williams.wiki.spring.2011

**Nuclear Fusion** =How it works =

 Nuclear fusion is the process of fusing two nuclie together to create one heavier nuclie, either giving of energy or absorbing it. The determining factor as to why it either gives off energy or absorbs it is due to which elements are bonded. The fusion of two nuclie with masses lower than iron or nickel generally release energy upon being fused; while nuclie with greater masses than iron or nickel generally absorb energy. These elements that release energy do so because the combined nuclear mass being less than iron at the peak of fusing results in more tightly bound particles. Thus the decrease in mass results in energy. Fusion reactors have been gettinga lot of recognition as of late due to the fact that they offer major improvementsin creating energy. They will not leak radiation above normal background levelsand they will produce less radioactive waste than the current nuclear powersource of fission. As of yet no one has been able to out this technology intopractice seeing as the input energy is not as great as the output energy thus meaning it is an unwise decision to create such plants as of yet. However working; efficient reactors, aren’t as far into the future as we think seeing as experimental fusion reactors are at over six laboratories across the world. Currently nuclear energy is produced from fission. Nuclear fission is when you get energy from splitting one atom into two. As of now, nuclear fission reactors use high energy neutrons to cut these atoms generally of uranium into two; which creates massive amounts of power. However this nuclear fission reaction also creates large amounts ofn uclear waste, and radiation. In nuclear fusion energy is created when two atoms combine to from one atom. Fusion reactors generally merge hydrogen atoms seeing as they have the lowest charge. These hydrogen atoms merge to form helium atoms, and neutrons. This very reaction is what powers the sun! Although that is on a bigger scale.

There are certain conditions that must take place for nuclear fusion to occur. When the atoms fuse, the nuclei must join. This causes a problem seeing as the charge of these two protons repel each other. This is like trying to push two magnets with the same end together and due to the charges being the same they repel each other. The conditions that must occur then must result in the atoms overcoming this repulsion. They are what forces the atoms over this repulsion, and fuses them together. High temperatures are a focal point in creating fusion,and the fusion process requires temperatures about One hundred million Kelvin. This is because at these temperatures Hydrogen turns from a gas into plasma. Plasma is a high energy state of matter where the electrons are stripped away from atoms moving about freely. We make plasma with ion particles, lasers, and microwaves. A second necessity for fusion is high pressure. The high pressure helps to force the hydrogen atoms together. We create this high pressure using extreme magnetic fields. The leading fusion reactor design called the Tokamak uses magnetic fields to create this high pressure needed to fuse atoms together. In the future if we keep researching and make a breakthrough we will be able to make deuterium-deuterium reactions. As of now, we can only make deuterium tritium reactions, which produce some radioactive waste. This reaction also needs tritium which is a hard substance to make. The deuterium-deuterium reaction however produces no radioactive waste, and more energy. Having such a reaction would be possibly the cleanest possible source of energy. Seeing as it is efficient enough to power itself, creating no waste, and generates more energy than initially put into the reaction, our energy problem would be solved for good. There are two ways thatscientists have discovered to attain the temperatures and pressures needed fornuclear fusion. Magnetic confinement as mentioned prior is where a magneticfield is used to heat, and compact the plasma made from hydrogen.Magnetic confinement uses microwaves, electricity, as well as neutral particle beams from accelerators to heat a stream of hydrogen gas. This is what turns the gas into plasma. The plasma is then compressed by the magnetic field which in turn allows the fusion to occur. Scientists have found that the most effective architectural design for this process is a donut shape. This is the shape and design that theTokamak fusion reactor uses. This is a method being researched by ITER, in France. The second way of attaining these massive temperatures and pressure is inertial confinement. Inertial confinement is where ion or laser beams are used to compress and heat the hydrogen plasma.

media type="custom" key="9732010"

