5 ms·

I have not tried, but my idea (more than 10 years ago, before the war) was to cover the lattice with atom-thin blanket of depleted Uranium, then to shine at it

I have not tried, but my idea (more than 10 years ago, before the war) was to cover the lattice with atom-thin blanket of depleted Uranium, then to shine at it with radiation from hot mix of radioactive isotopes, with hope that lattice will boost performance of Uranium by 1k-10k. The obvious problem for practical use of this idea is small cross-section of the Uranium blanket, so maybe thousands of thin layers of Nickel-Uranium will be required to make it work, or Nickel-Uranium alloy at 98%-2%. PS. The purpose for of the device is to heat homes, to avoid need of Russian gas, not to generate electricity.

MayeulC 3y ago
Your comment makes it sound like you don't understand the physics of it at all. What does Uranium have to do with this? What does "performance of uranium" means? What do you think will happen when you bombard it with "radiation"? What kind of "radiation"? Uranium is most commonly used in fission devices, not fusion ones. Fusing Uranium would absorb energy, not liberate energy, this is why we split it. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170716/is-there-a-difference-in-the-energy-output-of-a-nuclear-fission-reaction-as-oppo https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170716/is-there-... For heating, you'd be better off using a heat pump. Or I guess you could take some radioactive material and shield it. Or even a breeder reactor, but that's fission. I do not want to come across as disrespectful, but what you're saying sounds like alchemy, or the kind of "science" they show in superhero movies. I could understand using a layer of metal to produce x-rays, and concentrate these to heat a sample (a bit similar to H-bombs, BTW), but I am not a nuclear physicist either. Real physicists have thought about this much more than we did, and if there was a simple pathway to practical fusion, we'd know about it by now. I think you underestimate the complexity of all this (kind of a "Dunning-Kruger" effect), go watch the "MIT's pathway to fusion[1]" videos for an introduction to the problem and modern approaches :) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk
- oneshtein 3y ago
  Do you know how LENR works? Basically, deuterium is dissolved in palladium or nickel (the lattice), until metal starts to crack, to create high concentration of deuterium. Then muons are used[0] to start some fusion. Higher concentration of deuterium means that single muon can accelerate more nuclear fusions, so yield is better. However, artificial muons are expensive to produce, while cosmic muons are rare, so reactor may run fine on one day and fail on other just because of bad or good cosmic weather. If we will have cheap source of muons, then LENR will be practical. My idea is to try to accelerate fusion by banging Uranium in the lattice, instead of bombarding it with muons. It's just an idea with little chance that it will actually work as-is. Many iterations of research and fine tuning are required to make it work. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

MayeulC 3y ago

Your comment makes it sound like you don't understand the physics of it at all. What does Uranium have to do with this? What does "performance of uranium" means? What do you think will happen when you bombard it with "radiation"? What kind of "radiation"? Uranium is most commonly used in fission devices, not fusion ones. Fusing Uranium would absorb energy, not liberate energy, this is why we split it. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170716/is-there-a-difference-in-the-energy-output-of-a-nuclear-fission-reaction-as-oppo https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170716/is-there-... For heating, you'd be better off using a heat pump. Or I guess you could take some radioactive material and shield it. Or even a breeder reactor, but that's fission. I do not want to come across as disrespectful, but what you're saying sounds like alchemy, or the kind of "science" they show in superhero movies. I could understand using a layer of metal to produce x-rays, and concentrate these to heat a sample (a bit similar to H-bombs, BTW), but I am not a nuclear physicist either. Real physicists have thought about this much more than we did, and if there was a simple pathway to practical fusion, we'd know about it by now. I think you underestimate the complexity of all this (kind of a "Dunning-Kruger" effect), go watch the "MIT's pathway to fusion[1]" videos for an introduction to the problem and modern approaches :) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk

oneshtein 3y ago
Do you know how LENR works? Basically, deuterium is dissolved in palladium or nickel (the lattice), until metal starts to crack, to create high concentration of deuterium. Then muons are used[0] to start some fusion. Higher concentration of deuterium means that single muon can accelerate more nuclear fusions, so yield is better. However, artificial muons are expensive to produce, while cosmic muons are rare, so reactor may run fine on one day and fail on other just because of bad or good cosmic weather. If we will have cheap source of muons, then LENR will be practical. My idea is to try to accelerate fusion by banging Uranium in the lattice, instead of bombarding it with muons. It's just an idea with little chance that it will actually work as-is. Many iterations of research and fine tuning are required to make it work. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion