Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Nuclear fusion for spaceflight?


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 83
Date:
Nuclear fusion for spaceflight?



Hi All,


   This is from April, and may have been debunked, or just old news to y'all, but seems to have potential without the pu-238 accident factor... I pass it on for your perusal...


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7654627


 


Nuclear fusion on the desktop ... really!
Mini-reactor yields neutrons, could power spacecraft





Image: Fusion experiment
UCLA
A key part of the apparatus for the nuclear fusion experiment is in the foreground. In the background are researchers Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski.








var cssList = new Array();

getCSS("3053751")



MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 2:56 p.m. ET April 27, 2005

Scientists say they have achieved small-scale nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment, using tried and true techniques that are expected to generate far less controversy than past such claims.


This latest experiment relied on a tiny crystal to generate a strong electric field. While the energy created was too small to harness cheap fusion power, the technique could have potential uses in medicine, spacecraft propulsion, the oil drilling industry and homeland security, said Seth Putterman, a physicist at the University of California at Los Angeles.


Putterman and his colleagues at UCLA, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski, report their results in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.



Story continues below ↓



 



Past derision
Previous claims of tabletop fusion have been met with skepticism and even derision by physicists.


In one of the most notable cases, Dr. B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University in England shocked the world in 1989 when they announced that they had achieved so-called cold fusion at room temperature. Their work was discredited after repeated attempts to reproduce it failed.


Another technique, known as sonoluminescence, generates heat through the collapse of tiny bubbles in a liquid. Some scientists claim that nuclear fusion occurs during the reaction, but those claims have sparked sharp debate.


Fusion experts said the UCLA experiment will face far less skepticism because it conforms to well-known principles of physics.


"This doesn't have any controversy in it because they're using a tried and true method," David Ruzic, professor of nuclear and plasma engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told The Associated Press. "There's no mystery in terms of the physics."


In a Nature commentary, Michael Saltmarsh of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory said the UCLA process was in some ways "remarkably low-tech," drawing upon principles that were first recorded by the Greek philosopher Theophrastus in 314 B.C.


Ultimate energy source
Fusion power has been touted as the ultimate energy source and a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels like coal and oil. Fossil fuels are expected to run short in about 50 years.






Image: Inside the chamber


UCLA
A view inside the crystal-based fusion chamber: "This is an amazing photo," UCLA's Seth Putterman says. "You're actually looking at the tracks of the fusion in the scintillator."




In fusion, light atoms are joined in a high-temperature process that frees large amounts of energy. It is considered environmentally friendly because it produces virtually no air pollution and does not pose the safety and long-term radioactive waste concerns associated with modern nuclear power plants, where heavy uranium atoms are split to create energy in a process known as fission.


In the UCLA experiment, scientists placed a tiny crystal that can generate a strong electric field into a vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas, a form of hydrogen capable of fusion. Then the researchers activated the crystal by heating it.


The resulting electric field created a beam of charged deuterium atoms that struck a nearby target, which was embedded with yet more deuterium. When some of the deuterium atoms in the beam collided with their counterparts in the target, they fused.


The reaction gave off an isotope of helium along with subatomic particles known as neutrons, a characteristic of fusion. The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in — an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.


Commercial uses
UCLA's Putterman said future experiments will focus on refining the technique for potential commercial uses, including designing portable neutron generators that could be used for oil well drilling or scanning luggage and cargo at airports.


The technology also could conceivably give rise to implantable radiation sources, which could target cancer cells while minimizing damage to healthy tissue. "You could bring a tiny crystal into the body, place it next to a tumor, turn on the radiation and blast the tumor," Putterman told MSNBC.com.


In the Nature report, Putterman and his colleagues said the crystal-based method could be used in "microthrusters for miniature spacecraft." In such an application, the method would not rely on nuclear fusion for power generation, but rather on ion propulsion, Putterman said.


"As wild as it is, that’s a conservative application," he said.


This report includes information from The Associated Press and MSNBC's Alan Boyle



__________________
Dr. Peter Rickards DPM


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 88
Date:

Wasn't an article on anti-matter catalyzed micro-fission-fusion drives for spacecraft (dissimilar from Dr. Stungun's post) discussed here before at NuclearSpace.com, or was that at Know_Nukes.com? Too many message boards....


http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/fissionfusion.html


Antimatter: Fission/Fusion Drive
Antimatter Catalyzed Micro Fission/Fusion (ACMF)


     The name "Antimatter Catalyzed Micro Fission/Fusion" for this drive concept is a bit of a misnomer. Obviously, the antimatter is not actually a catalyst, but rather provides the energy necessary to achieve the desired nuclear reaction.  In the following section, the ideas behind the ACMF drive will be discussed, followed by a brief overview of the ICAN-II spacecraft that is being designed to use this drive concept.





