A Scientific Question

2007-05-09 13:30:10

#1

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6684|Escea

In a previous thread I described how I'm writing a series of books that I want to try and make as realistic as possible.
Here's a question for any scietific people out there. Can a fusion reactor explode with extreme force?

Now I don't know if this is true or not (the movie part), in the 2nd Spiderman film where he creates a minature sun, I was wondering that if it became unstable, would it create a minature supernova.
Any leads would be appreciated, thanks.

2007-05-09 13:40:00

#2

Defiance: Member; +438|7132

Don't ever base anything "scientifically" on spider man.

I've read articles about the reactors you're talking about, and they say that fusion reactors could not cause a nuclear explosion.

However, when that amount of energy becomes extremely unstable, no one knows for sure what could happen.

You could have a fusion reactor blow up and it would be perfectly believable.

2007-05-09 13:43:36

#3

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6684|Escea

Defiance wrote:
Don't ever base anything "scientifically" on spider man.

Noted for future reference
Thanks for the help.

2007-05-09 21:00:17

#4

Roomba: You will pay the price for your lack of vision.; +26|6953|Land of Cotton

OK. I think it will depend on your starting materials you are fusing together. If you use hydrogen to make helium (like the Sun) then you obviously have a very explosive element to deal with if something goes wrong.

The Sun uses gravity to generate the helium. We would have to use high pressure and temperature and a catalyst to make something smaller. I think I read someone using lasers to bring the hydrogen elements together and release energy. But they could have been smashing the atoms rather than fusing them.

As for the mini supernova, I doubt that would be possible on that scale. An immense explosion, sure. I have heard of scenarios that start nuclear chain reactions that won't stop until the matter is used up. I think they are hyothetical but scary.

Remember, good science fiction is just an extrapolation of real science. So use your imagination and read about these things. Good luck.

2007-05-09 21:10:52

#5

Deadmonkiefart: Floccinaucinihilipilificator; +177|7167

M.O.A.B wrote:
In a previous thread I described how I'm writing a series of books that I want to try and make as realistic as possible.
Here's a question for any scietific people out there. Can a fusion reactor explode with extreme force?

Now I don't know if this is true or not (the movie part), in the 2nd Spiderman film where he creates a minature sun, I was wondering that if it became unstable, would it create a minature supernova.
Any leads would be appreciated, thanks.

There is not yet such thing as a fusion reactor. All modern day nuclear reactors use fission. This is because a fusion feactor heats to 40,000,000 degrees Celsius, and there is no material on earth that can stand that much heat. Fusion, however would be more efficient, and that is why people are always trying to discover a way to use "cold fusion", which, while far from cold, would produce less heat than regular fusion.

2007-05-09 21:22:57

#6

obstacle02: Member; +3|6977

As a future Astronomy and/or Physics student at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and a rather avid amateur astronomer, I like that I can answer your question, or at least give you some input.

First, a fusion reaction is different then a fission reaction (fission reactions are the basis of a standard nuclear power plant reactor) in that a fusion reaction smashes together two atoms of a certain substance (for instance, in the cores of stars, two hydrogen atoms, which are just one proton and one electron, smash together) to form a different substance (in a star, the two hydrogen atoms become one helium atom, with two protons and two electrons).

Now, in a star, immense gravity holds the hydrogen atoms in the core of the star and ensures that they don't escape, but instead smash into each other, continuing the process of fusion. For this reason, a fusion reactor could never really explode with any more force than a nuclear weapon, and definitely not with the force of a supernova, because there simply isn't enough matter that could fuel the explosion, unless it was actually a very massive star.

Roomba wrote:
I have heard of scenarios that start nuclear chain reactions that won't stop until the matter is used up. I think they are hyothetical but scary.

This is actually the principle behind nuclear weapons and nuclear fission reactors. The Uranium, Plutonium, or other chemical at the core of a fission reaction contains atoms with many protons, neutrons, and electrons; to the point that the atom becomes very unstable. That unstable atom is then bombarded with a neutron from another chemical, causing a chain reaction in which the atoms of the original fissionable material are continuously split, as each atom resulting from the split is also highly unstable. This process continues until the atoms have reached a much more stable state (one with many fewer protons, neutrons, and electrons per atom) and do not continue to split.

ok, now that I've just made myself seem like a huge asshole by trying to sound as smart as I can...
also, I probably could have explained myself much more comprehensibly, but I'm extremely tired.
Feel free to ask me some more specific things if you'd like.

