DavidD
13th May 2008 - 01:19 PM
How much times nuclear fussion is more effective than hunclear fission. Here my calculation. Uranium 238, say mass defect is about 0.7-0.75%. It decie into two parts like somthing Iron and some over. So Iron mass defect is about 0.9% . So at all I guess energy is 0.15% of uranium mass.
In thermoreactions there is hydrogens, hwich connected with neutrons litium and becoming helium. Helium mass defect is about 0.74%. Hydrogen atoms mass defect is 0%. Lithium somthing about 0.8% I guess. So energy is somthing 0.15-0.3% per nuclear. So I would say nuclear fussion is not very much more effective. And it's only one advantage is exclusion of radiation (interesting why?). Radiation probably don't exist becouse fussing small atoms and producing lower frenquency fotons, but more them, instead one but high frenquency photon in uranium fission, becouse uranium have more nucleons...
Ron
13th May 2008 - 02:08 PM
Hi David,
Back to being civil, fusion is 3 or 4 more times as powerful as fission. This is because the transformation of mass to energy is grater in a fusion reaction.
Ron
DavidD
13th May 2008 - 04:38 PM
Is it becouse, gamma rays don't transofrm into heat? Or becouse culon power pushing two nuclears one from another in oposit direction and this kinetic energy isn't useful for heat? I read that 200 MeV is total fission energy and 168MeV is nuclears kinetic energy (thus gamma ray(s?) energy is 32MeV). But even 4 times don't looks very magic in thought need heat to very hight tremperature and so on... Maybe you comparing with sun... But how computers and physics can calculate so much, but can't calculate fussion? Brain isn't fusion, but imposuble them simulater ever...
Ron
13th May 2008 - 05:46 PM
Hi David,
I remember that number( 3 or 4) from something that was explaining the conservation of energy in a single fissile reaction compared to a single deuterium fuse. Sorry, I don't have any more specifics than that. Not my specialty.
If you look up ITER (the European Fusion Reactor to come on line in @ 2015), you may find more answers.
I thought one of the motivating factors was the lack of radioactive waste.?
Peace,
Ron
DavidD
13th May 2008 - 06:36 PM
QUOTE
I thought one of the motivating factors was the lack of radioactive waste.?
That's what I am saying too... But then it means, that only divded part of uranium kinetic energy heating...