1995.04.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 06:26:46 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Apr10095137@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>In article <JAC.95Apr7233123@gandalf.llnl.gov> jac@gandalf.llnl.gov
(James Crotinger) writes:
>> In article <AWC.95Apr5134141@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson       
TOK  ) writes:
>
>> >                                            ... If you burn D-T, there
>> >   is a lower limit on the aspect ratio due to the shielding needed, so
>> >   it may be possible to go to lower aspect ratios with D-He.
>>   I can see that D-He3 will help the first wall issue. But the blanket
>> thickness is determined by the need to shield the superconducting magnets
>> from the neutrons. Does this thickness go down linearly with the neutron
>> level, or logarithmically? I suspect it is more like the latter - you just
>> can't afford to tolerate neutrons getting to the magnets. Thus the blanket
>> thickness in a D-He3 reactor may have to be just as thick as in DT.  And
>> if this is true, then the advantage of D-He3 is not nearly so clear.

>Good point. The benefit in this arena is probably marginal.

But with D-T there is much more heating and consequently, one must also
cool the radiation blanket.  Further, in a D-T burner, one must find a
source of fresh Tritium, and the idea here is to breed it.  That means
another intrusion to make the liner spongy, and also of lower mass density
if a lithic blanket is the bleeding tool.  Neutrons fortunately, (unlike
X-rays) are responsive to the number density of nuclei, and consequently,
water works well as a blanket material.    

Anyway, my point is that other functions must be served more fully by the
blanket in a D-T burner and that will tend to make more of volume and mass
kluge.  

>> > ..., the size of a tokamak is determined ultimately be transport. 
>>   It is also limited by wall loading, assuming DT. So even if your
>> transport gets real good and you maneuver past the beta limits, you 
>>  .. . can only take something like 5 MW/m^2. 

>The limit will be in the ball park of 5 MW/m^2 for any fuel. D-T will
>be limited by the lifetime fluence of 14 MeV neutrons, and D-He3 will
>be limited by the heat load (once you figure out how to spread the
>power evenly over the entire first wall). 

But that's only a limit for matter you want to remain with solid state
integrity.  If you have a dense plasma shell for a wall, the harder you
pump it with fusion energy the better it behaves (conductivty -- lower 
transport.)   Note that a plasma (Mantle) wall could handle order gigawatts
per meter square. That's because each 50 or 60 Hertz pulse is limited in
energy to below the explosion saftey limit for the compressor.  

>It is a coincidence that
>both numbers are about the same. But I need some help on the rest of
>this argument. If we assume we can "solve" the transport problem, then
>we don't need a big machine just to ignite. 

Exactly, but if you can increase both pressure and lower transport then
you not only have a physically tiny machine, but power-wise you have a
huge machine and one that can power propulsion machines out of gravity
wells.   One way to lower transport is to use energetic currents (see TK Chu)
and then to get ohmic heating back up simply increase density by increasing
pressure.  Since tokamaks are pressure limited, then use a PLASMAK(tm) 
aneutronic generator.  It can get you the plasma fuel pressure you need
with stability by self similar adiabatic compression applied fluid 
mechanically.   

>If we leave B and beta
>constant, then our power density will be constant, and the first wall
>loading will *decrease* with size (higher surface to volume
>ratio). 

Look, your tokamak is already running less than a candle power density
by orders.  Sure your machine will be smaller, but the electric load
it must meet is still the same and growing.  Not only will you require
vastly more machines to meet the demand with this scenario, but with the
tokamak backups and essentially similiar or slightly higher cost 
volume densities (no small volume economies), you will be have at least the 
same total costs.  Environmentally, you will now have leaky fusion plants 
with tritium diffusors every kilometer or so, and that could be a tougher
problem than with a few highly managed sites.  

>Divertor energy flux will decrease even faster.
>Alternatively, if we raise beta (miracle 2) to maintain a constant
>wall loading, the increased power density should translate into a
>lower cost of electricity. I have heard the argument that we couldn't
>really use better confinement even if we could get it (although no one
>would turn down another factor of two), but I think the arguments
>center on a minimum size due to neutron absorption length (as you
>mentioned) and fast alpha gyroradius(?). In the real world of 1995,
>the place improved confinement would help the most is in being able to
>build a smaller (cheaper!) ignition experiment.

You couldn't use increased power density only if you insist on surrounding
the hottest substance in the universe with the coldest state of matter.
It's bad engineering practice.  Further no one else does it in the whole
universe, so we should we be the laughing stock.  

Would you build your pc from vacuum tubes ???  NOT a good plan.  
Building a power genertor from  a tokamak is also NOT a good plan.  

>-- 
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / David Given /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: dtrg@st-andrews.ac.uk (David Thomas Richard Given)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 17 Apr 1995 07:59:22 GMT
Organization: University Of St. Andrews

In article <3mmucg$9kf@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>,
James Thomas <jthomas@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>There was a case reported by some of the newsservices in the last month or so
>about a young man - in U.K, I believe - who died after drinking a large amount
>of water ( 30 l ?) after doing some sort of drug. 

Wow. 30l of D2O... I *hate* to think what that would have cost...


