Topic: Thorium power, how is it going in the US? - page 7. (Read 11245 times)

There's plenty of research concerning thorium fuel cycle reactors, but I'm not willing to provide any for you because I'm not sure how much is still classified.  It shouldn't be because it's so old and not particularly useful for making a weapon, but I don't have the time or desire to check.  So no, not from me.  Google is all knowing, however, so use your google-fu and do some of your own research.  Just because it's publicly available information, doesn't necessarily mean it's not still classifed.  I know that doesn't make any sense, but in my experience there are few government rules that do not outlast their usefulness.

Evidence, where is the evidence?

Come on nuclear-power proponents, that can't be that hard! Academics in this field already big-mouth about every single tidbit they discover so it should be in your face if it is around.
Yes I would like to have one of these thorium-reactor powered cars too!  

But I am a realist, if there isn't research about it it's bullshit. Use Occam's razor for once.

No, not necessarily.  There exist self-regulating reactor core designs that will tend towards a sub-critical reaction above a certain design tempeture, making a cascading reaction (i.e. meltdown) very unlikley.  A few such reactor designs have been around for some time.  I used to have a nuclear reactor training simulator around here somewhere, if I can find it I might post a link (can't remember if the simulator is classified).  One such reactor design, that does not claim that feature as a safety feature due to some other very bad effects, is the Candu reactor designed in Canada.  It's a great design that was stolen by the Chinese for their domestic designs after they bailed on Russian designs following Chernobyl.  That's actually probably for the best, but even they don't use it for their power reactors because it's not a presurized design, but an open top, deap pool design.  If it were to boil off about ten feet of it's water, the reduction in water pressure at the core would reduce the ability of the water to slow down the neutrons to capture range until after they had left the core, thus going subcritical.  Of course, those ten extra feet of water are also necessary for human safety as the water itself is the shielding.  Lose ten feet of cover water, and spectators start dying within a couple dozen feet of the pool's surface, so it's not exactly a good thing to advertise.

What he's said is consistent with my vague recollection from when I had access to those same hypothetical naval manuals.  So I have little trouble believing the theory he was in the US Navy.  ET perhaps?

I don't believe he's leaked any classified information.  The manuals themselves are classified, but except for specifics everything I saw in there was well known to the outside world.

What he has actually said or implied, is that non-classified material of a general scientific nature is in a classified document.  Hence, he can't point you to his source, even though he knows there are bound to be non-classified sources.  If that's considering leaking classified material, I've yet to meet the sailor who isn't guilty.  Evidence of trolling, I don't see.

Just link to anything be it a textbook, a article, or your mums website and if it seems valid I'd shut up.

Not if you're willing to do it in your garage.  I'm not, because I'm not willing to die or kill my neighbors, but if you were willing, you could build a prototype energy-amp for about $50K.  Look up "thorium energy amp reactor" on Google, and then take that new knowledge here > http://www.unitednuclear.com/

This isn't PhD material nor classified. I said that my particular textbook was classified but the same information is available on Wikipedia or any college textbook.

The reason I keep mentioning college physics textbooks is because I assume that anyone who declares that a fundemental property of reactor design is "bullshit" has at least some educational background in the subject to be able to make such a definitive claim.

Or maybe not. I could have been right the first time and the person in question has no understanding of physics or engineering and is just displaying his emotional baggage on the Internet.

He'd be risking his career and some jail-time for leaking classified information just by posting his "fact".
No that's a troll, and I maintain my position: It's bullshit until I see concrete evidence that is is not.


Makes sense, but not that the reaction could be slowed down enough by such a effect in order to prevent a completely broken reactor from melting down. If anything the effect could go in the other direction.

Still?  No if we was part of the nuke program any material is on a need to know basis and property of the US government.  You do realize that the US Navy accepts "punks" right out of highschool into the nuclear propulsion school right?  It isn't like you need to be a scientist with a PHD.  Was he part of the nuke program?  I don't know.  Just pointing out it wouldn't be impossible for someone remember something from a textbook they no longer have because it is classified.

Also BTW he is correct the fission rate of a material does depend on the temperature among other things.  If a reactor gets too hot it becomes fission hostile.  Not all neutron strikes will cause fission, very few actually do and sustaining a chain reaction requires certain temps and speeds (neutron velocity).

Then it should be easy for you to come up with something. Just show me that somebody demonstrated a temperature limited thorium reactor.
Or at least an interview with a recognized research scientist outlining it, a paper, ... something.

Again you make the claim, you provide the facts.


And you believe this punk has access to them?

My guess is he was part of US Navy nuclear propulsion program.  They do have some of the best practical application of nuclear theory textbooks and yes they all are classified.

You're just making yourself look like an ass and displaying your own ignorance. The effect of temperature on fission rates isn't something new - it's was already well-understood physics by 1950.

Any college physics textbook should describe the phenomenon and give you the information and the background to understand it.

Just provide a quote of some research scientist or a paper outlining your claim and it will be fine. You made the claim you have to provide the facts.

Classified

LOL

Alternativly http://www.scienceforums.net can prob help.

If you're genuinely interested then my suggestion to find textbook was serious. To really understand you need to start from first principles of subatomic physics and work your way up to the macro implications. The specific term I was referring to is "temperature coefficient of reactivity". I can't recommend any of the textbooks I learned from because they are all considered Classified - you'd have to enlist with the Evil Empire to get access to them.

It's properties are being hypothetical or not have nothing to do with deposits on the moon. Pure Helium-3/Helium-3 fusion is aneutronic.

Besides, the location is not the hold up.

By all means expose me to the facts. But they better be authentic.

But we are not building the reactor on the moon, so its properties are somewhat hypothetical ColinDiver.

Helium-3/Helium-3 fusion is aneutronic... IJS.

The no starter uranium KickStarter project good to go then. We could provide thorium, there would be an input for the uranium and a simple instructions provided, other organisations that purchase the reactor can manage the red tape part.

Just needs somone more compitent than me in general, and in KickStarter, to set it up.