Talk:Energy amplifier

message: MYRRHA, sounds like this kind of system to me, perhaps more info can be gathered from the website: http://myrrha.sckcen.be/en/MYRRHA/ADS
Objectives of Myrrha
http://ipnweb.in2p3.fr/MAX/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.147.168 (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: MYRRHA

message: :Reference added. I am looking for a less technically detailed article more accessable to the layman. Peter Maggs 08:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edits. I don't know where you are getting the information that this technology is not proliferation resistant. But I would check your sources. DV8 2XL 17:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why the energy amplifier should be proliferation resistant, or give me a reference to explain it? My own reference is limited: it is just my common sense from what I know about nuclear power technology. My reasoning is the following: the energy amplifier breeds thorium to produce 233U, and, as all nuclear reactors, it does not burn the toatality of it; thus, a certain amount of 233U should remain in the spent fuel, and potentially can be chemically separated from the rest. And I think that 233U casn potentially be used as nuclear weapon material. It is possible that 233U turns out to be a poor material for doing bombs, but such is also the case for reactor-grade plutonium which is produced in conventional nuclear power plants. Thus, I believe that the energy amplifier does not present advantages over conventional nuclear power as far as proliferation or CO2 emmissions are concerned, thus I want to remove these advantages to the list, if you agree. --Philipum 14:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term “proliferation resistant” does not imply a claim of “proliferation proof”. In this case several features of the design allow this claim. First, burn-up while indeed not complete, is sufficient to reduce the recoverable weapon usable material to the point that the volume of spent fuel that would have to be processed would be significantly greater than from other designs. Also the level of technical sophistication required to effect separation of partially irradiate fuel is again significantly greater, given the intensity of the radioactivity of the material. DV8 2XL 16:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *P.S. FYI, uranium 233 is found only in very small quantities in nuclear warheads, because it is more difficult and more expensive to produce than uranium 235 and plutonium 239. Moreover, it is more radioactive than uranium 235 and can complicate the construction of weapons. It can make nuclear weapons less reliable. But these characteristics would not stop uranium 233 from being used by people wanting to fabricate a nuclear device secretly. Also I forgot to say that I agree with the removal of the statement about fossile fuels. DV8 2XL 17:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proliferation 'resistance' in U-233 lies in contamination by U-232, whose decay products release large amounts of gamma radiation.  Such radiation would not only make the Uranium more difficult to handle, it would also fry the electronics of any bomb mechanism.  Yes, there are methods available that could potentially seperate the U-232 from the U-233, but, and here the key difference between 'standard' uranium fuels lie, there would be no need to build such a seperation plant.  To use U-235 as a fuel, you first have to build an enrichment facility to increase the percentage of U-235 present in the U-238/U-235 mixture.  This same enrichment plant could be used to make weapons grade material.  There is no need to remove the U-232 from U-233 for it to be used as a fuel, so there is no need for a seperation plant. Will D. Webster (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs references 

message: THis sounds like the device in a very early heinlein story.  I had not realised it was a serious proposal as well. Midgley 06:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heinlein story 

message: I saw the wording of one sentence go from neutrons to protons and back again.  There is nothing trivial or non-trivial about this, there is a RIGHT answer, as in, which is the proposal for?  the second "reference" cited says this:
Any accelerator driven system consists of a subcritical core containing fissile material, which should not be able to sustain a chain reaction on its own. It will therefore need an external neutron source, produced by a beam of high energy protons (of the order of 1 GeV) hitting a target of heavy metal thereby producing a large number of neutrons by spallation reactions.
I have never read about a design that uses a neutron accelerator.  All proposals for a sub-critical nuclear reactor use protons or electrons that make some nuclei fission thus producing neutrons.  I'll change it sometime here and put references, but I think it's clear that what's written in the article isn't reliable either way. theanphibian 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Electrons and protons can be accelerated by quickly alternating an electromagnetic field; you cannot accelerate neutrons that easily because they have no net electrical charge. Does everything make sense now?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.230.223 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Protons vs. Neutrons

message: I was fine with this until near the bottom where it says that "no synchrotron of sufficient power has ever been built."
Whether this would require "fundamental research" or just "engineering" is likely a matter of degree.  If existing synchrotrons are 90% of the way there, I'd say "engineering".  If it's 10%, I'd say "research".  It's hard to tell here, since there's very little quantitative info here, but I'd guess the latter. -Dmh 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Power and energy are two different things.  One Gev of energy means that each protons has the same energy as if accelerated by a 1 billion volt battery. Power is getting enough of them per second. The reference cited  mentions 12MW of power, which is a current of 12mA.  The Spallation Neutron Source is the most powerful pulsed beam neutron source in the world only delivers 1.4MW.   Hope this helps. Paul Studier 23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No fundamental research ... 

message: see http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/mcintyre/research/index.html Accelerator-driven thorium-cycle fission power entry. It points to http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/mcintyre/accelerator_physics/thorium_cycle.pdf paper but, unfortunately I cannot access it.
So in case someone has more information - it seems important to add a mention to the work at the page.
SergeyKurdakov (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to approach which seems resolves problems with current accelerators 

message: there is a similar concept 
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/benefits_challenges.php
which uses thermonuclear lazer-driven ignition to run reactor
there are two possiblities
one is to cover the approach here, as a separate entry
or  to create a new article ( checked - no article on the subject so far ).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyKurdakov (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is here already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion-fission_hybrid SergeyKurdakov (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  LIFE concept 

message: I propose that the article Accelerator-driven_sub-critical_reactor is merged into this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkelliher (talk • contribs) 09:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Energy amplifier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929124454/http://canteach.candu.org/library/20041209.pdf to http://canteach.candu.org/library/20041209.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Energy amplifier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903071404/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified