"Atomic Pile" was Enrico Fermi's doing and he used that with the American idiom for "pile" in mind. Similarly the unit for nuclear cross-sections is the "barn", with one barn equal to 10E-24 sq cm, and it came from the expression "can't hit the broad side of a barn". The symbol for Plutonium, Pu, was chosen knowing the American idiom as well.
Murphy Siding Maybe what's needed is some marketing, ala rebranding? Would there be as big of a negative connotation in the public's eye, if the word nuclear was not used in conjunction with the word fusion? Perhaps all you need is a catchy name. For example, Rich, Corinthian Fusion.
Maybe what's needed is some marketing, ala rebranding? Would there be as big of a negative connotation in the public's eye, if the word nuclear was not used in conjunction with the word fusion? Perhaps all you need is a catchy name. For example, Rich, Corinthian Fusion.
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/bulletin/1947-1995/1947/00091947.pdf
Nuclear Energy, Please!!
Constant association of one word with another will eventually create in the mind of any individual a relationship that is difficult to disregard.
In order to impress upon people the beneficent aims of the research work to be done at Brookhaven, it is necessary first to create the proper word picture in their minds regarding the energy to be derived from the atom. To this end we are endeavoring to have newspaper releases mention nuclear energy rather than atomic energy, and to speak of the beneficial uses of nuclear energy, rather than of the peacetime uses. The latter phrase all too frequently brings to mind the opposite of peace.
Brookhaven National Laboratory personnel can assist in this campaign by speaking of nuclear energy and of the beneficial uses of nuclear energy when discussing the Laboratory with relatives or friends.
The chain reaction that may result from our combined efforts in this will focus the public’s attention on the good that may be derived from the use of a force that has been used heretofore mainly for destructive purposes.
Here's that guy who designed the atomic locomotive. It's interesting they called a nuclear reactor an atomic pile in those days.
Even if the Skonk Works comes up with a fusion reactor the size of a footlocker that produces electricity directly from the magnetic bottle and somehow converts heat to more electricity in some as-yet-undeveloped solid state device, the NIMBYs and the technologically challenged media/politicians will go into uncontrollable, "Run in circles, scream and shout," mode as soon as someone makes a move to put one in a locomotive.
For the record, people who live in Vail, CO, and other equally high altitude places get more radiation daily (from cosmic rays) than the citizens of Three Mile Island got on the worst single day of their, "Disaster," that really wasn't. You will get about the same TOTAL dose by flying from New York to Hong Kong.
As far as electrifying U.S.rails, we already have. We just use distributed power right on the train ("Look, Ma, no wires.")
Chuck (Former nuclear-incident trained disaster control technician)
Problem with neutrons is that they will activate a lot of nearby materials, i.e. the fusion reactor "vessel" will be intensely radioactive after it has been in operation.
On the plus side, any shielding that will reduce neutron dose rate to acceptable levels will also keep activation on the outside of the shield to acceptable levels. If the fusion reactor is licensed to the same standards as a fission reactor, "acceptable levels" is 5 milli-REM per year or less than a micro-REM per hour, probably looking at at least 8 feet of borated polyethylene to get the neutron dose rate down to that level - and this has to be on all sides of the reactor.
- Erik
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
In the newer projects, such as the Lockheed and Greifswald ones, radioactivity does not appear to be a factor. Damage to lattice structure of materials used for the containment of the process by the plasma seems to be the real obstacle.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Erik is right, and there is a little more about shielding.Fission nuclear reactions leave radioactive "fission products" behind- the ash of the process. These are long-lived and dangerous - mustbe contained for long years.The neutrons Erik mentions are gone instantly, leaving behind theirenergy to heat steam. Reactor designers are careful to avoid certainelements that might become long-lived radioactive when hit byneutrons.Maybe the Lockheed guys are on to something but my own experiencehelping build *large* fusion machines makes me pretty skeptical abouttheir claims.Incidently there is an article on the nuclear locomotive from the diskarchive Trains July 1955. "Atomic Locomotive Quiz: An expert asks andanswers questions""... there is a possibility that radioactive material could bescattered about " <> "... it would not represent an unsolvableproblem."John
Well, it sounded like a good idea at the time....
