[ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony!

[Dale Boyce]

Oh I forgot to add.  The common neutron activation activities in proton 
accelerators are mostly relatively small amounts of the various Co 
isotopes.produced from neutron capture in iron, and the p,n reaction in 
nickel.

A little Be7 shows up in the cooling water. If you either wait long enough, 
or take away the machine you'll eventually have small amounts of a couple of 
europium isotopes in the concrete shielding.

Dale
daleboyce at charter.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony!


> This isn't quite correct, or rather it is incomplete. Proton-proton fusion 
> is rate limited by the weak reaction since the strong force is 
> insufficient to make He2 stable it must simultaneously beta(positron) 
> decay to deuterium at the time the "fusion" occurs.  However, all of the 
> energy release in p-p fusion is from the strong force, and is equal to the 
> binding energy of deuterium minus the energy that goes into the positron 
> and the neutrino. You have to subtract the decay energy in this case 
> because you have to "make" the positron and neutrino and the only energy 
> source to do this is the released binding energy of the proton and the 
> neutron that make the deuterium.
>
> It is believed that in the innermost part of the sun the carbon cycle 
> dominates the energy production. However, outside that zone the p-p, p-d, 
> and He3-He3 -> He4 +2p and so on dominates.
>
> I agree that in most fusion reactors or bombs we start with different fuel 
> than in the reactions that take place in the sun.  However, almost all of 
> the energy produced is due to the strond interaction. Even at its very 
> basis the energy from the weak force decays comes from the strong 
> interaction. The energy in beta decay is due to the difference in the 
> strong interaction between neighboring isobars.
>
> On the subject of radioactive waste from fusion reactors, one would expect 
> it to be similar to that produced by low energy proton accelerators scaled 
> by the relative power (input in the case of the accelerator, and output in 
> the case of a fusion reactor).  I say this because in low energy proton 
> machines very few things actually see the protons as they get stopped very 
> quickly in the machine components. You get 1 or 2 percent of the proton 
> flux appearing as neutrons from the nuclear reactions that take place. So 
> there is another fudge factor to consider in scaling from the accelerator 
> side.
>
> Now from the fusion side. A lot of fusion reactions do not produce 
> neutrons. What fuel is being used to produce the neutrons we are hearing 
> about? Depending on the fuel, neutron yield could be very low. This leads 
> to a fudge factor on the fusion reactor side of the equation. In fact 
> producing neutrons is probably detrimental in a fusion reactor. It means 
> you lose several MeV of the binding energy of the neutron in the reaction.
>
> We tend to think of neutrons being important from the weapons concept 
> where the fusion fuel needs to produce high energy neutrons for a ternary 
> device to work.
>
> Dale
>
> daleboyce at charter.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj at aecl.ca>
> To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony!
>
>
>> >As a public issue, quantities are apparently irrelevant.
>>>So I don't see the difference between fusion
>>>and fission radioactive wastes as a public issue.
>>>This is a strange world we are dealing with!
>> =============
>>
>>
>> Indeed !
>> The public issue appears instead to be that ITER "seeks to mimic the way 
>> the
>> sun produces energy," or "reproducing the sun's power source" (warm & 
>> fuzzy
>> image), while NIF & other inertial confinement fusion schemes "simulate
>> fusion reactions that occur in hydrogen bombs" (horror!) -- and of course
>> fission reactors "split atoms, like A-bombs."
>> In fact, our fusion reactors are very much UNLIKE the sun, in both 
>> operating
>> conditions and fuel type, fusion marketing propaganda notwithstanding.
>>
>> Fusion reactors and the Sun don't even operate on the same physical 
>> force,
>> and there aren't any D-D or D-T reactions in the Sun -- both accounting 
>> for
>> the fact that the Sun burns for billions of years, instead of blowing up.
>>
>> The Sun *depends* on reactions using the weak nuclear force, while 
>> reactors
>> & bombs use fuels that can be fused quickly & relatively easily using the
>> strong nuclear force only.
>>
>> In his seminal book "Principles of Stellar Evolution and 
>> Nucleosynthesis,"
>> Donald Clayton writes concerning p-p fusion that the weak nuclear
>> interaction is so exceedingly rare, that the deuterium (D)  that has been
>> formed never actually encounters another D.
>> As Clayton explains, "after the deuterium has been formed [in the p-p
>> fusion], one could imagine that He-4 might be produced by the reaction D 
>> + D
>> --> He-4 + u.
>> This reaction, however, suffers from..... the fact that the deuterium
>> abundance is kept very small by its interaction with protons [in the
>> reaction D + p --> He-3 + u, following which the helium nuclei fuse
>> according to He-3 + He-3 --> He-4 + p + p ].
>> .....That these are the major reactions comes about because..... D can 
>> build
>> up only to a very small abundance." [ie. two Ds never bump into each 
>> other
>> in the sea of protons....]
>>
>> According to
>> http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/phys/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/
>> phy213_fusion3.html , "This [p-p] reaction occurs via the weak nuclear 
>> force
>> and the average proton in the Sun will undergo such a reaction 
>> approximately
>> once in the lifetime of the Sun, i.e. once every 10 billion years" (the
>> sun's life) ...this in spite of the fact that the protons undergo
>> approximately 10 billion collisions per second with other protons in the
>> solar interior.
>>
>>
>> Jaro
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
>>
>> This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
>> is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
>> Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
>> dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
>> may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.
>>
>> AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE
>>
>> Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
>> l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
>> d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen,
>> divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
>> non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
>> envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list 
>> radsafe at radlab.nl
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>