146 replies to this topic

[DrxAbstract]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 June 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

Wrong.

Fusion reactions generate something on the order of 100x the neutron flux as fission. It's even on the Wikipedia description for fusion power. That flux results in the transmutation and subsequent degradation of the chamber walls in a given fusion vessel. It is currently one of the hardest problems to solve, because even if you get a significant net-positive power from fusion the replacement intervals for the vessel make fusion economically sketchy.

I'm not talking out of my ***. Do not assume that I am. Perhaps you should be the one doing your homework before spouting bullsh*t.

Not talking out your *** yet citing inaccurate information, . BattleMechs use something akin to a refined tokamak magnetic confinement fusion reactor, which does not suffer from the neutron flux problem you insist it does because the magnetic containment drastically limits the interaction between the resultant nuclear reactions and the reactor wall by channeling and controlling the flow of plasma to control both the charged and free-moving particles. Compared to a Fission Reactor or even an Inertial Confinement Reactor, it requires significantly less shielding and does not suffer from massive neutron flux, regardless of how much it comparatively generates - it's not essential to the reaction process (Unlike Fission) but a byproduct of it, as I said.

Yeah, research and all that. Reading is hard.

Edited by DrxAbstract, 05 June 2016 - 02:48 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

DrxAbstract, on 05 June 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Not talking out your *** yet citing inaccurate information, . BattleMechs use something akin to a refined tokamak magnetic confinement fusion reactor, which does not suffer from the massive neutron flux problem you insist it does because the magnetic containment drastically limits the interaction between the resultant nuclear reactions and the reactor wall by channeling and controlling the flow of plasma. Compared to a Fission Reactor or even an Inertial Confinement Reactor, it requires significantly less shielding and does not suffer from massive neutron flux.

Yeah, research and all that. Reading is hard.

> Neutrons (which are a natural byproduct of hydrogen fusion)
> Containment of them by a magnetic field

Please, continue. I want to know more!

[DrxAbstract]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 June 2016 - 02:46 PM, said:

> Neutrons (which are a natural byproduct of hydrogen fusion)
> Containment of them by a magnetic field

Please, continue. I want to know more!

"However, with magnetic confinement reactors you avoid the problem of having to find a material that can withstand the high temperatures of nuclear fusion reactions.The heating current is induced by the changing magnetic fields in central induction coils and exceeds a million amperes. Magnetic fusion devices keep the hot plasma out of contact with the walls of its container by keeping it moving in circular or helical paths by means of the magnetic force on charged particles and by a centripetal force acting on the moving particles."

https://en.wikipedia...on_Test_Reactor

The neutrons are controlled using centripetal force as they are immune to magnetic force. Again, reading is hard.

To summarize: You sir are an idiot. Good day.

Edited by DrxAbstract, 05 June 2016 - 02:52 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

DrxAbstract, on 05 June 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

"However, with magnetic confinement reactors you avoid the problem of having to find a material that can withstand the high temperatures of nuclear fusion reactions.The heating current is induced by the changing magnetic fields in central induction coils and exceeds a million amperes. Magnetic fusion devices keep the hot plasma out of contact with the walls of its container by keeping it moving in circular or helical paths by means of the magnetic force on charged particles and by a centripetal force acting on the moving particles."

https://en.wikipedia...on_Test_Reactor

The neutrons are controlled using centripetal force as they are immune to magnetic force. Again, reading is hard.

To summarize: You sir are an idiot. Good day.

Critical reading comprehension failure on your part.

That has nothing in there has to do with neutron flux. We're not talking about heat or the plasma, we're talking about the bombardment of the chamber walls by NEUTRAL PARTICLES THAT ARE THE NATURAL BYPRODUCT OF HYDROGEN FUSION, emitted at random angles that ricochet around, transmuting said walls into new isotopes which will then decay into other elements. The result is structural failure after X number of operational hours.

Tokamaks even have a barrier wall inside them to handle this, and it's the break-down of that wall over time that we're talking about.

You aren't getting out that easy, you ignorant slime.

[DrxAbstract]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 June 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

Critical reading comprehension failure on your part.

That has nothing in there has to do with neutron flux. We're not talking about heat or the plasma, we're talking about the bombardment of the chamber walls by NEUTRAL PARTICLES THAT ARE THE NATURAL BYPRODUCT OF HYDROGEN FUSION, emitted at random angles that ricochet around, transmuting said walls into new isotopes which will then decay into other elements. The result is structural failure after X number of operational hours.

