Clean energy from Deuterium Tritium


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Clean energy from Deuterium Tritium

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Profile Cheng Fan Soon
Send message
Joined: 3 Oct 05
Posts: 66
Credit: 649,919
RAC: 69
Malaysia
Message 1264003 - Posted: 24 Jul 2012, 8:23:48 UTC
Last modified: 24 Jul 2012, 8:38:45 UTC

Will a simple device like this works?

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,016
RAC: 169
Korea, North
Message 1264098 - Posted: 24 Jul 2012, 14:45:26 UTC - in response to Message 1264003.
Last modified: 24 Jul 2012, 14:45:46 UTC

sounds like a lot of guessing and not a lot of info on how much power needs to be put in to get energy out.

I'm betting the energy input is enormous.

The details on how the energy is to be harnessed is vague as well.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Paul McKirdy
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Dec 11
Posts: 22
Credit: 178,870
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1264126 - Posted: 24 Jul 2012, 21:34:19 UTC - in response to Message 1264003.
Last modified: 24 Jul 2012, 22:31:39 UTC

Here is an example of the Rodin-wound coils I mentioned before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqaI35NCYFs

They actually do over-unity accumulate back EMF and make it available for voltage potential...

I have a couple built myself and have noticed some other interesting signal effects.

Short answer yes, I agree a simple device will work. I could see something like this or the other feeding an armature somehow to boost standard turbine generator outputs safely. But I am severely extrapolating. :) Guilty.
____________
Electrons started spinning, electrons are still spinning and electrons will be spinning tomorrow to the best of our knowledge therefore either change in acceleration is persistent or friction is fractally less than understood.

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1073
Credit: 364,563
RAC: 4,484
United States
Message 1264227 - Posted: 25 Jul 2012, 21:58:11 UTC

If it is putting out more energy than it is consuming it is in effect a perpetual motion machine which I suspect breaks a few laws of physics unless some form of mass is being converted into energy.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1264293 - Posted: 26 Jul 2012, 1:46:10 UTC
Last modified: 26 Jul 2012, 1:50:18 UTC

In my opinion, no it won't work. Not a hope in hell.

Why?

Because your feeding it with A.C.. So as soon as the poles reverse, the plasma will be released. Either way, you don't show any method of generating the plasma in the first place. Secondly, your coils have north and south facing the middle, why would this even contain a plasma? Thirdly, there is no power station on earth could generate the electricity to supply the trillion amps you suggest is needed to power the machine.

I suggest you read this page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
It will teach you a little bit about fusion power.
And this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

John.
____________

betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1744
Credit: 3,581,223
RAC: 8,109
United States
Message 1265389 - Posted: 29 Jul 2012, 0:47:24 UTC - in response to Message 1264227.

If it is putting out more energy than it is consuming it is in effect a perpetual motion machine which I suspect breaks a few laws of physics unless some form of mass is being converted into energy.

Isn't the purpose of this to convert matter to energy?
____________

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1073
Credit: 364,563
RAC: 4,484
United States
Message 1265447 - Posted: 29 Jul 2012, 8:51:28 UTC - in response to Message 1265389.

If it is putting out more energy than it is consuming it is in effect a perpetual motion machine which I suspect breaks a few laws of physics unless some form of mass is being converted into energy.

Isn't the purpose of this to convert matter to energy?

The device shown doesn't indicate any fuel, just energy in and energy out
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1353
Credit: 600,965
RAC: 1,287
Message 1265492 - Posted: 29 Jul 2012, 14:43:31 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jul 2012, 14:51:06 UTC

Here is my question which was meant to be posted yesterday.

Do you need energy in order to produce the same (meaning energy)?

Many processes going on in nature are based on the principle of cyclic processes.

One example of a chemical process in organisms is the breakdown and buildup of a chemical which in order releases energy in the muscles of the body (ADP -> ATP -> ADP, or something like that).

The nuclear fusion process which is going on in the core of the sun is to me not a chemical process however, but rather a process which is related to physics.

Four atoms of hydrogen (or is it half as much?) fuse together into two atoms of helium. The two helium atoms are slightly lighter in weight than the original four atoms of hydrogen - therefore energy is being released as a result. Heavier stars in the universe do it in the same way, but using a mechanism which is even more complex in nature.

