maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) (03/31/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) Few minor problems with this new fusion, and what appear to be clarifications (plus how I feel they can work on the battlefield) First: power density is horrible. For anything of size, use a Fission plant. It's more weight and size effecient. (Note: i'm going by the initial figures. one thing that might change this is whether the electricity in the electrode makes the fusion go: if so, then the power density can probably go way up and also we can leave the thing fueled constantly and turn it on at will, both if voltage/current increase. My physics profs and TA's won't talk about it, so I don't know.) Second: They still don't provide limitless power. Smaller, maybe. Those of you saying all the small 'what if' stuff are reccomended to look to small gas-turbine/generator based sources of electricity. It works, lots'o current out of even a small backpack unit. Third: Just as a warning: remember high temperature superconductors?... This should not be taken to mean that these have no potential. But i would like to point out that most successes in life are evolutionary, not revolutionary. And as for putting them in destroyers: Oh Great. Let's run the cost up to make them as expensive as Nuclear Carriers. Wonderful economic sense. george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu
mchamp@wpi.wpi.edu (Marc J. Champagne) (04/03/89)
From: mchamp@wpi.wpi.edu (Marc J. Champagne)
To: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@
In response to your article:
1) yes, fission plants will probably be more weight and size efficient
; that's why I recommended them for cruisers and carriers ; you
only want the fusion plant because it eliminates the need to
depend upon potentially difficult to supply enriched uranium and
oil ; if you only have a few large surface ships using fission
power, you have no uranium supply problem.....so stick with
fission for CVNs and CGNs. Fusion is the obvious choice for the
more numerous classes of surface ships (DDs/FFs), though.
2) "running destroyer prices up to the CVN range".....a gross
exageration ; you can go with a modification on current tubine
designs for gas turbine engines, only you're using fussion
released energy as your heat source instead of gas combustion ;
and the devices which have seen experimentation so far involve
platinum group metals (fairly expensive, but a 1 time purchase
per power plant....they're not consumed) and deuterium (which is
being cheaply extracted from sea-water and refined to greater
than 98% by the Canadians). Of course, having backup diesel
generators would up the price a bit. But that seems to be an
inevitability if you're faced with a 10 hour charge time to
saturate your palladium with deuterium.
The whole point is that you have a slightly higher initial outlay,
but then don't have the logistics difficulties of supplying
large amounts of fossil fuels. We probably would have seen
destroyer's with fission power plants years ago in spite of the
higher initial cost if supplying that much more enriched uranium
for naval power plants hadn't seemed to be such a problem.
Basically, it's a case of the Navy having to look at it's
uranium needs and assigning some sort of priority. SSNs, CVNs,
and CGNs were judged to have greater importance (in that order).
As for use aboard subs, I do not think that that would be a safe
course of action. Again, if a fusion plant using the principles in
the Utah project is powered down, the deuterium ions fly out of the
lattice structure in the palladium. Then you're without your main
propulsion system for 10 hours or so while you try to resaturate it.
Can anyone see any practical applications aside from destroyer and
frigate power plants?
[mod.note: Is it not possible to operate the fusion plant at "maintanence
level", keeping the bulk of the deuterium in the palladium without
reaching "critical mass" (or whatever the appropriate term in
this technology) ? Or perhaps one could remove part of the palladium
from the "core" ? If the plant can only be operated in an "on/off" mode,
with 10 hours to turn it on, its uses will be greatly diminished. - Bill ]maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) (04/05/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) -LONG- In article <5326@cbnews.ATT.COM> mchamp@wpi.wpi.edu (Marc J. Champagne) writes: >To: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ >In response to your article: > fission for CVNs and CGNs. Fusion is the obvious choice for the > more numerous classes of surface ships (DDs/FFs), though. >2) "running destroyer prices up to the CVN range".....a gross > exageration ; you can go with a modification on current tubine > designs for gas turbine engines, only you're using fussion Wrong! Use current steam turbines, please. (engineering-type detail: they allready exist and were around for Years before gas turbines. :) > The whole point is that you have a slightly higher initial outlay, > but then don't have the logistics difficulties of supplying > large amounts of fossil fuels. We probably would have seen Aack! Aack! 