=Using this technology in modern day﻿ =

Although nuclear fusion hasn't been perfected to the point where it can be harnessed to solve our growing power crisis, it is being researched and hopefully in the future will be possible to power our many needs. The most promising form of nuclear fusion is the fusion of deuterium and tritium. Deuterium: as defined by The New World Encyclopedia states "(Chemical symbol D or ²H) is a stable isotope of hydrogen, found in extremely small amounts in nature. The nucleus of deuterium, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron, where as the far more common hydrogen nucleus contains just one proton and no neutrons.Consequently, each atom of deuterium has roughly twice the mass of an ordinary hydrogen atom, and deuterium is also called heavy hydrogen." In lay man’sterms deuterium is a stable isotope meaning it is not nuclear. Deuterium is found in “heavy water” which is really just a fancy word for sea water. This element is naturally abundant on the earth seeing that it is found in about 1 in every 6,400 atoms of hydrogen, in the earth’s oceans. This is approximately.0156% of all naturally occurring hydrogen atoms in the earth’s oceans. This means that a fusion reactor would be able to produce as much energy as 300 gallons of gas, from the media type="youtube" key="VPk4VPZg6no?version=3" height="273" width="448" align="right"equivalent of 1 gallon of sea water. Tritium however is different. Tritium: as defined by The New World Encyclopedia states "(chemical symbol T or 3H) is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen. The nucleus of tritium(sometimes called a triton) contains one proton and two neutrons" This essentially means that while it is radioactive; it is not alpha radiation but beta radiation. Beta radiation is only harmful if ingested, since it cannot penetrate skin, unlike alpha radiation which is extremely destructive capable of damaging chromosomes 10 to 1000 more than that of beta radiation. Tritium is produced in nature due to the interaction of cosmic rays and atmospheric gases yet since Tritium has a very low half-life it is not found in abundance. Tritiumis also produced in in labs generally by neutron activation (the process where neutron radiation promotes radioactivity in materials capturing free neutrons)of lithium-6. Lithium-6 makes up about 7% of lithium. Lithium is found in clay,and dirt meaning that there is more than enough lithium in nature to continue this reaction for thousands of years. The fusion of deuterium and tritium is the most plausible for the future seeing how there is an abundance of these elements. Also they have the smallest possible electromagnetic charge making it easier for the two nuclei to beforced through their initial repulsion, and have the nuclear attraction force out a neutron, and make 4He. This reaction yields 17.6 MeV which is enough energy to provide for an American citizen for an entire year. The downside of this deuterium-tritium reaction is that although it gives of immense power, it also gives of a neutron. This neutron likes to bind to other elements, making them radioactive. This then means that the walls, and equipment inside these fusion reactors would soon become radioactive, however this radioactive waste is far less than nuclear fission gives off. There are other reactions such asDeuterium and 3He however that would be the complete ideal form of green energy. This reaction would give of no neutron,meaning it would have no nuclear waste, and provide immense energy; although it is unlikely we will see anything like this in the near future.

=Major Benifits and Drawbacks﻿ ﻿=

The major benefitsof nuclear are very clear. Clean renewable energy, at a very affordable price,that is as soon as this process is made commercially viable. Safety benefits areone of the most important. Compared to nuclear fission which is the process ofdividing nuclei, nuclear fusion produces dramatically less nuclear waste, thisbeing a major drawback of nuclear energy in general. The second big safetybenefit is that if the reactor is operated continuously and the plasmacontainment failed the reaction would simply stop. The only drawback of fusionis that given the deuterium tritium fusion neutrons would make the equipment radioactive.

=Current research, and criticisms﻿ =

There is a tremendous amount of research pertaining to nuclear fusion continuing at an increasing rate. Scientists are continually researching new ways for the reactions to yield more energy and contain the tremendous force this reaction produces. The main problem with nuclear fusion though is containing all the energy given of from this reaction. Ways to contain this energy such as the stellarator, and the tokamak are being researched with the tokamak leading this research. These designs need to have certain properties to work for nuclear fusion. Due to fusion reaching such high temperatures, no material would be able to withstand this tremendous heat so electromagnetic fields are needed to contain these reactions. The tokamak design is a donut shaped design where it uses a magnetic field to confine a plasma core. This plasma is a solution of the deuterium and tritium. The magnetic field moves around the device in a helical shape containing the reaction to a point, except modifications are still being made to capture more of this energy. ITER or the InternationalThermonuclear Experimental Reactor is an international research and engineering project which is continuing research on the tokamak design, and is currently making the largest and most advanced tokamak nuclear fusion reactor. They plan to have their test running around the year 2018, with the idea of making nuclear fusion reactors commercially viable. The major drawbacks of this design however is that with neutrons being given of in the reaction the equipment would become radioactive, leaving us to ask the question “commercially wouldthis be wise to purse given needed repairs on this now radioactive magnetic containment chamber. One critic the ITER collaboration said “We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box.”[1] An alternative to these magnetic confinement fusion reactors is inertial confinement fusion. This inertial confinement fusion is a process where reactions are initiated by heating and then compressing a fuel target generally using lasers to do this. This process isn’t as efficient as the tokamak design however and subsequently has not received as much research. It is because of these drawbacks and lack of fully containing all the power generated in these reactions that they are not used today. ITER however plans on completing its research by 2038 hopefully with the ability to make nuclear fusion reactors commercially available.

