| Pages:
1
2 |
Fusionfire
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 8-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Sickman  | | Quote: Originally posted by Fusionfire |
You could mix the LiH with a long chain alkane (e.g. low MP wax, preferably also deuterated) and then cool/solidify it, so effectively you have a waxy
coating to passivate your LiH from runaway exothermic oxidation by the peroxide.
Blast your conc. H2O2 through an atomiser, freeze it to fine crystals and mix the H2O2 crystals with the passivated LiH.
Hence a high mole % deuterium chemical explosive, capable of acting as a fuel for nuclear fusion (both the deuterium and lithium). A slightest source
of external heat would set this off!
[Edited on 10-8-2011 by Fusionfire] |
External heat would only achieve activation energy for a chemical reaction! Your hopes of fusion are kaput without a source of neutron bombardment.
Please don't clutter the forum with your "cold fusion mumbo jumbo"!
http://grooveshark.com/#/s/Tell+No+Tales/3mu0wU?src=5
[Edited on 10-8-2011 by Sickman] |
I never said the external heat would set off anything but the chemical reaction.
|
|
|
Sickman
Hazard to Self
Posts: 98
Registered: 9-5-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: Icy and I see!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fusionfire | | Quote: Originally posted by Sickman | | Quote: Originally posted by Fusionfire |
You could mix the LiH with a long chain alkane (e.g. low MP wax, preferably also deuterated) and then cool/solidify it, so effectively you have a waxy
coating to passivate your LiH from runaway exothermic oxidation by the peroxide.
Blast your conc. H2O2 through an atomiser, freeze it to fine crystals and mix the H2O2 crystals with the passivated LiH.
Hence a high mole % deuterium chemical explosive, capable of acting as a fuel for nuclear fusion (both the deuterium and lithium). A slightest source
of external heat would set this off!
[Edited on 10-8-2011 by Fusionfire] |
External heat would only achieve activation energy for a chemical reaction! Your hopes of fusion are kaput without a source of neutron bombardment.
Please don't clutter the forum with your "cold fusion mumbo jumbo"!
http://grooveshark.com/#/s/Tell+No+Tales/3mu0wU?src=5
[Edited on 10-8-2011 by Sickman] |
I never said the external heat would set off anything but the chemical reaction. |
When you say "A slightest source of external heat would set this off!" a normal person would ask "set what off"? The question goes back to your use of
the anaphor "this", which seemed, to me, to point back to your use of the antecedent in the preceding sentence: "nuclear fusion"! If however the
antecedent you intended was "chemical explosive" then I apologize for my rush to judgement. And yet your use of the phrase "set off" is ambiguous
given the context of the preceding sentence.
I know, I know, enough with the grammar already. My point: words do matter, alot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkM05jjHMNw
[Edited on 11-8-2011 by Sickman]
|
|
|
KemiRockarFett
Hazard to Self
Posts: 84
Registered: 23-7-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Stupid idea related to the "cold fussion" project runned by Mr Rosso that I am sure you all already have heard about.
Mr Rosso claims that he, in his device, runs this reaction:
62Ni + p --> 63Cu E equals -> 0.006687 mass units.
The device is some kind of steal tube with fine Ni powder, rheney nickel?, and H2 gas and some secrets. Some experts in physics, bought?, thinks that
this could be serous and for real.
Now to my idea based on if this above is true:
Deuterised explosive or ordinary HE mixed with superfine Al or similar to get out H2 in big ammounts. The mixtures VoD will go down as the mix become
fueled with metal ( for H2/D2 production). Dont se this as a problem. Produce an explosive lens, think of a Pu-fission bomb, there this HE-mixture is
the sperhe. The Ni-powder or NiD3,NiH3 in the center of this sphere. As ususally use bridgewire dets to get uniform implosion of the spherically
HE/metal mix. Surrounding the explosive-H2/D2 sphere should be a sphere of Uranium238 or similar neutron eating materialand around this a sphere with
neutron reflector material and after this the outer layer should be steel. The spere is evacuated and filled upp with 200 bar hydrogen/deuterium gas.
This will never work somebody claims, the energi will be to low. Please calculate the effectdenstity in the center för one meter diameter sphere. How
much work will be focused into an centervolume and for how long time?
Check this, and compare with above, Canada cold fussion reactor with pistons compressing the reactants to the center of the sphere:
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23102/
If experiments are made with explosively driven magnetic field compressors use demagnitisation of neurudynium permanentmagnets to get the input
current. Its the easiset.
How to do this? Just detonatate PETN/RDX located inside the magnet to get rid of the magnetization. The change in magnetic flux induces the starting
current and off cource the PETN/RDX also detonates the explosive filled metal tube that short circuits and compress the magnetic field.
[Edited on 11-8-2011 by KemiRockarFett]
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
| Quote: | | I never said the external heat would set off anything but the chemical reaction. |
Then what was the purpose of a deuterated explosive?
Explosive compression of deuterium gas using shaped charges has been used with success to initiate fusion. Look up Voitenko compressor if you like to
read more.
[Edited on 11-8-2011 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here is an old study on explosive driven fusion.
They did get some fusion, but the process does not scale up.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA121652&Locati...
Its almost amazing how many things have been tried over the years.
|
|
|
KemiRockarFett
Hazard to Self
Posts: 84
Registered: 23-7-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
10^7 neutrons for a steel-hemisphere with 20 cm diameter there the hemisphere surface was charged with 200 gram PETN at 0.5-06 g/cm^3. Hemispere was
placed normal to a steel plate and inside this arrangement up to 70 bar of stochimoetrical mix of D2 + O2 was initiated at the explosive lens focus
point by a bridgewire. The D2+ O2 mixture initated the PETN almost perfectly but not for higher PETN densities.
My suggestion to get this going is the following "simple" steps:
1) Use a spere not a hemisphere. Increase the diameter.
2) Charge it with an explosive their all hydrogen atoms are substitutet with Detuerium ones.
3) Mix the deuterised explosive with some chemically reactive metal preferable with a large atomic mass. Balance for D2 output. (Most of the partikles
that first reaches the center will be D2 ). If its possible to get fission from the fussion created neturons the reactive metal mixed in the
explosive could be a fissible material. (Some one maybee thinks that its a bad idea to decrease VoD in this way but here we could use a layered
explosive, without metal inmix, on top of the D2 balanced explosive. )
4) Evacuate the steelsphere totally.
5) Set the device of with a set of bridgewire detonators in a classic manner.
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
What about deuteriated, C13, N15, O17 HMX?
Must be way denser than common HMX...I wonder if the increase of density will favourize higher VOD??
Because denser output gases will decrease specific impulse...but for sure not the detonic process...
Anyone has datas of higher isotopic explosives vs normal explosives...
PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)
"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
|
|
|
asilentbob
Harmless
Posts: 24
Registered: 4-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: *sigh*
|
|
There is a big difference between fusing a few atoms and fusing enough to get a self sustaining reaction for a time.
The first is easy... People do it in their garage all the time. You keep dumping in power and get out much less than you put in. Technology required
is not much more than a neon sign transformer and high vacuum pump.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Inertial_elec...
The second is hard.
H-Bombs. Massive magnetic confinement experiments which try to be self sustaining but are not.
So many ideas... too few dealing with chemistry.
|
|
|
Fusionfire
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 8-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well, in terms of the practicality of a fusion device anything but billions of funding can achieve, we can exclude laser array inertial confinement
and magnetic confinement.
Assuming you could construct a spherical explosive assembly, high synchronicity detonators, wave shapers, etc. - and use deuterated chemical
explosives but no fissionable core - would it be possible to trigger nuclear fusion at the core?
Temperatures in imploding bubbles at room temperature is apparently 100,000K, with some simulations (probably assuming no design imperfections)
predicting 10 megakelvins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
The actual temperature you get obviously depends crucially on the sphericity of the imploding shock. Small deviations from a spherical convergent
shock would lead to jetting, lower temperatures and premature loss of confinement.
What temperatures could you expect from an axisymmetric two-point initiation device?
|
|
|
KemiRockarFett
Hazard to Self
Posts: 84
Registered: 23-7-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fusionfire | Well, in terms of the practicality of a fusion device anything but billions of funding can achieve, we can exclude laser array inertial confinement
and magnetic confinement.
Assuming you could construct a spherical explosive assembly, high synchronicity detonators, wave shapers, etc. - and use deuterated chemical
explosives but no fissionable core - would it be possible to trigger nuclear fusion at the core?
Temperatures in imploding bubbles at room temperature is apparently 100,000K, with some simulations (probably assuming no design imperfections)
predicting 10 megakelvins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
The actual temperature you get obviously depends crucially on the sphericity of the imploding shock. Small deviations from a spherical convergent
shock would lead to jetting, lower temperatures and premature loss of confinement.
What temperatures could you expect from an axisymmetric two-point initiation device? |
I think its very possible as the Canadian fusion project using rammers on a steel sphere with liqud lead/lithium in it that is spinning around a
hollow part in the center with D2/T2 gas.
