|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jun 5, 2017 9:17:15 GMT
Physically feasible? Technologically feasible you mean I'd guess? Not now, probably not within a hundred years, in the long run probably though. I'd give a similar timeline for fusion power in general, though I feel like it's slightly less probable that we get fusion power in the long run than that tech could exist making the fourton feasible. Question, what good qualities does fourton fusion even have? It's lawson criterion is probably in the tens of thousands and would be very difficult with even far future tech. Better answer from Kerr, only thing I can add is that from side reactions and the main reaction a lot of useful products are created too. Edited because my language was awful in the post, I need to be better at writing >.<
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 5, 2017 9:32:09 GMT
Even if fourton fusion was 10x better I doubt it would ever be feasible for power generation. You would need reactors capable of year long containment times to have any hope of fusing it through conventional means.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 5, 2017 9:41:15 GMT
Even if fourton fusion was 10x better I doubt it would ever be feasible for power generation. You would need reactors capable of year long containment times to have any hope of fusing it through conventional means. Fourtons for power generation? That's pretty much impossible without the pressures inside stars. Fourtons are only proposed for Bussard Ramjets, because that's all the they can find using their magnetic scoops.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 5, 2017 9:47:12 GMT
Can we generate power from neutrons, other than using them to breed tritium from lithium, and gamma rays? 14,1 MeV Neutrons are able to produce fission in Depleted Uranium. Maybe we could use it to power a DU Nuclear reactor?
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jun 5, 2017 9:51:50 GMT
Anyway I just found out that while the extra energy would permit the fourton to be mildly muon catalyzed, since the reaction does not give off neutrons it wouldn't work, but I have heard it being proposed for power generation, that was however like my own understanding of it used with a slight muon injection to keep pressure and temperature higher.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 5, 2017 13:55:46 GMT
Anyway I just found out that while the extra energy would permit the fourton to be mildly muon catalyzed, since the reaction does not give off neutrons it wouldn't work, but I have heard it being proposed for power generation, that was however like my own understanding of it used with a slight muon injection to keep pressure and temperature higher. muons reduce required temps for fusion (one of the elusive "Cold Fusion" methods)
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 5, 2017 14:22:17 GMT
Can you guys help me make antimatter-catalyzed fusion reactions? Use either electron/positron reaction (which releases only two gamma rays, one from each e-/e+) or proton/antiproton reaction (which releases gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos).
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 5, 2017 14:51:13 GMT
Can you guys help me make antimatter-catalyzed fusion reactions? Use either electron/positron reaction (which releases only two gamma rays, one from each e-/e+) or proton/antiproton reaction (which releases gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos). Both, use frozen antihydrogen, hydrogen is diamagnetic that mean's it is repelled by magnetic fields, making it very easy to store. Just Ionize a very small portion and channel and direct it to the direction of the Fusion fuel.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 5, 2017 14:53:19 GMT
Nvm fusion, we have amat. If the ratio is closer to 1:1 than 2.4:1, your game crashes.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 5, 2017 14:55:11 GMT
Nvm fusion, we have amat. At around ratio 2.4, the game crashes. You can't use 1:1 in this. "Antimatter Proton Antiproton" ?
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 5, 2017 14:58:27 GMT
Nvm fusion, we have amat. At around ratio 2.4, the game crashes. You can't use 1:1 in this. "Antimatter Proton Antiproton" ? Going along the line of 'Fusion Deuterium Tritium'. Should've used 'Matter-Antimatter Proton Antiproton'.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 5, 2017 15:01:19 GMT
"Antimatter Proton Antiproton" ? Going along the line of 'Fusion Deuterium Tritium'. Should've used 'Matter-Antimatter Proton Antiproton'. Oh, alright. But why Amat engines? The have like 10x the power of fusion drives but cost like million-fold.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 5, 2017 15:03:27 GMT
Going along the line of 'Fusion Deuterium Tritium'. Should've used 'Matter-Antimatter Proton Antiproton'. Oh, alright. But why Amat engines? The have like 10x the power of fusion drives but cost like million-fold. Amat rockets are our only hope for fast interstellar travel if >hundred-gee acceleration beam power is to be ruled out.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 5, 2017 15:29:47 GMT
Oh, alright. But why Amat engines? The have like 10x the power of fusion drives but cost like million-fold. Amat rockets are our only hope for fast interstellar travel if >hundred-gee acceleration beam power is to be ruled out. Ok, back to the design you posted, the Amat reaction should release the same amount of energy as a 1.46kT Nuke. Around 1kT if you exclude the neutrinos. Your engine is quite sturdy if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 5, 2017 18:52:45 GMT
isn't Amat fusion better?
|
|