Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
35. Actually it is NOT a huge assumption...
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 07:21 PM
Nov 2013

johnd83,

Actually it is NOT a huge assumption. It's one of the very first things taught in a "reactor physics" course for nuclear engineers.

Here is an excerpt from a text. From page 2 of:

http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-06-01-04.pdf

The reactor design also separates the fuel from the neutron moderator so that during the moderating or slowing process the neutrons are away from the fuel and less likely to be absorbed by the strong resonance absorption peaks of the non-fissile fuel (U-238).

When you do this calculation, you can calculate what is called the "k-infinity" of the material. The "k-infinity" would be the neutron multiplication constant for a reactor which was infinitely big. If the "k-infinity" of a material is less than 1; then even if you had an infinitely large reactor; it would not go critical.

This is what happens if you mix low-enriched uranium fuel, such as used in LWR reactors, with the appropriate fractions of water, structural steel, control poison.... That would be the composition of your melted reactor core. One can calculate the "k-infinity" of this mixture and it will be less than unity (1). That means that even if you had an infinitely large mass of this material it can't go critical.

If an infinitely large mass of material can't go critical; then neither can a finite-sized mass because the finite sized mass has an addition neutron loss mechanism which is neutrons escaping from the surface of the mass.

The reason the "k-infinity" is less than 1 for the above mixture is due to the parasitic absorption of neutrons by U-238 as they are slowing down in the resonance region of energy.

If you have a heterogeneous lattice with fuel rods immersed in water, when the neutrons slow down passed the resonance region of energy, they are in the water, and there's NO U-238 in the water to absorb them.

PamW

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Won't take long for CFLDem Nov 2013 #1
Sorry, but bunk johnd83 Nov 2013 #2
100% WRONG!! PamW Nov 2013 #5
I think you misunderstand my point johnd83 Nov 2013 #7
100% WRONG PamW Nov 2013 #16
The thorium reactors use a particle accelerator johnd83 Nov 2013 #17
WRONG AGAIN!! PamW Nov 2013 #20
There is plenty of water to moderate neutrons in a damaged reactor johnd83 Nov 2013 #25
Reactor Physics 101 PamW Nov 2013 #29
The other advantage of thorium is the decay products become inert much faster johnd83 Nov 2013 #30
Actually it is NOT a huge assumption... PamW Nov 2013 #35
I still don't understand your point johnd83 Nov 2013 #36
Criticality in non-operating - but NOT in melted. PamW Nov 2013 #39
You are 100% WRONG johnd83 Nov 2013 #38
100% WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #40
Yes, I was going to remark about the five ton engine it would take Warpy Nov 2013 #27
I want a nuclear vacuum cleaner! longship Nov 2013 #3
Those are different technologies johnd83 Nov 2013 #4
Yup! They are talking about a Sterling engine now. longship Nov 2013 #6
The Voyager spacecraft only hase a few hundred watts of power johnd83 Nov 2013 #8
Voyager has shut down its cameras. Long ago. longship Nov 2013 #9
I think for the next 100 years or so it is going to be mostly manned/unmanned craft johnd83 Nov 2013 #10
Fusion, unfortunately, is probably a long way off. longship Nov 2013 #11
Fusion power is not really that far off johnd83 Nov 2013 #12
But the technology is not yet practical. longship Nov 2013 #13
The technology I linked to is a magnetic containment plasma system johnd83 Nov 2013 #14
Yes! And I've heard of another in Europe. longship Nov 2013 #15
Correct. PamW Nov 2013 #22
Fusion propulsion is a lot easier than electricity generation bananas Nov 2013 #18
If you're going to use it for propulsion, yes. longship Nov 2013 #19
Not quite... PamW Nov 2013 #21
I never said that one would get to light speeds. longship Nov 2013 #23
Look at momentum per unit energy PamW Nov 2013 #41
Thanks. longship Nov 2013 #42
That's if your concern is momentum per unit energy; but often it's not, in rockets muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #43
Let's examine TOTAL mass.. PamW Nov 2013 #44
Well, yes, that's the point - you use nuclear power, or solar (ie external) muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #45
IF Polywell Fusion works VASIMIR is DOA FogerRox Nov 2013 #46
Does anyone have the faintest idea what process is being claimed here? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #24
I didn't get that either johnd83 Nov 2013 #26
"And he hasn’t released any papers, only press releases." arcane1 Nov 2013 #28
I'll try to post on it later - basically, you can increase decay rate by jiggling it with a laser bananas Nov 2013 #33
Finally found a somewhat relevant hit bananas Nov 2013 #34
Thanks - that gives us a theory that the laser is relevant muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #37
Oh, I agree, it's as credible as his "USEING HELYXZION TECHNOLOGY WE CAN CURE “ALL” DISEASE" bananas Nov 2013 #48
I forgot that one. kristopher Nov 2013 #49
Not the faintest. FogerRox Nov 2013 #47
It won't work, period. NNadir Nov 2013 #31
Why, Are we still thinking in individual cars, individual propulsion systems, ... CRH Nov 2013 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Thorium vehicle will run ...»Reply #35