/sci/ - Science & Math

Reactors aren't small.... the containment alone is fucking ridiculous.

depends what you want
you can make a fusion reactor that fits into the boot of a car, but it doesn't give you a net power output
a fission reactor has to be fairly big, mainly because of containment. I don't know much about the specifics, but you could probably fit one into a 20*20*20M cube

There was a design for the LFTR that could fit in a shipping container iirc.

>>3425883
>Fusion reactor

I thought fusion wasn't even possible yet.

We speculate about that bullshit, but no one has ever achieved it.

I imagine you could make button reactors the size of a hearing-aid battery.

>>3425888
fusion's easy, it's getting electricity out of it that's a bitch.
We can make fusion that generates about as much energy as you put in for milliseconds, but then the reaction dies out. We can also do uncontrolled fusion that is self sustaining, but only in H-Bombs. The infuriating thing is that we know it should be possible for fusion to work as a power source but we can't work out how to make it.
>>3425894
not if you want to generate power. You need critical mass for steam, which is about 2KG for uranium IIRC

In the market for something like this?

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~blanchar/res/BlanchardKorea.pdf

>>3425894
And how would one do that...

I'm talking seriously here.

This thread here talks about a reactor that fits into a space the size of a trash can.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16427.0 (look for the post by elephantwalker)

Could that possibly power a flying car? Is a reactor like that even possible? Or is this guy full of shit?

>>3425897
>for steam,

Oh, lawdie!

>>3425910

Nasa uses nuclear batteries for a lot of their equipment.

>>3425921
How do nuclear batteries work?

Could THEY possibly power a flying car?

And is the reason we don't see nuclear batteries allowed for the general population that the government would need to regulate them?

>>3425927
>is the reason we don't see nuclear batteries allowed for the general population that the government would need to regulate them?

Same reason they won't let you have a trash-can sized reactor for a car.

>>3425927
A nuclear battery, or Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG), uses the heat of radioactive decay to provide power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

They're pretty inefficient and very heavy for the power they provide.

>>3425941
So you're saying trash can reactors are possible?

Can you cite that from a source?

>>3425927
I don't think so. They generally give out a low, consistent power level, and getting enough to lift tons would be awkward.
I think there's a commercial nuclear battery entering the market in the UK. don't remember its name though.

>>3425927
see
>>3425907

>>3425948

Of course they're not possible.

The government would never allow them.

But, you could create a simple block that held a small pile that turns water into steam, and run the car off of a steam rotor.

Easy-peasy.

>>3425966
Ughhhh...

I don't care what the government sees permissible or not.

I'm just asking if we could build them with our current knowledge of technology.

Look, let's just pretend we own an island or large cruise ship in international waters that doesn't apply to any laws in any country.

Now let's get back to talking about mobile reactors.

What's the smallest you can build, with a cite-able source?

>>3426010
>What's the smallest you can build, with a cite-able source?

Cite-able source? Nobody bothers. America would go freakshit applenuts insane.

>>3426024
>America would go freakshit applenuts insane.

What? Why?


Do you realize we had small reactors on the space shuttles?

Is there anyone else in this thread who actually makes some sense?

Dawn is a nuclear power vehicle.

>>3426037
Pics, proof?

>>3426033
>Do you realize we had small reactors on the space shuttles?

AMERICA had small reactors.

>>3426033
They weren't reactors, they were radiators

I haven't heard about there being any nuclear reactors on manned spacecraft, at least.

Here's an example of a very small nuclear reactor. At 50 tons, it's way too big for a car, but not for a ship.

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html

In the '50s, a nuclear reactor was tested aboard a bomber. It did not power the aircraft, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion

I'll look for more information.

>>3426055
Thank you.

Here's a nice, small reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROCUS

As you can see, the containment vessel is responsible for most of the reactor's weight.

Now, here's the closest I've come to the mythical nuclear-powered car. Not the Ford Nucleon, but a Cadillac.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:World_Thorium_Fuel_%28WTF%29_Cadillac_concept_car

Don't ask me for any scientific papers, because that page is about as much information as there seems to be on it. At least, after a quick google.

Do you need net energy from the reactor?
If not then they can be really small... IEC's for example can fit on your desk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement))

The one at Sydney University largest dimension is 1.5 m
(http://www.tonybarry.net/tonybarry/Fusion_articles/Entries/2008/5/22_Joe_Khachan_on_polywell_progre
ss_in_Australia.html)
In addition, he practically made it out of scrapyard parts (the anode was a tea strainer he found at one point...)