I think their sphere is 3 m in diameter and around 200 rammers. So think of HE lens instead offcourse it must be a chance to work. I suggest some
physisist on this phorum to do a simluation of this.
If its already done practically and succeded I think its top secret.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Neutron bomb or Enhanced Radiation bomb was conceived as a means to
greatly reduce collateral damage from the blast and heat of ordinary atomic
weapons , by relying on an increased radiation output upon detonation as the
killing mechanism. The small yield is mainly ~ 80 % neutrons the balance being
heat and blast.
Investigation into producing this effect on a smaller scale without fission never
amounted to much since the effects of the chemical explosion far exceed any
radiation that can be produced by such means , something approximate to
the effect of medical x-rays. Lightly covered in the paper cited above _
Explosive-Driven Hemispherical Implosions for Generating Fusion Plasmas
direct download => www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a121652.pdf
Producing neutrons is achieved by numerous means. Lithium metal and Polonium
210 , explosively driven together emits a shower of neutrons. Deuterium bound
with Tritium ( DT ) gas passing an electric discharge spark , emits a shower of
neutrons. An auxiliary device for initiating the chain reaction of an atomic bomb's
critical mass assembly called the neutron gun , consists of a tube with an electrode
at each end , a 100 kilovolt cathode shoots a tritium plasma at the anode of a
metal hydride ( scandium deuteride ) resulting in a neutron emission.
Because the output from a nuclear process is several million times greater than
the yield of chemical energy , nuclear reactions occuring in very small amounts
can optimally add significantly to the total energy that can be produced. The
conditions of pressure and temperature in detonating explosives are conducive
to processes as described. Lithium 6 fissioned by a neutron yields considerable
energy. A possible enhancement of conventional explosives may result with an
induced emission of neutrons within an explosive composition made in some
manner with Lithium 6.
.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
I hardly see the point of deuterated explosives or explosives using heavier isotopes like C-13, N-15 and so on. Chemically, they are VERY similar to
normal isotopes and so I expect the energetics of these 'enhanced' compounds to be very close to their normal counterparts. Surely there might be a
few percents of difference in energy output per mole of compound and there also might be some differences in sensitivity, but do you really think that
there will be some spectacular new thing?
|
|
|
Fusionfire
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 8-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by woelen | | I hardly see the point of deuterated explosives or explosives using heavier isotopes like C-13, N-15 and so on. Chemically, they are VERY similar to
normal isotopes and so I expect the energetics of these 'enhanced' compounds to be very close to their normal counterparts. Surely there might be a
few percents of difference in energy output per mole of compound and there also might be some differences in sensitivity, but do you really think that
there will be some spectacular new thing? |
VoD for deuterated explosives may even decrease contrary to usual VoD/density trends. The reason for this is that the chemical energy evolved from
<sup>2</sup>H and <sup>1</sup>H chemical explosives is the same, being related to electronic re-arrangements. From the
chemical energy evolved, a proportion goes to radiant/thermal energy (which we measure as temperature) and a proportion goes to bulk kinetic energy
(which we measure as shock velocity/strength). For a given proportion of CE that goes to KE, increasing the mass of the constituent products decreases
the velocity to conserve energy. The only way VoD for an isotopically heavier (hence denser) explosive could be higher is if the proportion of
chemical energy becoming KE is higher.
The main reason for deuterated explosives is not alteration of VoD but because it is comparatively easier to initiate nuclear fusion in deuterium (D)
nuclei than in protium (H).
Reason being, for a given mean particle velocity (determined by the temperature), D has about double the kinetic energy than H. As two positively
charged nuclei are on a collision course with one another, their electric potential energy must be supplied by their kinetic energies until the
nuclear force can take over. Therefore nuclei with double the KE but the same number of mutually repulsive protons have a higher likelihood of fusing.
If nuclear energy can be evolved in addition to chemical energy, then all bets are off and of course the deuterated system will have a much higher VoD
due to greater total evolved energies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
[Edited on 19-8-2011 by Fusionfire]
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Question of Pure Fusion Explosions Under the CTBT
www.princeton.edu/sgs/faculty-staff/frank-von-hippel/Questio...
" Although U.S. progress in this area is classified , in early1992 the Russian weapon
laboratories reported neutron yields of 10^(13) to 10^(14) neutrons , corresponding to
the fusion of 10^(-10) to 10^(-9) grams of DT gas. The production of 10^(14)
neutrons would be accompanied by the release of an amount of fusion energy
equivalent to roughly 60 mg of TNT.
