Re: Proton-Proton Fusion- the easy way

Logan Kearsley wrote:
"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:w5xAe.30873$ro.6822@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Logan Kearsley wrote: 

<snip browser clash about neutron sources>

  Know about so-called "atom lasers"? Could a "neutron laser" be
what you want? It'd require a BEC made of something that has plenty
of neutrons to give up (even-spin transuranic isotope), and a "seed
source" of neutrons at the right energy to get the BEC to give its
up all at once. Kinda handwavy (OK, _real_ handwavy), but might work.


Yup. Seems like it ought to work, but what would be the advantage over any
other neutron source?

You'd get intense coherent, collimated monoenergetic neutron bursts for pulsed fusion or, (assuming it's even possible) run the BEC through a continuous flow apparatus like a CW gas laser for continuous fusion. AFAIK all other neutron sources are pretty much incoherent, uncollimated, and nowhere near monoenergetic. Coherence and collimation means less wasted effort and monoenergetic means better fit into the capture cross-section.

  Oh, ***; I think I just invented the neutron rifle...

Second question, what are some methods that could be used to transform a
protium atom into a neutron? Is there some way to reliably force a
single proton and electron to collide and combine into a neutron?


  As Paul Dietz says, it's _usually_ energetically disallowed.
Exceptions require extremely unusual (at shirtsleeve conditions)
circumstances, so you need to handwave away some very fundamental
physics via Fermi repulsion neutralizers, high-temperature p-p
tunnelling, or similar.


What's wrong with extremely unusual circumstances? We shouldn't need to
handwave away any physics, we just need to come up with a way to implement
those unusual circumstances. Of course, if *that* requires handwaving, I
guess we're in trouble, but that's what I'm trying to determine.

Yeah. Come to think of it, I wonder how a BEC of transuranics will like losing all its neutrons at once...

Or, looking at muon-catalyzed fusion, 

  Dunno for sure, but ISTR current thinking is that it isn't as
good an idea as was first thought.


Mm hm. A bit of googling indicates that each muon usually doesn't catalyze
enough fusion reactions to make up the energy used to create it. On the
other hand, that's at room temperature. Having the reaction take place in
porous silicon apparently makes up for the problem, though, and increasing
the temperature make thing more favorable still. Of course, all of that is
relating to experiments with deuterium/tritium mixes. It might not work at
all for p-p fusion. But maybe it would if the temperature is increased
further.


  Sounds vaguely like somebody's trying to make Dilithium real. ;>)

Any idea what "temperature" means in this context? I refer to the fact that in particle physics it can be specific WRT beam and lattice directions. Both can be "hot" in some directions and "cold" in others. Mix 'n match 'em just right, and bingo!


  Mark L. Fergerson

.

Loading