Cold Fusion? Cold fusion is possibly one of the most interesting and contreversioal sciences out in the world today. It is the idea that fusion can happen at room temperatures eliminating the need to first initiate the reaction of deutirium and titrium as regular, or hot fusion does. A good explination is in the video below. Cold fusion however is widely debated, and it's data seems to be extremely inconsistent. If cold fusion is figured out however cheap energy would be easily attainable, and virtuly free for everyone. Coldfusion was originally researched by two scientists named Martin Fleischmann andStanley Pons in 1989. These two scientists conducted experiments pertaining to the electrolysis of heavy water (water containing a high proportion of deuterium, generally sea water) and a rod of palladium. They recorded that when they performed this reaction there was excess heat, and also said they had seen traces of nuclear radioactivity. When they published this experiment however they were widely refuted, and not having consistent results did not help their experiments validity. If this is possibly however clean, renewable, cheap energy would be a possibility for the future.

media type="youtube" key="f6d2q-YxVvk?version=3" height="390" width="640" align="center"

The theory behind Cold fusion is that a palladium rod is used as a cathode and inserted into heavy water, with electricity also being supplied. Due to the properties of deuterium and hydrogen’s attraction to palladium the deuterium will absorb into the palladium and accumulate resulting in nuclear fusion. Fleishmann and Pons claimed that in their experiment after several weeks the temperatureof the deuterium rose from 30 degrees Celsius to 50 degrees Celsius without a change in the power input. However the results could not be replicated, making it more of a fantasy science rather than something plausible. This however has not deterred some scientists from continuing research on the topic. Although it is in some ways a far off possibility for a viable source of energy; the results if it can be replicated, and engineered so that the energy output is greater than the energy input, and so that its efficiency would be so great, energy would in no ways be a problem for the entire world. Seeing as it is “cold” fusion heat is not needed to kick start the reaction. In turn this allows for more energy being produced. This is also a great deal of energy because magnetic fields are not required, and the heat needed to kick start regular fusion is hotter than the core of the sun. That is why the research of cold fusion is such an important topic and idea. Although it is not entirely possible at the moment, or even believable; someone somewhere needs to stick with this research just like some scientists are doing now. Columbus was looked at as a fool for suggesting the earth was round and how did that turn out? Galileo’s’ teachings were not accepted in the catholic church and in turn he was disgraced, for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the universe.People and scientists all through history have been mocked for researching something believed to be inconceivable yet the results have changed our lives and world for the better. How soon then before the next great scientist; the world is due something miraculous soon, and cold fusion, or just regular fusion could be the great breakthrough we have all been waiting for. How will this breakthrough be used, for peace and for the good of humanity, or for corruption, power, and control? Einstein researched nuclear energy, and was appalled when he saw it used for destruction in the atomic bombs used against japan in world war one. That is one of the drawbacks of creating this energy has and possibly the only one. The possibility for such immense power, so easily once properly researched could and would have a disastrous effect on the entire world with terrorists having a possibility to destroy entire cities, and more with mass amounts of energy. Although it is this danger that is the drawback for all feasible energy sources in the future; that would solve a growing energy crisis, throughout the entire world. Perhaps that is the ironic thing about this energy problem. The more we produce the more we will expect, and the more destruction will be reaped on the very people we were trying to help. The energy that is saving us, could destroy us, by us.

For any sci-fi people out there, this is the power of a certain super heros power suit. Tony Stark a.k.a Iron Man uses what would essentially be an extremely efficient compact version of this cold fusion, in his Arc Reactor. If cold fusion were available to us today, then the possibility of an "Iron Man" is almost pheasable seeing as, once it were scaled down, and honed it would theoretically be able to generate almost limtless amounts of power. The only other reaction that would be able to generate more power would be that of antimatter. Antimatter is essentially the counterpart to an element, made up of positrons, and antiprotons. Reacting this antimatter with matter yields insane amounts of energy, yet due to the fact that antimatter is extremely expensive to make, and practiacally impossible to fully contain it is no where near a viable option.