(10^(14))(18 MeV)(1.6 x 10^(-13) J / MeV) ÷ (4.6 x 10^(8) J / g of TNT) = 0.06 g TNT.
The associated radiation dose at one meter would be about 0.2 Gy (20 rads)
significant but not great enough to cause death in the short term."
The generated neutron flux can act on fissionable elements notably lithium 6 ,
doubling the yield from nuclear energy. Current yields of this scheme is slight ,
much less than that of the explosive itself. Applied research continues.
The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion,
and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons
http://www.e-ipi.net/isri/_media/publications:ag-09-01.pdf
Transparency Measures for $ubcritical Experiments Under the CTBT
www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/6_3jones.pdf
Project Crystal: Lithium 6 for thermonuclear weapons
www.mcis.soton.ac.uk/Site_Files/pdf/nuclear_history/Working_...
.
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by woelen | | I hardly see the point of deuterated explosives or explosives using heavier isotopes like C-13, N-15 and so on. Chemically, they are VERY similar to
normal isotopes and so I expect the energetics of these 'enhanced' compounds to be very close to their normal counterparts. Surely there might be a
few percents of difference in energy output per mole of compound and there also might be some differences in sensitivity, but do you really think that
there will be some spectacular new thing? |
Simple examples might give a hint...
1°)Normal CH3-NO2 has a density d= 1,137 g/ccm and a molecular mass of 61 uma.
If "isotopic CH3-NO2" (deuteriated; C13, O18 and N15) was made... it would display a Molecular Mass of 70 uma.
This would take the very same volume as the normal molecule but it would be 70/61= 1,14754 times denser.
The density of the isotopic would be in the range of 1,305 g/ccm and for CHNO explosives 0,1g/ccm increase in density corresponds to an increase of
VOD of about 350 m/s...resulting here in an increase of 588 m/s.
The VOD goes then from 6300m/s to 6888 m/s.
2°)Normal N2H5NO3 has a density of 1,64 g/ccm and a VOD of 8900m/s and a MW of 95 uma.
"Isotopic N2H5NO3" would have a MW of 109 uma and thus a density of 1,8817 g/ccm. The resulting VOD would be 9746 m/s...
The higher the density of the normal compound the better the VOD increase for the "isotopic explosive"...
PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)
"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
|
|
|
Fusionfire
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 8-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by PHILOU Zrealone | | Quote: Originally posted by woelen | | I hardly see the point of deuterated explosives or explosives using heavier isotopes like C-13, N-15 and so on. Chemically, they are VERY similar to
normal isotopes and so I expect the energetics of these 'enhanced' compounds to be very close to their normal counterparts. Surely there might be a
few percents of difference in energy output per mole of compound and there also might be some differences in sensitivity, but do you really think that
there will be some spectacular new thing? |
Simple examples might give a hint...
1°)Normal CH3-NO2 has a density d= 1,137 g/ccm and a molecular mass of 61 uma.
If "isotopic CH3-NO2" (deuteriated; C13, O18 and N15) was made... it would display a Molecular Mass of 70 uma.
This would take the very same volume as the normal molecule but it would be 70/61= 1,14754 times denser.
The density of the isotopic would be in the range of 1,305 g/ccm and for CHNO explosives 0,1g/ccm increase in density corresponds to an increase of
VOD of about 350 m/s...resulting here in an increase of 588 m/s.
The VOD goes then from 6300m/s to 6888 m/s.
2°)Normal N2H5NO3 has a density of 1,64 g/ccm and a VOD of 8900m/s and a MW of 95 uma.
"Isotopic N2H5NO3" would have a MW of 109 uma and thus a density of 1,8817 g/ccm. The resulting VOD would be 9746 m/s...
The higher the density of the normal compound the better the VOD increase for the "isotopic explosive"...
|
But the same amount of chemical energy is being released in deuterated/non-deuterated chemical explosives of the same chemical formula.
A certain percent of the chemical energy goes to kinetic energy of the expanding products. If the mass of the products increases due to replacing
protium with deuterium, assuming this proportion of CE -> KE is the same then the VoD of heavier isotopes will drop.
|
|
|
White Yeti
National Hazard
Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline
Mood: delocalized
|
|
You could incorporate some lithium while you're at it. Lithium absorbs neutrons to form tritium, yet another fuel for fusion. Boron is another one.
Boron will "fission" to form helium under extreme temperature and pressure and when bombarded with protons. So I think if you really want to try this
out, you should try to use as many reactions as possible, not just d-d.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