'slightly higher initial outlay'...? Choke! Palladium is 3 times the cost of Gold! And we'd need TONS for a reactor! One time, maybe, but what i've seen says that the Palladium for a useful plant would be in the close to low Billions: DD's currently run roughly $250 million, plus $20 million a year to operate and maintain. I may be crazy, but I'm going to be an engineer: and in the real world things that cost too much don't get built. > >As for use aboard subs, I do not think that that would be a safe > course of action. Again, if a fusion plant using the principles in > the Utah project is powered down, the deuterium ions fly out of the > lattice structure in the palladium. Then you're without your main > propulsion system for 10 hours or so while you try to resaturate it. > It's a little early to be assuming that we have to pull the entire thing down to stop it. According to sources who have been valiantly trying to replacate said experiments here at UCB, it apparently requires a pretty hefty electrical field to fuse, so it can probably be turned off by simply shutting down the electricity, leaving the palladium fueled. Note that putting the Palladium into heavy water may well not be necessary: a far more practical idea is a steel pipe, with a palladium core and a hold down the centerfor the deuterium. Immerse in water and run electricity through palladium. This way the deuterium stays where you want it. [note: based on speculation not hard data on how this operates.] >Can anyone see any practical applications aside from destroyer and > frigate power plants? Yes. Satelites, are one. I would like to make a quick comment here. What I did, attacking the possible uses of this new technology, was not intended to be defeatist or anti-progress. What I wanted to do was stop everyone from wasting their and everybody elses time with 'look: it's new...we can do _everything_ with it' postings, such as several that went up. This may well turn out to be a very important advance for technology as well as a physics breakthrough, but right now it has well- defined and overwhelming practical problems barring potential application. While those who free-associate to come up with neat ideas are fine and good (i was one for a Long time before i started getting technical training in college) they quite often ask the impossible of physics and engineering. I would suggest that next time everyone step back and look carefully at something like this before starting to discuss it. This is, after all, sci.mil not sci.gee-whiz! george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (04/05/89)
From: w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) > [mod.note: Is it not possible to operate the fusion plant at "maintanence > level", keeping the bulk of the deuterium in the palladium without > reaching "critical mass" (or whatever the appropriate term in > this technology) ? Or perhaps one could remove part of the palladium > from the "core" ? If the plant can only be operated in an "on/off" mode, > with 10 hours to turn it on, its uses will be greatly diminished. - Bill ] First of all, this technoloogy is so new (although Hungarian TV announced a duplication of results a few days ago, there's still plenty of room for doubt that this is a real effect at all) that guesses about the capabilities of a useful power plant are unlikely to be very accurate. Having said that, by all appearances there appears to be no concept of chain reaction or critical mass in cold fusion - you can make arbitrarily small reactors. Also, the current flow is needed, so regulating that offers potential for a rapid on/off switch. The 10 hour charge time is to allow the deuturium to saturate the palladium. It takes a comparable amount of time to remove the deuturium, so right there you know you haven't got a usable regulation system. But since it appears that mere saturation is not enough to start fusion (as opposed to a fission reactor, where just putting enough uranium in one place will generate heat), there are plenty of opportunities to stop the process. I think we'll have answers soon enough (every university in the world is going to play with it), so waiting a while (intolerable as it is) seems apropriate. -- -Colin (uunet!microsoft!w-colinp) "Don't listen to me. I never do." - The Doctor
rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu (Roger Levasseur) (04/06/89)
From: rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu (Roger Levasseur) >1) yes, fission plants will probably be more weight and size efficient > ; that's why I recommended them for cruisers and carriers ; you > only want the fusion plant because it eliminates the need to > depend upon potentially difficult to supply enriched uranium and > oil ; if you only have a few large surface ships using fission > power, you have no uranium supply problem.....so stick with > fission for CVNs and CGNs. Fusion is the obvious choice for the > more numerous classes of surface ships (DDs/FFs), though. The Navy would love to power its DDs/FFs with nuclear power TODAY, but they are having problems manning nuclear powered ships as it is with the expertise that is necessary. They don't want to add to the problem. A nuclear powered escort complements the CVNs and CGNs and frees them from the logistics of tankering large amounts of fuel oil (or diesel) for these ships. > The whole point is that you have a slightly higher initial outlay, > but then don't have the logistics difficulties of supplying > large amounts of fossil fuels. We probably would have seen > destroyer's with fission power plants years ago in spite of the We have. The USS Bainbridge (CGN 25) was originally classified as a guided missle frigate (DLGN 25). It was commissioned October 6, 1962. It was the Navy's third nuclear powered surface ship. The California class of cruisers were also originally classified as DLGN. > higher initial cost if supplying that much more enriched uranium > for naval power plants hadn't seemed to be such a problem. > Basically, it's a case of the Navy having to look at it's > uranium needs and assigning some sort of priority. SSNs, CVNs, > and CGNs were judged to have greater importance (in that order). Here is an additional tidbit: In 1971, the USS Enterprise was refueled. It was not refueled until the early 80's. I don't know which year. For all the miles it steamed, it cost about $133 per mile. A conventional carrier burns $250 of oil per mile (a 1980 figure), not including the tankering costs to deliver it. I also don't think there is a uranium supply problem; the uranium mining industry is suffering from a lack of demand. They were ready to supply the needs of the electric utilities nuclear plants. But this aspect of the issue isn't sci.military material. The modern reactors in use also only need to be refueled every 10 to 13 years. (Some of the older SSNs/SSBNs have been retired from service early than refuel them for 2 or 3 more years service; others have stayed in service longer than planned since they had a few more years life in the fuel core.) -roger -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Roger Levasseur University of Lowell rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/06/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <5391@cbnews.ATT.COM>, maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) writes: > > Aack! Aack! 