4 ms·

> (in fact I believe most produce more energy from fission than from fusion). If this is true, then that puts a kink in my design. I assumed the vast majority

> (in fact I believe most produce more energy from fission than from fusion). If this is true, then that puts a kink in my design. I assumed the vast majority of energy output was from fusion. (why else would they build them?) I mainly suggest my design because it seems so difficult to trigger fusion without fission using current technology.

tgflynn 15y ago
I mainly suggest my design because it seems so difficult to trigger fusion without fission using current technology. How does your design address that ? Are you saying the fusion reactions would be triggered by the mechanical compression of the pistons in the cylinder ?
tocomment 15y ago
I don't seem to be allowed to reply to the comment below: > How does your design address that ? Are you saying the fusion reactions would be triggered by the mechanical compression of the pistons in the cylinder ? I'm saying fusion reactions are triggered by the detonation of a hydrogen bomb (fission triggers fusion inside the bomb).
- tgflynn 15y ago
  OK, so then what you're proposing isn't a pure fusion reactor but a hybrid fusion-fission reactor. That's probably going to combine many of the disadvantages of fusion and fission. You get both the highly radioactive and long-life decay products of fission, still need relatively rare fissile fuel and you get the containment problems of fusion. Moreover if you need a fission explosion trigger you need a critical mass of fissile material for each detonation so there's a limit to how far you can scale down the process. I think it's highly unlikely this could be practical.
tgflynn 15y ago
Just to be clear, now that I have a better understanding of your proposal, I didn't mean that a device in which the majority of the energy comes from fusion isn't feasible, just not typical. Quantitatively I don't know how large you can make the fusion/fission energy ratio but there will always be some fission with the radioactive decay product problems inherent to that.
- tocomment 15y ago
  So maybe it would work? You just need a way to handle the radioactive waste, and a way to engineer on a very large scale.

tgflynn 15y ago

I mainly suggest my design because it seems so difficult to trigger fusion without fission using current technology. How does your design address that ? Are you saying the fusion reactions would be triggered by the mechanical compression of the pistons in the cylinder ?

tocomment 15y ago

I don't seem to be allowed to reply to the comment below: > How does your design address that ? Are you saying the fusion reactions would be triggered by the mechanical compression of the pistons in the cylinder ? I'm saying fusion reactions are triggered by the detonation of a hydrogen bomb (fission triggers fusion inside the bomb).

tgflynn 15y ago
OK, so then what you're proposing isn't a pure fusion reactor but a hybrid fusion-fission reactor. That's probably going to combine many of the disadvantages of fusion and fission. You get both the highly radioactive and long-life decay products of fission, still need relatively rare fissile fuel and you get the containment problems of fusion. Moreover if you need a fission explosion trigger you need a critical mass of fissile material for each detonation so there's a limit to how far you can scale down the process. I think it's highly unlikely this could be practical.

tgflynn 15y ago

Just to be clear, now that I have a better understanding of your proposal, I didn't mean that a device in which the majority of the energy comes from fusion isn't feasible, just not typical. Quantitatively I don't know how large you can make the fusion/fission energy ratio but there will always be some fission with the radioactive decay product problems inherent to that.

tocomment 15y ago
So maybe it would work? You just need a way to handle the radioactive waste, and a way to engineer on a very large scale.