Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:35:58 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>What about the waste products from a hybrid fusion-fission reactor using
>natural U fuel?  Would the neutron source drive the fission products to be
>either stable elements or to radioisotopes with shorter half life?
>
Most of the daughter products of fission reactions are neutron rich because the
neutron:proton ratio increases with atomic number. So after a fission reaction
where you end up with daughters of lesser atomic number, you have too many
neutrons. IOW radioactive isotopes. I don't see a neutron source alleviating
this problem. 
However a (very) fast neutron reactor should be able to fission any/all
actinides, so at least there would be few if any actinides remaining in spent
fuel, and it's primarily the actinides which have very long half lives.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Bob Cook]

Like Jones says Apollo is DOA.   To make something for mass marketing with
fissionable isotopes--Pu-239 from U-238 for example and neutrons  is a
 security problem and very expensive.  There is no competing with LENR with
no neutrons IMHO.

Bob Cook

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Robin,
>
> You and I shared similar hybrid design thoughts on a modular mass-produced
> sub-critical reactor 15 years ago... but the basis of the Apollo design
> goes back before "cold fusion" and is still not very smart IMO -- since it
> depends on 3He and extremely expensive magnets. It is DOA even after 28
> years of planning since it retains most of the disadvantages of fusion.
> Here is some history.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261511370_Apollo_-_
> An_advanced_fuel_fusion_power_reactor_for_the_21st_century
>
> The main goal for lowest net cost nuclear power from U - and this has been
> obvious for 40 years to almost everyone in the industry - is to to avoid
> the huge problem where 30% and up of the net cost of new plant goes to
> bankers. Instead of one-off, there needs to be a single modular design,
> smaller in capacity for use as multiple units, built on a batch flow
> (aircraft style) production line at a rate of many per month. Financiers
> sometimes get more than half of the net cost in the USA, since the reactor
> itself takes 10 years to complete and they want to drag it out. A modular
> design can be rail mounted and actually removed at the end of service.
>
> The next obvious design goal is go subcritical - use natural U fuel with
> no enrichment and use multiple small makeup sources of neutrons to avoid
> the extreme cost of a reactor built to contain a meltdown. The "tabletop
> accelerator" was never fully developed for mass production, but it would
> work in multiples as neutron generators in a subcritcal design that
> benefits from overlapping neutron multiplication ratios - and is especially
> suitable as a thermionic topper.
>
> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Jack Cole's message:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>
>>> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo
>>> -fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/
>>>
>> Not much on the company website. I wonder if they are going to implement
>> the model I suggested here on vortex a little while back? ;)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Axil Axil]

If existing nuclear emerging theory were valid, the Chernobyl catastrophe
should not have happened. Some factor outside of known nuclear engineering
principles increased the reactivity of the core of the reactor. One
possibility; electric discharge during a test could have push the reactor
into supercriticality.


https://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-ex/papers/0304/0304024.pdf


Quote

The official conclusion about the origin and mechanism of the Chernobyl
catastrophe is shown to essentially contradict experimental facts available
from the accident. In the frame of existing physical models of nuclear
fission reactor, it is shown analytically that under conditions of the
accident the period of runaway of reactor at the fourth power generating
unit of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) should be either 10 times
slower or 100 times faster than that observed. A self-consistent hypothesis
is suggested for the probable birth of magnetic charges, during the turbine
generator test under it’s own momentum test, at the fourth power generating
unit of CNPP, and for the impact of these charges on the reactivity
coefficient.


Quote

EXPERIMENTS ON STUDYING THE MAGNETIC MONOPOLE


Apart from the neutron mechanism, other mechanisms of uranium fission are
also known to exist, for example, fission induced by slow muons [24]. . The
mechanism of uranium fission under the action of magnetic monopoles has
been considered theoretically [25]. It was suggested [25] that the
monopole-nuclear interaction is so strong that a monopole that comes close
to a nucleus can induce 238U fission. To explain the experimentally
observed facts, the formation of magnetic monopoles during a current
interruption caused by electric discharge on a metallic foil in a fluid has
been proposed as a working hypothesis [9]. In the authors’ opinion, this
hypothesis provides an explanation for the abnormal tracks recorded using
nuclear emulsions, for the observed nuclear transformation, and for the
shift of 57Fe Mossbauer spectra. In order to confirm the hypothesized
formation of monopoles, experiments on detection of the 238U fission
induced by magnetic monopoles were carried out [26]. These experiments
established that the original isotopic composition of uranium has changed
towards 235U under the action of a *“strange” radiation*. The decrease in
the specific activity of uranium upon the electric discharge on a metallic
foil noted in [26] is, most likely, related to the transformation of
uranium nuclei. However, the fact that the monopoles predicted previously
[6, 7] are leptons suggests that they should influence markedly the β-
decay. Substantial distortions of the β-decay periods for the isomeric
234mTh nuclei, which are daughter products of 238U, were detected in
experiments [26]. Thus, the experiments provided crucial arguments in favor
of the existence of magnetic monopoles and substantial support for the
hypotheses stated previously [9]. Let us assume that magnetic monopoles
have entered the RBMK reactor and find out what would be the consequences,
relying on the results of [9, 26].


I beleive that the monopoles that are described above are formed from ultra
dense water produced by cavitation generated by electrical explosion in
water.


Yes, existing nuclear theory shows that the experiment at Chernobyl should
have been safe.


"Apart from the neutron mechanism, other mechanisms of uranium fission are
also known to exist, for example, fission induced by slow muons"


However, LENR catalyzed by electrical discharge produced slow negative
muons as indicated in subsequent experiments by Urutskoev and now by
Holmlid. These muons produced a supercritical condition in the reaction
that neutrons alone could not account for


Its ironic, but LENR produced the biggest disaster in the history of
nuclear energy: chernobyl. A short in one of the generators at that reactor
produced two huge electrical discharges that in turn produced a huge muons
flux that when added to the neutron flux in the #4 reactor, put that
reactor into a supercritical state. As explained above, muons and
transuranic elements don't mix.


Rossi shielded his early reactors with lead but it must have been confusing
to him that the more lead that he used, the more radiation that he saw. He
does not use any shielding now and with his latest unshielded reactor, all
the radiation when away.


Nobody has asked Rossi why he does not use radiation shielding anymore.
Heavy elements convert slow muons into ionizing radiation and neutrons via
 muon catalyzed fusion.


In short, the reaction cross section for muons with uranium or lead is
millions of time greater than it is with hydrogen.




On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> What about the waste products from a hybrid fusion-fission reactor using
>> natural U fuel?  Would the neutron source drive the fission products to be
>> either stable elements or to radioisotopes with shorter 

Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote:

What about the waste products from a hybrid fusion-fission reactor 
using natural U fuel?  Would the neutron source drive the fission 
products to be either stable elements or to radioisotopes with shorter 
half life?


Not with small (desktop) accelerators as the basis of a makeup-neutron 
generator. That is asking too much. There needs to be a high 
multiplication ratio which limits the excess.


Basically, there are too few neutrons to spare and maintain instant 
shut-down capability. The idea is to have "just enough" flux, so that 
reactor goes into shut-down immediately on loss of accelerator power. No 
control rods. However, because a proper design would have a much reduced 
neutron flux to begin with (an order of magnitude less) the refueling 
time is greatly extended and may never be needed.


Thus, the inventory of U per watt is high, but comparatively - when you 
include enrichment losses necessary for the LWR the lifetime usage of U 
per watt is half as much with natural U, and without reprocessing - 
resulting in fuel cost which is one fourth - since operators pay a 
premium for enrichment.


What about using LENR as the neutron source?  Some LENR fuels are 
reputed to cause "undesirable" neutron emission.  Suppose that were 
harnessed.


Researching that possibility is one reason why I joined vortex back in 
the previous century but the question remains unanswered - unless you 
have an ace up your sleeve. What LENR fuels produce copious neutrons? 
Certainly a hybrid reactor with natural U would be a prime market. 
Remember that Miley, who used to know more about this than anyone, built 
his neutron generator around a Fusor... not exactly LENR.

Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Bob Higgins]

What about the waste products from a hybrid fusion-fission reactor using
natural U fuel?  Would the neutron source drive the fission products to be
either stable elements or to radioisotopes with shorter half life?

What about using LENR as the neutron source?  Some LENR fuels are reputed
to cause "undesirable" neutron emission.  Suppose that were harnessed.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Robin,
>
> You and I shared similar hybrid design thoughts on a modular mass-produced
> sub-critical reactor 15 years ago... but the basis of the Apollo design
> goes back before "cold fusion" and is still not very smart IMO -- since it
> depends on 3He and extremely expensive magnets. It is DOA even after 28
> years of planning since it retains most of the disadvantages of fusion.
> Here is some history.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261511370_Apollo_-_
> An_advanced_fuel_fusion_power_reactor_for_the_21st_century
>
> The main goal for lowest net cost nuclear power from U - and this has been
> obvious for 40 years to almost everyone in the industry - is to to avoid
> the huge problem where 30% and up of the net cost of new plant goes to
> bankers. Instead of one-off, there needs to be a single modular design,
> smaller in capacity for use as multiple units, built on a batch flow
> (aircraft style) production line at a rate of many per month. Financiers
> sometimes get more than half of the net cost in the USA, since the reactor
> itself takes 10 years to complete and they want to drag it out. A modular
> design can be rail mounted and actually removed at the end of service.
>
> The next obvious design goal is go subcritical - use natural U fuel with
> no enrichment and use multiple small makeup sources of neutrons to avoid
> the extreme cost of a reactor built to contain a meltdown. The "tabletop
> accelerator" was never fully developed for mass production, but it would
> work in multiples as neutron generators in a subcritcal design that
> benefits from overlapping neutron multiplication ratios - and is especially
> suitable as a thermionic topper.
>
> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Jack Cole's message:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>
>>> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo
>>> -fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/
>>>
>> Not much on the company website. I wonder if they are going to implement
>> the model I suggested here on vortex a little while back? ;)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Jones Beene]

Robin,

You and I shared similar hybrid design thoughts on a modular 
mass-produced sub-critical reactor 15 years ago... but the basis of the 
Apollo design goes back before "cold fusion" and is still not very smart 
IMO -- since it depends on 3He and extremely expensive magnets. It is 
DOA even after 28 years of planning since it retains most of the 
disadvantages of fusion. Here is some history.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261511370_Apollo_-_An_advanced_fuel_fusion_power_reactor_for_the_21st_century

The main goal for lowest net cost nuclear power from U - and this has 
been obvious for 40 years to almost everyone in the industry - is to to 
avoid the huge problem where 30% and up of the net cost of new plant 
goes to bankers. Instead of one-off, there needs to be a single modular 
design, smaller in capacity for use as multiple units, built on a batch 
flow (aircraft style) production line at a rate of many per month. 
Financiers sometimes get more than half of the net cost in the USA, 
since the reactor itself takes 10 years to complete and they want to 
drag it out. A modular design can be rail mounted and actually removed 
at the end of service.


The next obvious design goal is go subcritical - use natural U fuel with 
no enrichment and use multiple small makeup sources of neutrons to avoid 
the extreme cost of a reactor built to contain a meltdown. The "tabletop 
accelerator" was never fully developed for mass production, but it would 
work in multiples as neutron generators in a subcritcal design that 
benefits from overlapping neutron multiplication ratios - and is 
especially suitable as a thermionic topper.


mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Jack Cole's message:
Hi,
[snip]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/

Not much on the company website. I wonder if they are going to implement the 
model I suggested here on vortex a little while back? ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jack Cole's message of Tue, 04 Apr 2017 01:25:43 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/

Not much on the company website. I wonder if they are going to implement the
model I suggested here on vortex a little while back? ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Jack Cole]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/