'slightly higher initial outlay'...? Choke! > Palladium is 3 times the cost of Gold! And we'd need TONS for a reactor! How quickly things change! Just this morning Palladium was going for around $160.00/oz and gold for something like $390.00/oz. (WSJ listing of metals commodities trading.) Even Platinum was only at about $545. Darn. Here I thought I finally had a chance to get Gold at $50/oz. :}
mchamp%harvard@husc6.harvard.edu (Marc J. Champagne) (04/07/89)
From: ulowell!wpi.wpi.edu!mchamp%harvard@husc6.harvard.edu (Marc J. Champagne) To: maniac@garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ >Wrong! Use current steam turbines, please (rather than gas >turbines to harness fusion heat for propulsion). (engineering-type detail: >they allready exist and were around for Years before gas turbines. :) Point well taken. Your choice is better. >> The whole point is that you have a slightly higher initial outlay, >> but then don't have the logistics difficulties of supplying >> large amounts of fossil fuels. We probably would have seen > >Aack! Aack! 'slightly higher initial outlay'...? Choke! >Palladium is 3 times the cost of Gold! And we'd need TONS for a reactor! >One time, maybe, but what i've seen says that the Palladium for a useful >plant would be in the close to low Billions: DD's currently run roughly >$250 million, plus $20 million a year to operate and maintain. > I may be crazy, but I'm going to be an engineer: and in the real >world things that cost too much don't get built. Then I suggest you check your facts. You are off by 1 order of magnitude in the price of palladium, it is **1/3** the price of gold, not 3 times the price of gold. Also, 800 watts of heat is the peak ouput figure so far in the cold fusion process.....from a 1cu/cm block of palladium. You are VASTLY overstating the costs. I agree that the prices you give are unconscionable. But they are also completely incorrect. >>As for use aboard subs, I do not think that that would be a safe >> course of action. Again, if a fusion plant using the principles in >> the Utah project is powered down, the deuterium ions fly out of the >> lattice structure in the palladium. Then you're without your main >> propulsion system for 10 hours or so while you try to resaturate it. >> >It's a little early to be assuming that we have to pull the entire thing >down to stop it. According to sources who have been valiantly trying to >replacate said experiments here at UCB, it apparently requires a pretty >hefty electrical field to fuse, so it can probably be turned off by simply >shutting down the electricity, leaving the palladium fueled. Note that putting >the Palladium into heavy water may well not be necessary: a far more >practical idea is a steel pipe, with a palladium core and a hold down the centerfor the deuterium. Immerse in water and run electricity through palladium. 1) You MUST have the palladium and platinum in heavy water. No question about it. That's where your easy to handle source of deuterium (hydrogen isotope) is. 2) You'd power down the reactor for the same reason you power down a fission plant.......so you don't have lots of pump noise when you're in close to shore on a covert mission (I'm assuming that we've learned our lesson about natural-circulation cooling systems and WILL stick with pumps). Problem is when you power down this plant, your deuterium ions will fly out of the matrix because there's no electric current forcing new ions in at the higher than normal density. Fusion stops and you have to resaturate the matrix...several hours of work at the minimum. If you DON't power down, fusion keeps occuring, your pumps will have to keep running, and you'll still be making lots of noise. In other words, this type of power plant will take longer to start than a fision plant (which takes a long time in itself....I work at our school's reactor...only 10kwatt...and it takes us quite a few minutes to go critical...if your fission reactor was running at high enough power before you scrammed it, you WON'T be restarting for several hours/days). Come to think of it, the fusion charging delay isn't that bad compared to fission plants at all, it you're fission power down was sudden. I assume the reactor on an SSN would be run at very low power prior to going in and shutting down for a covert op. If it wasn't being run at low power, powering down is out of the question since you won't be restarting anytime soon for ANY reason....it's simply not possible. I guess I've just reasoned myself into seeing some limited fusion applications for submarines. But the idea still makes me nervous too. [Note: so far it looks like this is a really tough reaction to regulate. Too little current through the heavy water and the deuterium leaves the palladium lattice and you have to recharge. Too high a current density and nothing happens. Lower the current density a little and you get fusion. Lower it a little more and your fusion setup melts-down......very disturbing]