From earth we know that hydrogen is an extremely flammable gas when ignited, but this as a result of the existence of air (meaning oxygen). The same can not happen on the sun in the same way, although I would not risk igniting such a fuse if I happened to be on the surface of the sun.

Helium, on the other way, is a special gas (and of course the special name for this I don't find in my dictionary). Hydrogen may be having isotopes, helium apparently not have the same.

So are we dealing with physics here, or is it all just chemistry?

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1073
Credit: 364,563
RAC: 4,484
United States
Message 1265714 - Posted: 30 Jul 2012, 1:16:05 UTC

From my understanding of physics there are two ways to produce useable electric power. One is to convert one form of energy to another, allowing that there will be losses in the process. You can convert heat energy, kinetic energy, light energy, chemical and probably others to electricity directly, or you can burn fuel to create steam to generate electricity and finally you can use either nuclear fission or fusion to convert atoms which in the process generates heat which can then be converted to electricity but in all cases the energy in is at least slightly greater than the energy out.

Solar panels convert solar energy to electricity directly but the efficiency is still rather low and only works while the solar panel is exposed to sunlight.

Hydro-electric powerplants need the kinetic energy potential of falling water to spin turbines which then generate electricity.

Coal or oil or natural gas can be burned to generate heat to make steam which can then be used to spin a turbine which then produces electricity.

Nuclear fission is another way to heat the water as is fusion.

No one has demonstrated a way to hook up a power cable to a cylinder of heavy water and get back more power than was input.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1265751 - Posted: 30 Jul 2012, 3:42:47 UTC
Last modified: 30 Jul 2012, 4:00:00 UTC

Bob,
Everything you just said is almost correct, except the bits about nuclear power. In simple classical mechanics, energy in is equal to energy out. But its not as simple as that with nuclear power.

With nuclear power, you have to think a little bit differently. With fission energy, the atoms themselves are effectively "stored energy". With nuclear fission power, the atomic fuel source, like uranium, has loads of "stored" energy and the energy was "stored" in those uranium atoms when they were created in a star or in the explosion of a star billions of years ago. So in a fission reactor, we are just retrieving the energy that the star stored in the atoms billions of years ago. With a fission reactor, today the energy is effectively free energy, because we don't have to put in any energy to get the energy out. But it does not break the conservation of energy rule because billions of years ago it took a massive amount of energy to create the uranium.

Nuclear fission of heavy elements is, for all intensive purposes, free energy. You don't have to put in any energy to get the energy out. The heavy radioactive elements just decay by themselves. You just have to mine the stuff out of the ground. Only problem with it is that your left with nuclear decay products that are very difficult to deal with. If there was no nasty decay products, right now today your car and your house would have their own nuclear power supply.

Fusion energy is similar. By fusing hydrogen together we create a heavier helium atom, and we get back a massive release of energy in the process. This also does not break the conservation of energy rule because, in theory, the big bang would have originally created the hydrogen atoms, storing the energy in them in the first place.

With both fission and fusion energy, the energy released is in the form of heat. So this always has to be converted to electricity if that's the function of the reactor. Usually this heat is used to turn a turbine which is an electrical generator.

John.
____________

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1073
Credit: 364,563
RAC: 4,484
United States
Message 1266096 - Posted: 31 Jul 2012, 6:31:00 UTC

Than you Johnny, I was trying to keep my explanation as simple as possible.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3400
Credit: 344,918
RAC: 89
Italy
Message 1266122 - Posted: 31 Jul 2012, 9:02:48 UTC
Last modified: 31 Jul 2012, 9:29:10 UTC

Both fusion and fission reactors exploit the Einstein found law energy=rest mass times c squared.
Tullio
And, incidentally, nuclear fusion reactors do not produce directly heat. They produce neutrons of 14 Mev energy, which must be used to heat some water to produce vapor which powers the turbines, a very poor step subject to the laws of thermodynamic (Carnot cycle0.
____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,016
RAC: 169
Korea, North
Message 1266730 - Posted: 2 Aug 2012, 15:51:34 UTC - in response to Message 1266122.

Yes, Nuclear power is basically just a steam turbine engine run from radiation.
This isn't such a great technical breakthrough in technology since we are still boiling water to spin a turbine
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3400
Credit: 344,918
RAC: 89
Italy
Message 1266894 - Posted: 3 Aug 2012, 3:27:54 UTC
Last modified: 3 Aug 2012, 4:02:08 UTC

There was a cartoon in "Nuclear engineering international" showing two engineers watching the building of a Boiling Water Reactor and saying: there must be a simpler way of boiling water! The same could be said today of ITER at Cadarache which has cost so far 15 Billions euros and shall cost 10 more without producing a single watt of electricity, since it is just a "proof of concept" machine.Three other fusion experiments are going on in the USA, DIII-D in San Diego, Alcator C-Mod at MIT and NSTX at Princeton. Total 2012 funding 148 millions US dollars. Is it worth, considering that USA also supports ITER?
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1266924 - Posted: 3 Aug 2012, 5:50:19 UTC - in response to Message 1266894.

There was a cartoon in "Nuclear engineering international" showing two engineers watching the building of a Boiling Water Reactor and saying: there must be a simpler way of boiling water!
Tullio

LOL....That sounds very funny Tullio. If you have that magazine, scan the cartoon and post it. Funny!

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3400
Credit: 344,918
RAC: 89
Italy
Message 1266933 - Posted: 3 Aug 2012, 7:02:36 UTC - in response to Message 1266924.
Last modified: 3 Aug 2012, 7:04:03 UTC

I used to get that magazine at Mondadori, I no longer receive it. Since it published the output of all nuclear reactors in the world in the preceding 12 months, I noticed that the PWR at Trino Vercellese, a Westinghouse design, was not producing any power for three years, I understood that something must have happene there.I was right, but nobody in Italy wrote a line about it. Later, one night at Manarola,Cinque Terre, a retired engineer who had been the safety officer at Trino, befora a bottle of Sciacchetrà wine, told me the whole story. I could write a book about it. Loss of coolant accident, like Three Miles Island.
Tullio
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2347
Credit: 1,160,596
RAC: 184
United States
Message 1266960 - Posted: 3 Aug 2012, 8:33:30 UTC - in response to Message 1266894.

I would think that we don't need fusion reactors. We should focus on getting breeder reactors right. Plutonium is the way to go.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 2950
Credit: 2,306,418
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1266975 - Posted: 3 Aug 2012, 9:15:06 UTC - in response to Message 1266960.

I would think that we don't need fusion reactors. We should focus on getting breeder reactors right. Plutonium is the way to go.

Daddio,
There is a big announcement on the way very soon. Within a few years everything is going to change in the way we generate electricity. We won't need nuclear power any more. We also won't need to burn hydrocarbon's like oil. You will find out in the coming years. Its only just around the corner. Soon!

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3400
Credit: 344,918
RAC: 89
Italy
Message 1267065 - Posted: 3 Aug 2012, 14:21:14 UTC - in response to Message 1266960.
Last modified: 3 Aug 2012, 14:22:46 UTC

I would think that we don't need fusion reactors. We should focus on getting breeder reactors right. Plutonium is the way to go.

Problem is that all breeder fast reactors like Superphénix in France and Dounreay Fast Reactor in UK have been shutdown for safety reasons, and the people of Japan don't want the restarting of the Monju Fast Reactor. Breeders are a folly, this was told to me by Emilio Segrè,one of the scientists who synthetized plutonium for the Nagasaki bomb.It would be more intelligent to burn the 80 tons or more of plutonium existing in nuclear weapons worldwide, mixing it with natural uranium in proven type reactors, Eight kilos of Plutonium are sufficient to make a bomb.
Tullio
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3400
Credit: 344,918
RAC: 89
Italy
Message 1270985 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 0:38:48 UTC
Last modified: 13 Aug 2012, 0:44:49 UTC

On the NYTimes of August 10 I've read that a 82 years old Catholic nun, Sister Megan Rice, has been arrested on the grounds of the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for cutting the fence around it and hanging banners quoting the Bible motto "Beat swords into plowshares".
Her trial will be held in October and, along with two others persons belonging to an antinuclear group, she risks up to 16 years in prison. Brava Megan.
Tullio
____________

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Clean energy from Deuterium Tritium

Copyright © 2014 University of California