-- 
Why do people surf the Information | GCS -d+(?)(++) p(-+)(---) c++++ !l+(+)
Superhighway? Won't they get run   | u++ e*(++) m*(++) s !n h+(++) f+ g+
over?                              | w+(+++) t--(+) r y? (Archimedes owner)
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk:80/~www_sa/socs/virtual (Use at your own risk)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendtrg cudfnDavid cudlnGiven cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: I need info on heavy water
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I need info on heavy water
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 06:36:40 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3mbdtt$60s@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
>In article <wolk-0904951503090001@koh-mac49.usc.edu>, wolk@aludra.usc.e
u (wendy wolk) says:
>>
>>could anyone tell me the chem. formula for heavy water and any other
>>useful information about it. I need this info for a screenplay that I am
>>writing.
>>      thanks
>>         -wendy
>
>
>Wendy, "heavy" water is D2O as opposed to ordinary water which is H2O.  The
>difference being that, in heavy water, the normal hydrogen atoms (which
>consist of one electron circling a nuclues of  one proton) are replaced
>by the ISOTOPE of hydrogen known as deuterium (one electron circling a
>nucleus composed of one proton and one neutron).  deuterium has the symbol
>"D" and its weight is approximately 2 (where as normal H's weight is 1).
>Thus the molecular weight of D2O is 20 whereas the molecular weight of
>H2O is 18 (O is 16 on both cases)  This means that a cc of D2O would weigh
>about 1.11 grams instead of the 1.00 grams that H2O weighs.
>
>By the way, D20 occurs naturally and comprises about 150ppm of normal 
>water.  So you drink a little of it every day!
>
>Hope this helps.

Since you are writing a screen play about this, there is one other 
interesting point about this substance.  One must be licensed to have
ANY of it stored in a concentrated form, and one may not collect it.  
These licenses and the Q-clearance that is needed is granted by the DoE. 

Deuterium gas on the other hand is not illegal, and if one burned
Deuterium with air or oxygen that also is not illegal (subject to
fire codes).  However, if one held so much as a microscope slide 
or a key over the flame (difficult to see and very hot), and collected
any wetness, (condensation or dew) from the burned deuterium, or made
any other collection attempt they would be in serious violation of the 
law.    Believe or not.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Richard Schultz /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: 17 Apr 1995 11:35:03 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <USE2PCB236063496@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>I don't see why you think that I am ignoring that law.  That is the basis for
>the buildup of Helium in a glass envelope until it is equal to the partial
>pressure of Helium in air, without a significant buildup of the other denser
>gases.

The way you originally phrased the problem, it was not clear to me that you
understood that even if there was an overpressure of gas inside the glass
tube, He would diffuse through from the atmosphere anyway.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Bill Page /  Re: Warm Fusion
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Warm Fusion
Date: 17 Apr 1995 14:04:54 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3mk9gh$c50@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl) says:
>
>dabbling.  At any rate, I find that I can produce a tremendous amount of
>excess heat using water and aluminum in an ultrasonic bath.  However, this
>is not anomalous because aluminum oxide has a very heat heat of formation.
> ...
>Best regards,
>Elliot Kennel
>Yellow Springs OH

Are you able to measure the amount of AlO3 formed? Can you accurately weigh
the Aluminum "target" before and after the observed heat? How do you measure the
excess heat? "Excess heat" relative to what?

I am very interested in the use of Aluminum as a "CF" material. I have done
electrolysis experiments with Aluminum cathodes and have obtained apparent
excess heat. There was a short technical note published in Fusion Technology,
v21, p168, Mar 1992 by Arthur Wasserman on this effect. As you point out,
Aluminum, when it is not protected by its normal oxide layer, is very chemically
active. On the other hand, the oxide layer is relatively transparent to hydrogen
ions. With some care it should be possible to separate the chemical sources of
heat from any significant none heat chemical sources.

You might note that making Aluminum cathodic (negative) in an acidic electrolyte
provides a significant degree of "cathodic protection" from corrosion.

Russ George of E-quest reports large excess heat during sonic cavitation of
Palladium and Titanium targets. They report the observation of very high hydrogen
loading in the near surface area of the target. They have also measured anomalous
Helium production with significant 3He/4He isotope ratio shifts. The E-quest work
is still continuing and was reported on recently at ICCF5.

Cheers,

Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.17 / Richard Blue /  Re: What's wrong with E-Quest?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-Quest?
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 15:24:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If the hypothesis is that 3He is produced via p + d reactions while d + d
produces only 4He than the experiment to test that hypothesis is rather
obvious.  Has it been done?

Ultimately the crucial data to support the E-Quest claims must come from
blank experiments.  If an appropriate series of blank measurements have
been made the information concerning those runs has been missing from
the reports that have appeared here, at least.  For example, before we
can address the question as to whether the measurements at Los Alamos
were perturbed by unusually high concentrations of 3He relative to 4He
in the laboratory atmosphere we would have to know whether the blanks
refered to were run there under equivalent conditions.  A blank run
conducted back at the E-Quest home facility does not serve that purpose.
Experimental design becomes a very important part of the entire process
and the credibility of the resulting claims.  As far as the information
I have seen posted about these experiments, there are several remaining
questions that appear not to have been addressed.

That is what's wrong with the E-Quest results.

There is a related subject I would like to explore in the future.  That
is the question as to why mass spectrographs have been the only instuments
employed in CF research to attempt to establish the production of 4He.
I think there are better ways involving the use of atomic spectroscopy
that should be considered.  Why have none of the CF researches thought
to try something different?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Apr 18 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
