3 ms·
I've wondered, aren't there any fusible elements that can be solids in vacuum? Then shoot pellets at each other at a sizable fraction of c. Way better density t
by abecedarius 8y ago
I've wondered, aren't there any fusible elements that can be solids in vacuum? Then shoot pellets at each other at a sizable fraction of c. Way better density than a particle beam.
For instance, lithium-6 is a stable solid metal with the right nucleon composition and binding energy to fuse into carbon-12. I have no idea if it actually would to a useful degree.
- Retra 8y agoSolid in a vacuum at what temperature?
- abecedarius 8y agoWhatever's practical for your giant pea-shooter and reaction chamber. But lithium is a soft metal at room temperature, so this part doesn't seem too constraining.
- Retra 8y agoIf you want to sustain a fusion reaction for generating power through heat, you're not going to do it at room temperature, and there're not many materials that will remain solid at fusion temperatures.
- abecedarius 8y agoI said "shoot pellets at each other at a sizable fraction of c". The point is to hold together before the splat, so that by high density enough nuclei actually hit each other. This is a bang-bang kind of thing, not a continuous reaction.
- Retra 8y agoWe don't have any trouble creating fusion explosions. The whole trouble of fusion is sustaining a reaction. Fusion bombs already exist, and what you're describing isn't that different from an Ulam-Teller device.
- abecedarius 8y agoExisting fusion bombs need a fission bomb for ignition. This lower-bounds both the bang and the unpleasant byproducts. A smaller bang can be used much more practically. For example, 20th-century cars were also powered by explosions. Somehow they outcompeted the previous dominant technology of continuous reactors, steam engines. To dismiss my half-assed idea by pointing to another, I'd bring up something more comparable, like inertial-confinement fusion.