsequently Elmore-Tuck-Watson, design) worked off his observations of his electronic TV that electrons could be caused to multi-pact centrally. So the original fusor design was to generate a cloud of electrons which attracted the ions in. It didn't generate fusion. Nor did the ETW design (double potential well, no grid). Nor has Bussard's 'Polywell' yet reported any evidence of 'convergence' fusion*. Nor did LANL's Penning Trap fusion idea. Clearly, if you use electrons to pull in ions, it is like using a kid's toy crane to lift up a shipping container - it's not the shipping container that moves!!

*(the sum total of publically reported fusion in the Bussard Polywell is 3 clicks on a neutron detector - a thorough analysis of the origin of which has not been published)

The 'fusor' didn't start emitting neutrons until Hirsch came along and suggested using a physical grid to prove the convergence concept worked at all. And, actually, it doesn't anyway (!) because the fusions in a fusor actually come mainly from the fast ions colliding with the background neutral gases. The number of fast-fast ion collisions in a fusor is a tiny %.

So removal of the central grid of a fusor appears (to me, at least, though the 'intuitive' conclusion that the grid is 'the problem' seems very well entrenched now) does not appear to either a) be a route to avoiding all but a small %age of the losses, b) be possible anyway.
 

Related Threads for: Questions Regarding Nuclear Fusion

  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
616
  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
752
  • Posted
Replies
20
Views
11K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top