edit:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:
There is not yet such thing as a fusion reactor. All modern day nuclear reactors use fission. This is because a fusion feactor heats to 40,000,000 degrees Celsius, and there is no material on earth that can stand that much heat. Fusion, however would be more efficient, and that is why people are always trying to discover a way to use "cold fusion", which, while far from cold, would produce less heat than regular fusion.

yeah, that's also true

Last edited by obstacle02 (2007-05-09 21:24:40)

2007-05-09 21:37:13

#7

Smithereener: Member; +138|6777|California

obstacle02 wrote:
Roomba wrote:
I have heard of scenarios that start nuclear chain reactions that won't stop until the matter is used up. I think they are hyothetical but scary.
This is actually the principle behind nuclear weapons and nuclear fission reactors. The Uranium, Plutonium, or other chemical at the core of a fission reaction contains atoms with many protons, neutrons, and electrons; to the point that the atom becomes very unstable. That unstable atom is then bombarded with a neutron from another chemical, causing a chain reaction in which the atoms of the original fissionable material are continuously split, as each atom resulting from the split is also highly unstable. This process continues until the atoms have reached a much more stable state (one with many fewer protons, neutrons, and electrons per atom) and do not continue to split.

I like to use the analogy I saw on a "educational" video I once saw. Imagine a bunch of mousetraps ready to spring with a ping pong ball on the ends of each one. Now, throw in another ping pong ball into the crowd of mousetraps and watch those things go mad.

It's a simple but somewhat effective (IMO) way of explaining the basics.

2007-05-09 22:40:43

#8

jkohlc: 2142th Whore; +214|6987|Singapore

i suppose its possible..with all those amount of energy encased in such a tight space...if one of the magnetics gave way i think its gonna be a thermonuclear explosion....

2007-05-09 22:53:16

#9

Ender2309: has joined the GOP; +470|7032|USA

obstacle02 wrote:
highly informative stuff here

actually, the reason they're unstable is because they defy basic chemical/atomic properties. namely, the 1.5:1 ratio-rule.

2007-05-09 23:02:43

#10

dead_rac00n: Member; +12|6943|DTC

Never heard of Chernobyl ?

EDIT :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

I don't know what you mean by "extreme", but I think that's a good start.

Last edited by dead_rac00n (2007-05-09 23:05:27)

2007-05-09 23:39:38

#11

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7182|Sydney, Australia

M.O.A.B wrote:
minature sun, I was wondering that if it became unstable, would it create a minature supernova.

Our sun will not become a supernova. It is too small to do so. This minature sun, being smaller than ours, will not become a minature supernova.

dead_rac00n wrote:
Never heard of Chernobyl ?

EDIT :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

I don't know what you mean by "extreme", but I think that's a good start.

IIRC, Chernobyl was not an explosion in the sense of the word that the OP is talking about. The main explosion at Chernobyl was due to the build up in steam pressure, not a runaway reaction.

Mcminty.

2007-05-09 23:59:42

#12

[Ew]Ess: Member; +2|6772

If he means can you have a fusin explosion then yes, you can.
Its called an H-Bomb and you simply need the reqired amount of energy to start it and enough material to sustain it - it will explode

2007-05-10 01:12:03

#13

Vub: The Power of Two; +188|6955|Sydney, Australia

[Ew]Ess wrote:
If he means can you have a fusin explosion then yes, you can.
Its called an H-Bomb and you simply need the reqired amount of energy to start it and enough material to sustain it - it will explode

This is correct, a fusion reactor is just a controlled H-bomb process. The fusing of H to He produces ENORMOUS amounts of heat, much more than a fission reactor can produce, but due to the high temperatures required (essentially, you need it to be the heat of the sun's surface!) enormous magnetic fields powered by superconducted currents is needed to make sure the superhot plasma doesn't hit the sides of the reactor (at that temperature the metal casing will just melt). So yes, if the reaction loses control, it could lead to a chain reaction.

2007-05-10 01:42:51

#14

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7271|Nårvei

If you are writing a book you can get away with almost anything, doing a close to reality book series takes lot of research and immense amount of hours double checking everything you write.

To much explaining tech in a novel makes it boring thus they will not read the second book, casual hinting about tech is way better and makes it more exciting, a reader that gets some info but not all will keep reading hoping he can figure it out himself.

