Antimatter catalysed fusion using neptunium 237

[chriscdc]

I was wondering if you could improve anti-matter catalysed fusion by using a core or shell of neptunium 237. <br /><br />The set up is similar to the project deadalus system. Instead of compressing a pellet of fuel using lasers, or using anti-protons to generate the compression energy, via normal anti matter + matter annihilation, you use a core of neptunium 237. <br /><br />Firing anti-protons of a specific energy, you can judge where the majority will react with matter. As they pass through matter, their charge results in a drag that slows them down, once they fall beneath a certain energy, they will spiral into the nearby nucleus.<br /><br />This part is were the plan could fall down, if an anti-proton falls into a neptunium 237 nucleus, it will annihilate with a proton, reducing the nucleus to uranium 236 which we all know will decay rapidly. You could use a shell of Np, but this will require mutliple sources of anti-protons, so a core would be easier as it would allow the use of a single injector. Does anyone know whether there are any problems with this?

 

[scottb50]

Is this in the Acme Catlogue by any chance? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

Just to clarify, the core of Np is surrounded by the fusion material of choice. You calculate the energy of the anti-protons so that they pass through the fusion layer with the fewest collisions possible. The ionisation caused by the negative charge interacting with charged particles, will cause the anti-protons to lose momentum, until they can no longer resist the pull of a nearby nucleus, at which point they will spiral in.<br /><br />What I want to know is whether the proton-antiproton reaction alone will destroy the nucleus? Actually if it does, will the most likely byproducts end up releasing energy, being a form of fission anyway?

 

[chriscdc]

Yes but the point is to use that 200Mev to generate the heat, that will cause the surrounding fusion material to fuse. Actually then the energy required to generate the anti-proton isn't as bad as I expected, but no doubt the actual chance of getting the anti-protons out of the reaction is small.<br /><br />Hasn't anyone heard of project deadalus?

 

[chriscdc]

Oh well it turns out that the annihilation would generate enough energy to destroy the nucleus anyway. I just wanted to know whether anyone knew the energies involved, whether the nucleus would behave like uranium 236 after a proton had been annihilated. I know that this is fission, but it would then be used to provide the energy for the fusion of deuterium/tritium or whatever other fusion material of choice.<br /><br />stevehw33 I'm not sure to whom your remark is directed at, but it does not provide any information as to whether the suggestion is feasible or not, so what was the point in posting?

 

[jatslo]

You might try building your reactor from the inside out, which kind of sounds like what you were doing. If you can contain fission, or prevent the fission from executing, you would, in affect, produce energy. You would, in affect, create a super battery that will out live even the mighty Energizer Bunny.

 

[chriscdc]

So I have found some one to whom stevew33 comment can be applied to.<br /><br />Ok I realised that I didn't mean to use the word catalysed in the title. Instead I should have used facilitated or something. The antimatter would be used up in the reaction so it would not be a catalyst, so why did I put that word in (hits head against wall). <br />Seeing that the nucleus would be destroyed, the best idea would be to use an element that whose inter-nucleon bonds are stronger than those of the reactions most likely byproducts, so I should use Iron as a minimum.<br /><br />So anti-proton rips iron nucleus apart producing plenty of high energy nuclear fragments. If that happens over the entire surface of the pellet, with the fussion fuel in the middle, you end up with a mini hydrogen bomb.

 

[jatslo]

If you would rather talk to stevehw33, then by all means, please do so, because nothing that you wrote is very impressive. The mention of ANTi in your speech is indicitive of your lack of knowledge in matter.

 

[chriscdc]

It wasn't meant to be impressive. I was asking a question, but no-one seens to wants to answer it.<br /><br />At least stevehw33 uses the common meanings of words, I wonder what anti-matter means in jatslo speak, actually I don't want to know.<br /><br />I am not going to write anymore on this topic unless someone has anything relevent to say. I'm not one of those people who will reply to themselves around 8 times in a row, just to keep their post at the top of the thread menu and after eveyone else has given up on the topic. Yes jatslo I am talking about you.

 

[jatslo]

Wasteful wishing; I will opt out

 

[chriscdc]

If you had searched online for project daedelus online, you would have found that it was a fusion version of project orion. The antimatter is used as an energy medium, not as an energy source. You manufacture the anti-matter on earth or some other place where you can get alot of energy from the environment. You then put the anti-matter on your space ship and use it to help generate energy from fusion or fission etc.<br /><br />Is it too much to ask you lot to tell me how much energy is required to fuse deuterium and tritium?<br /><br />Concerning the engineering problems, there are many particle physicists out there who are generating the antimatter and have developed ways of storing it. Although they are not very good at the moment. <br /><br />A run down of the process again for those that don't get it. This is all in the form of a pellet. You have a sphere of heavy atoms with a proton count greater than Iron eg uranium 238. That surrounds a fusable material. The anti-proton is removed from storage and fired towards the outer casing of the pellet. The anti-proton annihlates itself with a proton in the nucleus. The nucleus is blown apart due to the energy released. If you get it right the bonds between the nucleons in the byproducts will have higher energy bonds between them, than in the original nucleus, thus releasing more energy. These byproducts are heavily charged and so dump their kinetic energy into the surrounding material. If the timing is correct then a significant amount of the energy will be directed towards the fusionable material. The fusionable material's nucleus will be forced together, they will fuse, the energy of the nucleon bonds will change, thus releasing energy.<br /><br />So you spend alot of energy generating the anti-proton (approx 2Gev), you then break apart the fissionable material, and get around a 10th of the energy back, You can probably get some energy back due to the fission byproducts, forming unstable nuclei with other atoms of the fissio