That's not to say that we might not run into it in the future, along with any number of other emerging technologies.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
gardendance What radioactive materials? I haven't read the article, but fusion and fission are different things. The sun fuses non-radioactive hydrogen, and just uses an enormous amount to create the fusing pressure.. Our fusion bombs on the other hand, from what I remember from high school, use 2 uranium or a bunch of plutonium bombs, to fuse hydrogen.
What radioactive materials? I haven't read the article, but fusion and fission are different things. The sun fuses non-radioactive hydrogen, and just uses an enormous amount to create the fusing pressure.. Our fusion bombs on the other hand, from what I remember from high school, use 2 uranium or a bunch of plutonium bombs, to fuse hydrogen.
Patrick, Fusion still creates radioactive waste. It has a short lived lifespan, but none the less, that lifespan is still measured in a peroid of years. So the material would need to be secured, for fear of it being used for purposes that could be detrimental to the public. That's what I was referring to.
Victrola1 Once again, assume the hype. Fusion reactors will be more compact, be less of a hazard including massive shielding and licensed for locomotives. You may generate a great deal of heat requiring far less space and tare weight than fission.
Once again, assume the hype. Fusion reactors will be more compact, be less of a hazard including massive shielding and licensed for locomotives. You may generate a great deal of heat requiring far less space and tare weight than fission.
Shielding a fission reactor is less of a problem than shieling a fusion reactor, the 14MeV neutrons from D-T reactions in a fusion reactor are much harder to shield against than the gammas from a fission reactor (which are arguably less of a problem than the fission spectru neutrons from a fission reactor). There isn't enough space in the AAR loading gauge to install enough neutron shielding for a fusion reactor.
Best way to a fusion powered locomotive is using electricity generated by a stationary power source - which could either be delivered by wire, third rail or battery.
P.S. FWIW, I do have a degree in Nuclear Engineering and I have done neutron and gamma shielding calculations.
Given the fact that "break even" fusion (a reaction where as much energy is produced as is required to initiate the event) has yet to be acheived, let alone a sustained fusion process that generates a net energy output, this thread is turning into science fiction.
Of course if we do build Victrola1's Fusion-Steam-Turbine-Electric Warren Buffet will have to create a new subsidiary of his railroad to be named BNSFL (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Luna) to bring Helium 3 mined on the moon down to earth to fuel the things. Maybe a
we may just as well talk about designing a locomotive that uses a the radiation from a microscopic Black Hole (No,Lockheed is not going to build a working one of those in the next few years either) to generate steam to power a turbine.
Of course if we do build Victrola1's fusion steam -turbine -electric Warren Buffet will have to create a new subsidiary of his railroad to be named BNSFL (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Luna) to bring Helium 3 mined on the Moon down toEearth to fuel the beasts. Maybe a space elevator on both bodies would be the way, the elevator cars will sure look good in that orange and green paint scheme.
And think of the raging debates we will have here on the General discussion forum about the economics of electrifying the Lunar mining railroad that hauls the HE3 to the elevator...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Atoms for peace was the slogan in the 1950's. Atoms on rails using fission reactors flopped. It is interesting to view the engineering and design proposals from the past.
Combustion would be external instead internal as in a diesel engine. Steam turbine locomotives with direct mechincal drives and traction motors were exprimented with and abandon in the U. S. during the 1940's and 50's.
Reciprocating steam was apparently ruled out using a huge fission reactor. Using a fusion reactor for heat, would you follow the same steam turbine electric path as propsed in the 1950's? If so, how would you design such a locomotive?
Set your reactor size from occupying a truck bed for a start. Assuming technology advances, make your reactor the size of a riding lawn mower.