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-10 02:04:33

#15

Entertayner: Member; +826|7031

You lost me at the word "books"

2007-05-10 02:11:30

#16

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7271|Nårvei

Entertayner wrote:
You lost me at the word "books"

What about a book on Juraffes ?

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-05-10 02:49:54

#17

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7182|Sydney, Australia

Vub wrote:
essentially, you need it to be the heat of the sun's surface!

What, only 5,500 Kelvin? The core temperature, where the reaction is taking place, is about 13.6M Kelvin...

Mcminty.

2007-05-10 03:54:29

#18

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|7010|EUtopia | Austria

A fusion reactor can not explode, as the chain reaction is based on conditions that can not be achieved in an open system. It would immediateley stop working. Neither does a traditional fission reactor "explode" like we know that stereotype explosion of nuclear weapons - it's rather the moderating water that evaporates at such a high speed (because of the massive amount of energy provided by an uncontrolled chain reaction) that the reactor casing cracks up and all radioactively contaminated water can exit into the atmosphere.

2007-05-10 05:01:17

#19

Vub: The Power of Two; +188|6955|Sydney, Australia

mcminty wrote:
Vub wrote:
essentially, you need it to be the heat of the sun's surface!
What, only 5,500 Kelvin? The core temperature, where the reaction is taking place, is about 13.6M Kelvin...

Mcminty.

Yeah you're probably right, all I remember is that the plasma needs to be controlled by magnetic fields because it's so damn hot

2007-05-10 06:20:29

#20

heggs: Spamalamadingdong; +581|6849|New York

Something interesting that may help your writing.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm … stmap.html

Remember Me As A Time Of Day

2007-05-10 08:32:52

#21

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6684|Escea

Thanks for the help guys, much appreciated.
But just to clarify, the story is set a few years in the future so fusion tech could have progressed further, but I'll use the cold fusion. My main idea was that the reaction was contained with magnetic fields, but when a part of it was destroyed by explosives the reaction became unstable to the point where it would basically blow the entire ship apart, (its an extremely large non-existent warship, sea-going not space ) ordinary fuel and ordinance plays a part as well, there's also a couple of unarmed ICBMs on board, don't know if that would increase the explosion's size. It has two nuclear reactors as the fusion is an experimental backup. Also when I said miniature supernova, I just meant really big explosion. Should have made my post a bit clearer, but again thanks for the help.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-05-10 08:41:19)

2007-05-10 09:01:05

#22

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6806|Twyford, UK

Fusion reactors don't explode if properly designed. The most viable design currently is inertial containment, where if the magnetic field goes wrong the fusing hydrogen hits the walls of the vessel, loses energy, and shuts down.
Feasibly, it would explode with extreme force if overloaded with fuel before a regular nuke was set off in it, or if a fission reactor used to get the hydrogen up to fusing temperatures went critical and set off the hydrogen being stored
But that's a really really bad design for one if it can do that.

A doc-ock style miniature sun cannot go supernova, because it doesen't have enough mass to. To go nova, a star has to have hundreds of times the mass of the sun.
If choked of fuel, however, it WOULD expand to many times it's original size and would have to have the containment fields ramped up to compensate, making it incredibly expensive to turn off.

2007-05-10 09:18:05

#23

bennisboy: Member; +829|7107|Poundland

fusion occurs in hydrogen bombs, so yes it can

2007-05-10 13:28:22

#24

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6684|Escea

Varegg wrote:
If you are writing a book you can get away with almost anything, doing a close to reality book series takes lot of research and immense amount of hours double checking everything you write.

To much explaining tech in a novel makes it boring thus they will not read the second book, casual hinting about tech is way better and makes it more exciting, a reader that gets some info but not all will keep reading hoping he can figure it out himself.

Don't worry, there's not much describing tech, simply cause I don't know it lol.

2007-05-10 14:28:27

#25

sfarrar33: Halogenoalkane; +57|7079|InGerLand

how do you plan to have the fusion reactor blow up?
because it could be a really nice idea and everything (and it does sound it) with a nice descriptive bit of the explosion and everything but if you were to break it down you could just get "it went boom, because" which is a mistake many writers do, and well try to avoid it, you need a good reason for it too be blowing up and how it goes about it, since i would imagine such a reactor would have a million safety designs on it.

BF2S Forums A Scientific Question

Defiance wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Roomba wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

obstacle02 wrote:

Roomba wrote:

obstacle02 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

dead_rac00n wrote:

[Ew]Ess wrote:

Entertayner wrote:

Vub wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Vub wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Board footer