Thorium Energy Amplifier

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

manofsanATyahoo.com - 25 Nov 2005 10:39 GMT

Here's one I came across:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Energy_amplifier

A thorium fission reactor would be classified as an 'energy amplifier'
because it cannot produce enough neutrons for a runaway reaction,
instead relying upon a particle accelerator beam to sustain the thorium
fission reaction. Apparently, the reaction does not produce
weapons-grade material. Thorium is also much more abundant than
Uranium.

So doesn't this address the various obstacles on using fission-power to
launch a rocket into the sky? Thorium itself is not terribly
radioactive and while it does produce the unstably radioactive U-233,
how much of that would actually be produced during the 8 minutes it
takes to reach orbit?

Why couldn't a Thorium Energy Amplifier be used to power an aircraft,
or a spacelaunch vehicle? Yes, one has to use an accelerated particle
beam to zap the thorium, but aren't there compact particle accelerators
in the works? Laser-wakefield acceleration, or even that recent
pyroelectric fusion experiment from UCLA:

http://www.answers.com/topic/pyrofusion

Why couldn't all of this be used to power the liftoff of a launch
vehicle? Comments?

Reply to this Message

G. R. L. Cowan - 30 Nov 2005 14:13 GMT

> Here's one I came across:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Why couldn't all of this be used to power the liftoff of a launch
> vehicle? Comments?

I am not aware of any nuclear thermal rocket scheme
that has any potential for runaway fission.

The real difficulty is the other way: hot neutrons
and hot fuel tend to react in ways that reduce the neutron population
and produce much less energy than the desired fission chains.

Another real difficulty is that without many hundreds of tonnes
of shielding, fission would irradiate crew and passengers.
A third, relatively minor one is that a disintegrating rocket
would usually release some fission products. These are essentially
the same no matter how the fission is made to happen.

An on-board energy amplifier does nothing against either of these
latter two real problems. With this accepted,
I suppose an enthusiast could now proceed to consider
what new problems it introduces.

-- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Reply to this Message

Earl Colby Pottinger - 30 Nov 2005 21:33 GMT

"manofsanATyahoo.com" <manofsan@gmail.com> :

> Here's one I came across:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Why couldn't all of this be used to power the liftoff of a launch
> vehicle? Comments?

Three things come to mind.

1) Most particle accelerators are not light or small. Depending on the type
of particle needed and it's kinetic energy the accelerator could end up very
heavy. No problem for an Earth based power. Big problem for a craft in
flight.

2) Most accelerators need electric power to run, this means more
weight/hardware/costs adding a power plant to the system.

3) Thorium may be low in radioactive output, but what happens to the
structure after some use?

Earl Colby Pottinger

Signature

I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Reply to this Message

Space Forum / Space Flight / November 2005

Thorium Energy Amplifier