Tokamaks even have a barrier wall inside them to handle this, and it's the break-down of that wall over time that we're talking about.

You aren't getting out that easy, you ignorant slime.

Nobody said neutron flux wasn't present or that it doesn't break down the enclosure in both fission and fusion reactors - You're arguing with yourself on this one.

I also didn't say it wasn't present in the Tokamak's. What I said was, comparatively, it's a vastly reduced problem compared to other reactors by nature of how the reaction is conducted and controlled both using the magnetic and inertial properties of matter (As Neutrons may not have an electrical charge, they do still have mass and can be acted upon by the other particles within the chamber). Given it's fundamentally rooted in real science, BattleMech fusion reactors are specifically cited as being limited only by the quality of their confinement systems... Which is what I'm talking about. What ever issue you've concocted for yourself to have with that is entirely your problem, dunce.

[Y E O N N E]

DrxAbstract, on 05 June 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

Nobody said neutron flux wasn't present or that it doesn't break down the enclosure in both fission and fusion reactors - You're arguing with yourself on this one.

I also didn't say it wasn't present in the Tokamak's. What I said was, comparatively, it's a vastly reduced problem compared to other reactors by nature of how the reaction is conducted and controlled both using the magnetic and inertial properties of matter (As Neutrons may not have an electrical charge, they do still have mass and can be acted upon by the other particles within the chamber). Given it's fundamentally rooted in real science, BattleMech fusion reactors are specifically cited as being limited only by the quality of their confinement systems... Which is what I'm talking about. What ever issue you've concocted for yourself to have with that is entirely your problem, dunce.

The goal was to point out the limitations to the output of fusion power. How much neutron flux your walls can withstand limits your output to a rate that makes the output economical for the application. You went way off the rails when you accused me of confusing fission for fusion, and I decided to beat you with your own stupidity as I've seen you are a glutton for doing the same to others. This time, you are flat-wrong. Get over it.

And yes, in the real world the goal of fusion is to use it to boil water and spin a turbine, unless you plan on wasting most of the energy generated because most of it is carried away by the very neutrons we are arguing about, transferring into the barrier walls and resulting in heat. The BattleTech handwavium crap is irrelevant.

[DrxAbstract]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 June 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

The goal was to point out the limitations to the output of fusion power. How much neutron flux your walls can withstand limits your output to a rate that makes the output economical for the application. You went way off the rails when you accused me of confusing fission for fusion, and I decided to beat you with your own stupidity as I've seen you are a glutton for doing the same to others. This time, you are flat-wrong. Get over it.

And yes, in the real world the goal of fusion is to use it to boil water and spin a turbine, unless you plan on wasting most of the energy generated because most of it is carried away by the very neutrons we are arguing about, transferring into the barrier walls and resulting in heat. The BattleTech handwavium crap is irrelevant.

Except BattleTech Fusion Reactors are the topic, not real world ones, so you were wrong about everything to do with the fuel usage and collection method, which is the primary method for Real Life Fission Reactors, not BattleTech Fusion Reactors. Power transfer is a non-issue - for the components to be capable of handling the reactor output is a given. There have been noted instances where pilots even bypassed the safety measures to increase their reactor outputs, so you can extrapolate from this that the power transfer system installed with the engine is capable of handling its output, with some excess. I also didn't accuse you of confusing the two: I made a general statement that holds true to me via observation typically brought about from lack of knowledge of those systems portrayed and exemplified by the OP. Your post only served to trigger that response... lolz triggered.

So virtually nothing you said was applicable, save for the containment quality which I had addressed in the very first post and is the only actual limitation of BT Fusion Reactors, being cited as such in the manuals themselves. I got dragged into your fabricated tangent when in the end it was off-topic and neither of us was actually wrong concerning the applicable conditions as the reality is there isnt any actual limitations to BT reactors other than the shielding quality, so by extension their size and weight. Considering using higher-rating engines only serves to improve movement speed, the engine restrictions on Mechs are oriented around game balance moreso than technical limitations like waste heat management, as there's nothing to indicate otherwise.

BattleTech handwavium is not irrelevant as it's the basis of the discussion. We don't even have viable Fusion Reactors in the real world and yet you're arguing the finer points of them as if it relates in any way beyond being the basis of a technological era 1000 years in the future. /headscratch