Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:39 pm
New Energy & Fuel Article on LPP Progress & Challenges:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newen ... one-to-go/
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newen ... one-to-go/
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Gun sights with tritium in the paint is far different from handling gaseous tritium, and handling huge amounts in a Tokamak. The liquid lithium blanket on the lateral walls and bottom may be a modest engineering challenge, but on the top? Capturing the 17MeV neutrons in high enough efficiencies while also handling the deposited heat load for net gain tritium production will be a considerable challenge.Joseph Chikva wrote:Nobody argues that better to be healthy and at the same time to be rich. So, we all know what is desirable. But I have well stated doubts on viability. Once again: if double for them to lift 200 kg bar, let's they show their ability to lift 100 kg.D Tibbets wrote:They speak of P-B11 because from a physics standpoint (their claims) it is both doable and desirable. While D-T may be more doable, it is less desirable, and quite possibly more expensive for these cash strapped research efforts.
As I do not see their such ability.
You are wrong. The same physics with much complex engineering. And the second wrong point is that you talk about commercial reactor. Do you believe that their existing experimental device can produce net power? Or that is intended only to prove viability of concept?The P-B11 of D-He3 reactions may be essential for the ff or FRC due to engineering issues (energy density). It is a trade off- more difficult physics, but much easier engineering.
I think that proving viability is maximum they need. Without any energy conversion into electricity.
Also why do you (and others) think that direct energy converter will be cheaper and easier than combination of first wall, blanket, heat transfer circuits, steam turbine, generator? Have you ever seen running direct energy converter? This a big extremely high current decelerator (negative accelerator) of charged particles. And unlike steam cycle that is well developed nobody around the world has not any experience in its design and building.
By the way, you in vain bothered on difficulties with processing of tritium. That is not so difficult and dangerous as you think. At least now even tritium sights for riffles are offered for hunters and also for militaries. And for one shots only fraction of gram are required. And one Canadian company sells tritium compressed in cylinders for laboratories. If they (LPP team) are so proud when get several millions neutrons per each shot, so they are not afraid neutrons, and so let they use DT mix and get on 7-8 orders higher yield. Certainly, if they can.
Actually John Slough of MSNW LLC and Helion has developed a viable solution for that.A dense plasma focus or FRC (?) will not.
Huge ammounts?D Tibbets wrote:Gun sights with tritium in the paint is far different from handling gaseous tritium, and handling huge amounts in a Tokamak.
It depends on how you calculatethe numbers. A commercial Tokamak may generate 5-10 GW. . That would be ~ 10^22 fusions per second, or ~ 0.1 mole of tritium consumed (and needing replenishment from the lithium blanket and associated beryllium, lead/etc. magnifiers). This number is similar to yours.Joseph Chikva wrote:Huge ammounts?D Tibbets wrote:Gun sights with tritium in the paint is far different from handling gaseous tritium, and handling huge amounts in a Tokamak.
Tritium nucleus weighs 5.01E-27 kg
Number density let's say 1E20 m^-3
Plasma volume 840 m^3
So, the single charge of tritium for ITER 4.2E-4 kg and this is only 0.42g
and for equimolar mix of DT fuel 0.42g of tritium and 0.28g deuterium
Total charge of fuel is 0.7g
You are wrong.D Tibbets wrote: but I guess
J C, your dismissal of my guess without any reference, has forced me to do a little research.Joseph Chikva wrote:You are wrong.D Tibbets wrote: but I guess
http://ah-tritium.blogspot.com/EPA set a maximum contaminant level of 20,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) for tritium. This level is assumed to yield a dose of 4 mrem per year.
Dan TibbetsCommercial tritium demand is 400 grams/year . The current U.S. arsenal of 10,000 warheads requires approximately 2200 grams/year (at four grams of tritium/warhead) to offset decay.
The specific activity of 3H (Tritium) is 28.8 Ci/milliatom, or 9650 Curies per gram, or 357 Tera-Becquerels per gram, or as 28.7 Ci/mmol (Curies per millimole). Pure tritium gas (T2) has a specific activity just over 57,000 Curies/mol.
One Curie of tritium weighs about 0.0001036 grams. One Curie of tritium contains approximately 20,811,069,238,989,819,449 atoms = about 2.08 X 10^19 atoms. One atom of tritium weighs about 4.979 X 10^-24 grams (0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 004 979 grams). Whether in the form of gaseous hydrogen or as water vapor, 1.85 x 10^12 Bq (50 Ci) of tritium occupies a volume of about 1/6 of a cup. One gram of T2 gas has a radioactivity of 3.59 X 10^14 Bq (9.7 X 10^3 Curies). There are about 359,000,000,000,000 (359 trillion) decays per second in one gram of tritium gas (T2).
The your sentense may meant "there is not more production" or "there is not more qualified consumption". I think the second. And you?D Tibbets wrote:Normal tritium for commercial purposes is ~ 400 g per year.
Does not matter initial or final but guess on large lake is nonsense. As tritium is offered on the market in gaseous form and that is not as dangerous as you or Dan think. As I have shown you and others its application for e.g. military and hunter's sights.KitemanSA wrote:D.T. goes about proving his initial guess about a "large lake"
Imagine that at nighttime you can see the target as that is illuminated by some sources - e.g. illumination mortar bomb but you yourself are in darkness and can not see your rifleās sights - both: front and rear as well. But if your sights have the lighting dots, you can easily combine them with target and so can engage that.303 wrote:anyone know more about how or why this vial is used in a gun sight ?