     As mentioned in the overview of Antimatter Drives, the world's production of antimatter is abysmally low. Currently it is on the order of 1 to 10 nanograms per year. While antimatter has a tremendous energy density, this is still completely insufficient for a pure antimatter/matter reactor drive.  That rules out manned interstellar travel using antimatter drives in the near future. However, a hybrid between antimatter and nuclear drives would allow humans to explore their own solar system with reasonable mission times and costs. One of the two hybrid designs is the ACMF.
     The ACMF concept is being developed at
Penn State University and is based on their findings that antimatter can induce a more efficient fission reaction than normal fission methods. For those that are unaware, fission is the nuclear process in which a heavy atom (such as plutonium) splits into two lighter atoms, thereby releasing energy.  On the other end of the scale is fusion, whereby two light atoms (such as deuterium and tritium, both hydrogen isotopes) fuse together to form a heavier atom, this also releases energy. Fusion can continue to release energy up to the point of Iron, similarly fission can release energy down to the point of Iron. Iron is the minimum bonding energy atom.
     Antimatter annihilation, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion all have major problems. Antimatter annihilation requires antimatter, which is hard to come by in this matter filled world. Fission produces a lot of radioactive waste, as well as being the least efficient of the three. Fusion is hard to get started, and sustain (the Sun is able to sustain its fusion reaction only because of its immense gravitational field).  However, in a wonderful example of the sum of the parts not being equal to the whole, by combining these three problematic energy sources, all of these problems are minimized. Very little antimatter is needed (just enough to start the fission reaction), very little fission occurs (just enough to start the fusion reaction), and the fusion reaction doesn't have to be sustained for very long (the drive uses pulses of thrust).  It has already been well demonstrated that a fission reaction can be sufficient to ignite a fusion reaction (i.e. the Hydrogen Bomb), and Penn State has recently demonstrated that a relatively small number of antiprotons can be used to ignite a fission reaction. Figure 7 gives a rough idea of how the ACMF drive would work:


Figure 7: ACMF Drive concept


     A pellet of Deuterium, Tritium, and Uranium-238 (nine parts D-T for every one part U-238) is injected into the reaction chamber. First the pellet is compressed using ion particle beams [1], then irradiated with a 2ns burst of antiprotons [2]. The antiprotons annihilate some of the pellet, producing enough energy to cause the U-238 to fission [3]. In turn, the fission reaction ignites a fusion reaction within the Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) core [4]. The fusion reaction produces the desired engine thrust. A new pellet is than inserted, and the process repeats itself.
     This drive concept seems to be the most efficient (as determined by NASA) for use in manned, planetary missions. A round-trip, manned mission to Mars using the ACMF drive would only take 120 days, and require approximately 140 nanograms of antimatter (which could be produced in one year by Fermilab after a few major upgrades are implemented). In addition, it would require approximately 362 metric tons of propellant (the D-T-U pellets).





     Penn State University has designed a spacecraft, called ICAN-II, that would use the ACMF drive for omniplanetary missions within the Solar system. Currently, NASA has suspended all plans for manned missions to other planets until the International Space Station is completed (estimated 2003). By that time, the ICAN-II (or a similar design) may be adopted by NASA for a manned mission to Mars (since, by then, the antimatter storage problems may have been overcome). The design, however, is capable of manned missions to any of the planets within the solar system. Below, is a rendering of what the ICAN-II spacecraft would look like if built:


ICAN-II Spacecraft
Picture obtained from
LEPS site.


     ICAN-II is similar to the ORION spacecraft design put forth by Stanislaw Ulam in the late 1950s. The ORION was intended to be used to send humans to Mars and Venus by 1968. It was to utilize a large number of nuclear bombs that would be set off one after the other, behind the ship to push it forward. It would, of course, require large shock-absorbers and ablative shielding for its pusher-plate. The ICAN-II also, in a sense, utilizes nuclear "bombs" for thrust. However, instead of regular fission bombs like the ORION would utilize; ICAN-II uses what are, essentially, a large number of very small hydrogen-bombs. Set off, of course, by a stream of antiprotons.  Ecological concerns would probably require that ICAN-II be assembled in space. Of course, a precedent for such large scale orbit-based assembly is already being set by the construction of the International Space Station.
     The radiation from ICAN-II's ACMF engine would be intercepted by a 4 meter radius silicon carbide shell. Additionally, 1.2 meters of lithium hydride will shield the fuel rings from high-energy neutrons that are ejected from the nuclear explosions, and 2.2 meters of shielding will protect the crew modules. The spacecraft would have a total mass of 625 metric tons, with 82 additional metric tons available for payload. This is more than sufficient to carry a Mars Lander and exploration vehicles. Below is a diagram showing the layout of ICAN-IIs various components:


ICAN-II Spacecraft
Picture obtained from
LEPS site.


     The ICAN-II is a viable spacecraft design that could be built within the next two decades. Currently, antiprotons can only be stored for a few weeks and production is very low; but, the problems with the storage and production are engineering problems, not physical problems. Humankind has shown, thus far, that any feats of engineering not expressly forbidden by the laws of physics, will be achieved.






__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

This is why I prefer the term "Antimatter Initiated Fusion" as this is much more accurate. Still, even for an interplanetary ICAN-II Spacecraft, the antimatter loading is going to be anywhere from grams to kilograms of the stuff. Probably more likely to be tens of kilograms. An entry level interstellar probe would prabably have to carry tons of the stuff.

Various proposals have been made for the synthesis and storage of antimatter--all of which will gobble up enormous amounts of power. Particle accelerators often create antiprotons, but are very inefficient, and current antiproton traps cannot store more than a nanogram or so at a time. Still, this represents a substantial amount of energy--1 nanogram of antiprotons contains the energy equivalent of about 1800 Joules (2*8.9x10^17 J/Kg * 10^-12 Kg/nanogram * 1 nanogram) [the factor of 2 comes in because a nanogram of antiprotons annhilates a nanogram of protons--so twice the mass of antimatter is actually annhilated.]

If baryon number is in fact not concerved in Hawking evaporation of small blackholes, then someday it may be possible to create microblackholes, feed them a small amount of ordinary matter and then have the mass-energy consumed come back out as equal proportions of matter and antimatter. I suspect that small, synthetic black holes may one day eventually userp all other sources of energy used by humans. Maybe...


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard