T
Tom P
I've been half following some of the discussions on this group, maybe
someone can fill me in some details.
I've gotten the impression that the way these things work is by
accelerating deuterium or tritium ions so that enough collisions occur
to release energy.
So we have for example:
1D2 + 1D2 -->2He3 (0.82 MeV) + 0n1 (2.45 MeV)
This reaction is actually used in a commercial neutron generator, so in
terms of proof of principle, so far so good. There are other reactions,
but let's take this as a working example.
Where I get unstuck is with the numbers. The commercial device in
question consumes around 2-3 kW of power and produces 10^7 neutrons per
second.
That means that as a by-product, it produces 10^7 x 2.45 MeV, or
24500000 MeV of energy per second.
That sounds a lot, but if you convert into watts and joules that comes
out as 0.000003925334385 watts. Hmm.
Ok, well let's suppose that we could up the efficiency by a factor of
several million so that it produces more energy than it consumed - say
10kW. That's 62415064799632350 MeV per second, so you would be
generating around 6x10^24 neutrons per second. These neutrons are also
carrying the energy that you are trying to capture, so you'll need a
suitable moderator to slow them, say water, and something to absorb
them. Whatever absorbs them needs to do so extremely efficiently so that
you don't get too many neutrons leaking out of your basement and making
your entire house radioactive, not to mention your wife and kids.
Maybe there's some other technology, but the bottom line is that it
seems you have a lot of neutrons to look after, and this doesn't really
sound like a sound DIY project to me.
Can someone comment? Are my numbers all wrong?
someone can fill me in some details.
I've gotten the impression that the way these things work is by
accelerating deuterium or tritium ions so that enough collisions occur
to release energy.
So we have for example:
1D2 + 1D2 -->2He3 (0.82 MeV) + 0n1 (2.45 MeV)
This reaction is actually used in a commercial neutron generator, so in
terms of proof of principle, so far so good. There are other reactions,
but let's take this as a working example.
Where I get unstuck is with the numbers. The commercial device in
question consumes around 2-3 kW of power and produces 10^7 neutrons per
second.
That means that as a by-product, it produces 10^7 x 2.45 MeV, or
24500000 MeV of energy per second.
That sounds a lot, but if you convert into watts and joules that comes
out as 0.000003925334385 watts. Hmm.
Ok, well let's suppose that we could up the efficiency by a factor of
several million so that it produces more energy than it consumed - say
10kW. That's 62415064799632350 MeV per second, so you would be
generating around 6x10^24 neutrons per second. These neutrons are also
carrying the energy that you are trying to capture, so you'll need a
suitable moderator to slow them, say water, and something to absorb
them. Whatever absorbs them needs to do so extremely efficiently so that
you don't get too many neutrons leaking out of your basement and making
your entire house radioactive, not to mention your wife and kids.
Maybe there's some other technology, but the bottom line is that it
seems you have a lot of neutrons to look after, and this doesn't really
sound like a sound DIY project to me.
Can someone comment? Are my numbers all wrong?