 

[chew_on_this]

Don't expect steve to research anything before he makes a troll response. He only exists on these boards to boost his fragile ego by belittling others.

 

[CalliArcale]

Hey, be nice. It's rather hypocritical to critique somebody else for making posts which allegedly exist soley to belittle others with a post which does nothing else. If you don't like what he says, ignore him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

Uh, you tell ME to be nice? The new guy asks a question and steve chimes in with his usual holier-than-thou crap and you chastize me? This is exactly why people leave this sloppily moderated message board. It may have been hypocritical of me to post my objection to steves post, but it was to make the new guy aware of his typical posts. If you haven't noticed this, you're doing a poor job. If you don't like what I post, ignore it yourself.

 

[mcbethcg]

Personally, I support Steve here.<br /><br />Steve knows physics and gives correct and well reasoned answers. <br /><br />Others, like Jatslo, do not know physics beyond what he learned on Star Trek and pollute the board with seemingly endless gibberish that does nothing but drive off people that want to have actual scientific discussions.<br /><br />Read his posts on Dark Energy, Dark Matter, FTL, etc. <br /><br />I would love this board a lot more if the people who did not know science restricted themselves to asking questions and refrained from making up psuedoscience answers.<br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

Leave me out of it

 

[vogon13]

How about that, Jatslo, you have become a reference standard.<br /><br /><br />I should be so lucky.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

I tried to opt out, but they sucked me back in. Not very smart are they?

 

[chew_on_this]

Good for you, so you support the /*profanity deleted*/, big deal. He's a shrink that quotes staight out of wikipedia. No independent thought. When someone tries to think out of the box, he chimes in with a belittling jibe. I know you're the exception (that would back a small minded person). Jatslo has no bearing on this particular arguement. Sounds to me like steve got his physics mixed up and now he's hiding like he usually does.

 

[mcbethcg]

In this particular discussion, I don't know the physics, which in this case involve math that is beyond me.<br /><br />But in those cases where I do know the physics, I have found that Steve is usually spot-on correct.<br /><br />Independent thought is a good thing. Generally. <br /><br />But personally, I don't think making up science as you go along is a good idea, unless you are a Feynman or Einstein, who have gereally been proven correct after endless experiments.<br /><br />And when these scientists theories are posted on Wikipedia, I have a great deal of confidence in them, because I know that before they made it into the popular academic culture that Wikipedia parrots, the theories have been tested, argued, and peer reviewed.<br /><br />I do recall one time when Steve was wrong regarding Orion- he does not believe Dyson (or any other scientist) on it, which I think is pretty weird. Steve is, after all, not a scientist, and Dyson is.

 

[mlorrey]

given that Orion was an immensely well researched program, with explosive fuelled scale demonstrators and all, if Steve 'doesn't believe' in Orion, he's not being a scientist.<br />Given that fission is well harnessed, I have more faith in the utility of Orion than i do with Daedelus, since D depends on unproven harnessed fusion technology.<br />However, current day inefficiencies in production of anti-matter does not require that they will always be poor, and as pointed out, if the anti-matter is produced on Earth for 2 GeV per anti-proton, for a 200 MeV energy output at fuel combustion, that is energy storage that is 10% efficient, but says nothing about its utility overall as a fuel for a fusion propulsion system. Given how terribly inefficient rockets of any kind are, such a simplistic analysis by Steve should not be taken as a non-starter. Obviously, anti-proton fuel would provide a much higher Isp if it reacts against helium or hydrogen than against neptunium, you'll wind up with a much higher temperature exhause (in the case of proton/anti-proton, it becomes a pure light drive).

 

[yevaud]

Steve has an MD/PhD. <br /><br />Just FYI. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

and wikipedia is no font of objectivity, however if he is such a wikinut, he should be reading the wikipages on Orion.....

 

[mlorrey]

so he's a pshrink with a prescription pad. I know some, biggest quacks there are, they try too much of their own product.<br /><br />Jubal Early said, "They make pshrinks get psychoanalyzed before they can practice, but they don't make surgeons get cut open. Does that seem right to you?"

 

[yevaud]

Merely correcting the record, since it was said "Steve is not a scientist." If you have an MD and a PhD, you most certainly are one.<br /><br />That's all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>