Have fun with your trains
wanswheel http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/adaccess/?keyword=railroad
Victrola1 Nuclear fusion is the process by which the sun works. Our concept will mimic that process within a compact magnetic container and release energy in a controlled fashion to produce power we can use. A reactor small enough to fit on a truck could provide enough power for a small city of up to 100,000 people Building on more than 60 years of fusion research, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works approach to compact fusion is a high beta concept. This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all of its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller than previous concepts. That means we can replace a device that must be housed in a large building with one that can fit on the back of a truck. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html If it will fit on a truck, it will fit within a locomotive frame. If continued research is fruitful, how much smaller can you go?
Building on more than 60 years of fusion research, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works approach to compact fusion is a high beta concept. This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all of its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller than previous concepts. That means we can replace a device that must be housed in a large building with one that can fit on the back of a truck.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
If it will fit on a truck, it will fit within a locomotive frame. If continued research is fruitful, how much smaller can you go?
Might make a good SyFy movie.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
The thread title was about fusion whereas some of the follow up is about fission. Those are two rather different things. If you mean a fission powered locomotive - nuclear reactor - then there would be some interesting issues with respect to safety as has been noted. If you mean fusion then the first thing you have to do is make it happen ( I seem to recall that "breakeven" happened for only an instant in an experiment either late last year or earlier this year) on a level where you could start to think about putting a fusion plant in something the size of a large fission reactor building...and then maybe look for a way to shrink it in terms of size and cost.
Historical sidenote, here is an article on the original proposed Atomic Locomotive from the 1950's, any 'fusion" loco would be similar:
If the concept proves successful, the technology could provide propulsive power that gives ships and large airplanes “unlimited range,” Lockheed said. Small fusion reactors could provide a cheap new source of electricity to utilities seeking alternatives to coal and gas, making desalination cost-effective in regions where water is scarce.
Whether that potential is ever realized ultimately “depends on the cost,” Paul Patterson, a New York-based analyst with Glenrock Associates LLC, said in a phone interview. “This is something to look at 10 years from now. Right now, it’s at such an early stage, it’s hard to get too excited about the implications."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-15/lockheed-skunk-works-team-tackling-nuclear-fusion-reactor.html
Lockheed is touting transport applications. Lockheed does not sell many locomotives to the Department of Defense. No mention of railroad apllications for their fusion power plant comes as no surprise.
Yes, it is too early to get excited about the implications. That is no reason not to have fun with specualtion.
ramrod BTW, do you know how many people died as a result of the Three Mile Island incident? ... None.
BTW, do you know how many people died as a result of the Three Mile Island incident? ... None.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Hysterical over reaction is the defining characteristic of modern America.
Picture trying to tell thousands of small towns and dozens of large cities that you will be running nuclear powered anything through their streets...
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Consider the Atomic Aircraft. Do the Google and review the details into the complexity of taking reactor into flight. It turned out to be just a 'dream too far.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
Given distructive forces abetween train and trucks, would not have been the best move to put a reactor subject to collission with extra-wide/heavy loaded trucks.
But, it is good to look back at the future that never was.
Thank you, wanswheel, for all of the wonderful things that you find for us!
I can just hear the "NIMBY's" screaming now!!!
Having seen the technoogical changes that have taken place in my lifetime I will not discount the possibility. I will say, however, it's not likely to happen soon.
Norm
First a controlled fusion reaction has to be shown [It hasn't happened yet. Univ. of Utah reportedly made that breakthrough about 35 years ago, but it was shown to be a false reading]. But once fusion-powered elecrical power plants are built, electrification of many railroads and many other modes of transport will occur.
[quote user="Firelock76"]
Ain't-gonna-happen.
Aside from the mechanical and tech problems which the Skunk Wors will solve, the major obstaclees are political and emotional, especially emotional. As the use of nuclear fusion becomes practical, the uninformed will oppose it vehamently because it's "nuclear" even though radioactivity is a minor issue with fusion. As soon as you mention "nuclear" a lare number of people go directly into panic mode..Until most of the public understands the difference between fusion and fission, there will be little or no practical use of fusion. BTW, do you know how many people died as a result of the Three Mile Island incident? ... None.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.