Deuterium-Tritium fusion is the one satisfying better the Lawson criterion.
Tullio

---

I'm all for deuterium fusion reactors.

mmm Heavy Water reactors me think's not . H3 is different , Deuterium - Tritium is not .

You still have the same problem turning it into H3 , forget doing what the sun does in the first stage and use H3 .

Deuterium is not H3 there atomic weights are different

H1 = 1.008u

H2 Deuterium = 2.01410178u

He3 = 3.0160293u

He = 4.002602u

---

Correct me if I'm wrong by all means .

If you fuse 2 H atoms you get 1 H2 atom

If you fuse 2 h2 atoms you get 1 He atom

The each time doubling the atomic weight

If you fuse 2 H3 atoms you get 1 He and 1 H2 atom

but you have only increased by the weight by 1 H atom and not 2 as would be the case for H2

Therefore the amount of energy needed to fuse the H3 would still yield the same energy but use mot much or even less energy to start it as either using H or H2 would need

H2 is increasing the weight by 2 per atom

Using H3 is splitting and increasing at the same time hence 2 atoms not 1 as in H or H2 . The energy from the fuse is 1 atomic weight and the energy from the fission (splitting) is also 1 atomic weight

---

Correct me again be all means

I believe the energy coming of the fission is a bonus and is not cancelled out when the fusing happens of the He atom

I'm not shore but I also believe less radiation as people think there is none , where Fusion is not Totally nonradioactive

He is a handy gas Bigger Blimps , Yehhhhhh edge of space sky diving here we come yehhhhhh !!

---

You're not taking into account the protons or neutrons that make up an element, and it's atomic weight.
H1 a proton + e
H2 a proton and neutron + e
H3 a proton and 2 neutrons + e
He2 2 protons + 2e (theoretical)
He3 2 protons and 1 neutron + 2e
He4 2 protons and 2 neutrons + 2e
+
Lithium, Beryllium, and Boron, and their isotopes, all can take part in Fusion Reactions, that we know of.
There are a great many possibilities for capitalizing on the energy that Fusion of common elements could produce.
Some people say that it's not a problem of Physics, but rather a problem of Engineering, and Material Science.

I agree with you about the using other elements but there will be limits before it get to dangerous

As for 3He it's the one we find everywhere in space unlimited as for the others Lithium, Beryllium, Boron are metals I don't think there the same .

Hydrogen is a gas and Helium is too ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

I think we will find there is a limit before you get a real Atomic Explosion with the mushroom cloud to boot

---

You're not taking into account the protons or neutrons that make up an element, and it's atomic weight.
H1 a proton + e
H2 a proton and neutron + e
H3 a proton and 2 neutrons + e
He2 2 protons + 2e (theoretical)
He3 2 protons and 1 neutron + 2e
He4 2 protons and 2 neutrons + 2e

I was using the periodic table and googled 3He to get it weight (what's H3) and why add He2 when it's only (theoretical) :-)

Here's periodic table for you


http://www.ptable.com/#Writeup/Wikipedia

---

Extra, or fewer neutrons will most often make a substance more unstable,
which at the same time may make it more prone to a fusion reaction.

Probably why I hear a lot about it , it does make sense as your not trying to use so much power and the by the by-product is reusable in a way , sorta to make Helium seeing as I know of only one place that has a natural source America :)

And you ask a pretty penny for the dam stuff too

---

Thorium-based nuclear power plants will end up with us all dependant on China as that's where most of it is ... Is that a good idea with what there doing in the South China sea ?!!!!

Known high-grade occurrences of Thorium include Australia, India, Norway, the USA and Canada.

World thorium reserves IAEA estimates.
India 21%
Australia 19%
USA 13%

Thank's Jann I wasn't aware we had so much , I'm thinking thou Most of the known reserves are still in China just there Thorium is of the lower grade however they have many more times than there is the high grade ores and Thorium reactors if used to replace all the gas and coal fired ones would still need the Chineese ores in the long run ?

It's from my understanding that China has a lot of rare earth minerals and they extract that, even thorium.
But thorium in China is never the less a scare resource.

China needs a lot of energy plants right now.
The alternative is to import coal from Australia and elsewhere.

It's from my understanding that China has a lot of rare earth minerals and they extract that, even thorium

yes jann that's my understanding too from a conversation on twitter .