=Antimatter= = = Antimatter issomething originally thought to be non-existent. It is exactly how it sounds,the opposite of normal matter. Some scientists believe that the majority of ouruniverse is made of such matter, and others suggest our universe is mainlyconsisting of dark matter. It wasn’t until recently that antimatter was proven,and was simply just a theory being studied by scientists across the world. In1928 there was a British physicist named Paul Dirac. Paul Dirac revisedEinstein’s renowned equation of E=mc2. Paul Dirac argued thatEinstein did not consider that mass in the equation (m means mass) could havenegative properties, as well as positive. He changed the equation then to E=+or – mc2 which then allowed for the existence of anti-particles.Scientists have proven at least seven anti-particles exist and can be created throughoutour world; however there is the possibility that out in space there is moreantimatter of different particles. These anti-particles are exact images of ournormal matter. They have the exact same atomic mass as its natural equivalent, exceptthe electrical charges of these particles are reversed. It is something almostout of Bizzaro land from the Superman comics. So far discoveries pertaining toantimatter have been few and far, yet certain things are known. In 1932 CarlAnderson proved that a positron existed. A positron is an electron with apositive charge versus its old negative charge. This was the first bit of evidencesuggesting antimatter existed. The next great breakthrough in the study ofantimatter was in 1955. This is when some scientists and researchers created ananti-proton. Anti-protons are protons that’s charge has changed from itsinitial positive charge to an inversely negative charge. Upon the conclusion ofthese two particles scientists at CERN (The European Organization for Nuclear Research)created what would be the first anti-atom. They managed to create nine antihydrogen atoms, yet each lasted only 40 nanoseconds. In 1998 howeverresearchers at CERN have been pushing for more research and data on antimatter,as well as a higher production rate of anti-hydrogen atoms. The reasonantimatter disappears so quickly is due to the fact that when antimatter comesinto contact with normal matter, the equal yet opposite collide to produce anexplosion so great, it’s power greatly surpasses and energy source we have now,or will ever do. That is because the energy produced from this antimattercollision produces more energy, than fusion or any other possible energy sourcewe know of. Regardless of knowledge, a perfect fusion reaction would result inless energy than an antimatter reaction. When the antimatter collides itcreates an explosion which emits pure radiation which travels off at the speedof light. Both particles in this reaction are completely destroyed, andannihilated, leaving behind subatomic particles. The explosion is due to thefact that when antimatter and matter collide because the entire mass of bothobjects is converted into energy. Why then have we not built an antimatterreactor then to capture such immense amounts of energy? This is simple. Theproblem with developing antimatter is that antimatter is non-existing in ouruniverse. If there was an equal amount of antimatter and normal matter we wouldsee reactions happening around us constantly, seeing bright light as a resultfrom these two forms of matter coming into contact with one another. Somescientists theorize that there was more matter than antimatter during the bigbang. As earlier mentioned the collision of matter and antimatter results inthe destruction of both, and because scientists believe there was more matterat this time, that would directly support the idea that this reaction couldhappen yielding massive amounts of energy, and also give the big bang theoryadded evidence as to how the universe was created. There could quite possiblybe no naturally existing antimatter left in the universe. However in 1977 somescientists proclaimed that there could be a anti matter depository at thecenter of the galaxy. If this were true, the need to make our on antimatterwould be eliminated, and another possibility for tremendous energy would havebeen created. Some problems with antimatter arise though as we delve deeperinto the subject. Firstly, capturing the power produced from these reactions. Capturingand containing the energy produced from reactions such as this, as well asfusion is something greatly hindering further research, and money into thesefields of study. Secondly creating the antiprotons and positrons proves immenselydifficult. Creating such particles and also trying to contain them is in wayscompared to bottling lighting. It is extremely dangerous, and difficult. Thisis one of the greatest challenges we face to making our own antimatter. Thevery process costs millions upon millions of dollars, just to make one antiatom. Then we must ask, colliding this with a normal atom, how will we containsuch energy, and store it for future use. This is the biggest drawback ofantimatter, and its creation. Although in theory it would be tremendous, andresult in great power and energy for humanity, and the entire human race, it willcost tremendous amounts of money to research it up to the point of it being practical.This then makes us ask the question, is it worth it. Will the massive amountsof money needed for this research pay off in the end, and be worth all thetrouble we went through to achieve this form of energy. What is even greater isthe dangerous aspect of this energy. If fission bombs were bad, and then fusionbombs were worse, how bad would an antimatter bomb be? Since antimatterproduces much greater amounts of energy than fusion, would the dangers be worththe risk. Would the danger of world destruction be worth it, all because wecraved more energy and more power in our world? However before we go into the philosophyof power, and energy, we must realize how we even make the antimatter. We areable to create antimatter through the use of high energy particle colliders,commonly reffered to as atom smashers. Atom smashers like CERN are large tunnelobjects lined with extremely powerful super magnets that circle around the objectsin order to propel the atoms at near what would be near light speed. When anatom goes through this it is slammed into a target, creating particles, some ofwhich are antiparticles pulled away by the magnetic field. The thing aboutthese atom smashers however is that they create so little amounts of antimatterit might not even be worth it. They produce a trillionth of a gram a year. CERNsaid that if they took all the energy they have ever created, stored it in abattery and used it to power something, they would be able to power a 100 watt lightbulb for a total of three seconds. Either we need to create extremely efficientlight bulbs or this creation of antiatoms needs to become more efficient, andthe storing of them needs to improve by just as much.

=<span style="color: #ef0b0b; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So Why nuclear fusion? =

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">With growing climate changes, and a rapidly decreasing amount of fossil fuels in the world we are in dire need of clean energy. Many attempts have already been made, and while they are helpful no major breakthrough has been made as to how we can have an alternative to these resources. There are many options and much progress being made in some other areas such as nuclear fission, solar power, wind power, hydro power, tidal power, corn based ethanol, switch grass ethonol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesl from caola, soy beans, rapseed oil, algea, or from waste vegitable oils, solar thermal, coal, clean coal, gasoline, diesel fuel biomass, wood, hydrogen power, hydrogen fuel, and fuel cells. All these ideas would result in energy, that if perfected could be very efficient, and helpfull. The onyl drawback however is that it is simple unprobable at the moment that such ideas will be the solution to our energy crisis in the world. Although ideas such as tidal energy, thermal energy, solar energy and others are being put into practice, This green energy supplies so little energy compared to our current energy resources. Sadly this is not changing, yet constant improvments in fuel efficiency and an eduacation of the people in the world to learn how to save energy is resulting in less energy being used. This is great, and something to be happy about, yet, all this is really doing for us is buying time before prices are forced up by lack of supply more than anything else. Our only hope is that by that point our scientists have uncovered a source of energy that will save us money, and create a better life for us. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As humanbeings we need to protect our planet and see that the future is able to live inpeace. It is for this reason we need to stop using all our fossil fuels, andmove onto more efficient and safe forms of energy. Nuclear fission is somethingthat is used to power things today, yet with nuclear waste having half-life’s'that are just unnatural we will be giving the future unforeseen problems. Manypeople are helping with more power coming from solar cells, and wind energy;yet this is still not enough energy to get us away from fossil fuels, and likepreviously stated nuclear fission is unsafe, and not something that unlessperfected should really be undertook. This is why nuclear fusion is something we should invest more time into and try perfect.
 * ==<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #1bef0b; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What is the problem at hand? ==
 * ==<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #1fe811; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What is the driving force of the problem, and what are people doing about it? ==

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">there are many things we can do to help conserve energy; and preserve the world. It amy be as simple as turning off that extra light you dont need, turning off the lights as you leave the room, not use exxcesive air conditioning in the summer, and instead go outside and enjoy the weather decideing to rather go to the beach, or the lake. Natural ways to cool down the body would preserve ammounce amounts of energy, thus saving money, and the enviorment. Other tips include setting your washing machine to cold or warm, not hot; this could save nearly 500 pounds of CO2 per year. Turning your refrigerator down, and making sure that when you run your dishwasher it is full also conserve energy. Also getting energy efficient appliances and materials such as light bulbs, washing machines, dishwashers, and refrigerators, will all help to consserve energy. Replacing air filters, and maintaning correct tire pressure in your car will decrease your fuel needs, and the air filters will help both home heating and cooling, as well as you cars heating and cooling run more efficently. Performing simple tasks like this will allow us to conserve energy, and help in our fight against unclean, and enviormentally unfriendly energy.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What can we do to help?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">correct =<span style="color: #ef15ef; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ways to improve the reaction? = <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">After researching nuclear fusion i had some questions and ideas as to how to improve the reactions, and reaction chambers. One in particular was the main cause of discontent with the deuterium and titrium fusion reactions. Due to the fusion giving of a nuetron this would make the materials radioactive. However changing lithium-6 into titrium uses neutron activation to change it into titrium so possibly coating the walls with lithium-6 could be result in using these neutrons to our benifit. I could not find many documents depicting this idea, yet i am sure there are drawbacks, but could it possibly be worth a shot?

<span style="background-color: #808080; color: #00ffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Citations

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[1] Michio Kaku, Physics of the Impossible, p.46-47

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[]

[]