However they have a lot of rear earths . still anything that produces a lot of Radiation is a problem .

China will have problems no matter what they do 1.4 billion is way to many people in a small area with India at 1 billion next door and the rest of Asia

---

I'm all for deuterium fusion reactors.

What do you have against the other possible fuel cycles?

Nothing, actually.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Making a dig in a paper I wrote many years ago:

d+t -> 4He + n energy output 17.58 MeV plasma temperature needed 10 keV gain 1800
d+d -> 3He + n energy output 3.27 MeV plasma temperature needed 50 keV gain 70
d+d -> t + p energy output 4.03 MeV plasma temperature needed 50 keV gain 70
d+3He -> 4He + p energy output 18.3 MeV plasma temperature needed 100 keV gain 70

Tullio

---

Making a dig in a paper I wrote many years ago:

d+t -> 4He + n energy output 17.58 MeV plasma temperature needed 10 keV gain 1800
d+d -> 3He + n energy output 3.27 MeV plasma temperature needed 50 keV gain 70
d+d -> t + p energy output 4.03 MeV plasma temperature needed 50 keV gain 70
d+3He -> 4He + p energy output 18.3 MeV plasma temperature needed 100 keV gain 70

does it say how much for just 3He no d ?

Tullio

---

No, and I cannot remember my sources, it was a long time ago. I found other data on an article by Lorenzo Enriques, dated 1978:

6Li+n -> t + 4He + 4.8 MeV
7Li+n -> t + 4He + n -2.47 MeV
d + 3He -> 4He(3.67 MeV) + p(14.67 MeV)
d + t -> 4He(3.52 MeV) + n(14.06 MeV)
Tullio

---

100 keV

How hard is it to get to this temp in terms of energy used ?

there doesn't seem that much difference between d+t and d+3He only the temp from what your saying .

---

Making a dig in a paper I wrote many years ago:

d+t -> 4He + n energy output 17.58 MeV plasma temperature needed 10 keV gain 1800
d+d -> 3He + n energy output 3.27 MeV plasma temperature needed 50 keV gain 70
d+d -> t + p energy output 4.03 MeV plasma temperature needed 50 keV gain 70
d+3He -> 4He + p energy output 18.3 MeV plasma temperature needed 100 keV gain 70

does it say how much for just 3He no d ?

Tullio

Just 3He doesn't produce so much energy.
But combined with d, deuterium, it does as you say, produce a lot of energy

100 keV

How hard is it to get to this temp in terms of energy used ?

there doesn't seem that much difference between d+t and d+3He only the temp from what your saying .

It's ten times the temperature needed for d-t. Plasma heating is a big problem because a hotter plasma has more instabilities and is more difficult to confine by magnetic fields. Plasma is also heated by injection of particle beams, which increase the complexity of the machine.
Tullio

---

100 keV


How hard is it to get to this temp in terms of energy used ?

there doesn't seem that much difference between d+t and d+3He only the temp from what your saying .
It's ten times the temperature needed for d-t. Plasma heating is a big problem because a hotter plasma has more instabilities and is more difficult to confine by magnetic fields. Plasma is also heated by injection of particle beams, which increase the complexity of the machine.
Tullio

I'm wondering if the Plasma way of heating is the way to go ...

Fission uses compression to achieve critical mass so maybe we should be smashing the 3He or d+3He together in stead of a plasma , making a plazma seems to be using more power than your giving out , speeding something up in a accelerator or some sort of gun and smashing them together may use less power !, not that I know anything :-)

---

A number of approaches to fusion has been tried, including inertial confinement where a DT pellet is hit by laser beams. So far none has reached breakeven. I think someone mentioned Skunk Works. That should be Lockheed-Martin, which claimed a new approach without giving details. Hic Rhodus hic salta.
Tullio

---

Αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ Ῥόδος καὶ πήδημα

In the original from Aesop.

There were some phony claims about cold fusion that I think came out of Lawrence Livermore.

This is where powerful laser research is also being conducted--most likely for fusion research as well.

I think someone mentioned Skunk Works. That should be Lockheed-Martin, which claimed a new approach without giving details. Hic Rhodus hic salta.

Could be this one tullio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor however I think is still uses a plasma thou

---