Thread: Modifying a cyclotron to produce electricity

Hey, I had a thought that if you was to basically build a cyclotron into a nuclear reactor then focus the beam of radiation in to a very large pool of water to generate electricity. Would this be at all possible? I was thinking of sort of re-designing it though so that you accelerate the neutrons to a high speed then collide them with the fissionable material

Originally Posted by sjbaybutt

Hey, I had a thought that if you was to basically build a cyclotron into a nuclear reactor then focus the beam of radiation in to a very large pool of water to generate electricity. Would this be at all possible?

"Why would we want to?" is my first question.
It requires electricity to power the cyclotron.
You'd not make any extra energy from the set up - there'd be an overall loss.
I'm unsure of what you mean by the part highlighted in red.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by sjbaybutt

Hey, I had a thought that if you was to basically build a cyclotron into a nuclear reactor then focus the beam of radiation in to a very large pool of water to generate electricity. Would this be at all possible?

"Why would we want to?" is my first question.
It requires electricity to power the cyclotron.
You'd not make any extra energy from the set up - there'd be an overall loss.
I'm unsure of what you mean by the part highlighted in red.

Not a cyclotron as in a standard one it is modified to accelerate the neutrons using background radiation and then focus the energy created into a beam not the radiation

Originally Posted by sjbaybutt

Not a cyclotron as in a standard one it is modified to accelerate the neutrons using background radiation and then focus the energy created into a beam not the radiation

In other words "Can we use a not-a-cyclotron-but something-fictional to do something-else-fictional and then a bit more something-fictional to generate electricity?"
Sure, why not?
Just don't forget that the penguins need to be in parallel, not series.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by sjbaybutt

Not a cyclotron as in a standard one it is modified to accelerate the neutrons using background radiation and then focus the energy created into a beam not the radiation

In other words "Can we use a not-a-cyclotron-but something-fictional to do something-else-fictional and then a bit more something-fictional to generate electricity?"
Sure, why not?
Just don't forget that the penguins need to be in parallel, not series.

How is it fictional? It could be possible

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Any "cyclotron" that can accelerate neutral particles like neutrons is impossible, therefore fictional - don't forget about the penguins.

How is it impossible?

good candidate for the trash can

Since they have no charge you can't "get a grip" on them to provide any acceleration.

If anybody needs another reason why this doesn't make sense, accelerated neutrons are not what you need to initiate fission. What you need are thermal neutrons. This is why a moderator is required to slow down the neutrons being produced from the fission reaction.

I believe neutrons can be "accelerated", so to speak, secondarily. For example, a neutron of nominal velocity, not necessarily "moderated", captured by an atom of Uranium 234 or 235, results in the emission of MORE than one neutron, ejected at extremely high velocity.

jocular

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by sjbaybutt

Not a cyclotron as in a standard one it is modified to accelerate the neutrons using background radiation and then focus the energy created into a beam not the radiation

In other words "Can we use a not-a-cyclotron-but something-fictional to do something-else-fictional and then a bit more something-fictional to generate electricity?"
Sure, why not?
Just don't forget that the penguins need to be in parallel, not series.

And an ordinary power source won't work, you'll need to plug in Daffy Duck.


cyclotrons involve both electric and magnetic fields, they won't do nothin' to a neutral particle.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Careful with the double negatives - "won't do nothin'" means it "will do somethin'"

In every dialect of informal English I am aware of double negatives are commonly used for emphasis.

If he is "old", I would hope he is not in a grave ...

Most Americans should be familiar with double negatives.


<<--------

Gone from neutrons to nonsense, yall thru wasteing time on this one yet?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by sjbaybutt

Not a cyclotron as in a standard one it is modified to accelerate the neutrons using background radiation and then focus the energy created into a beam not the radiation

In other words "Can we use a not-a-cyclotron-but something-fictional to do something-else-fictional and then a bit more something-fictional to generate electricity?"
Sure, why not?
Just don't forget that the penguins need to be in parallel, not series.

Don't forget that penguins are polarized.

Originally Posted by fizzlooney

Gone from neutrons to nonsense, yall thru wasteing time on this one yet?

Wastin' time?

Wastin' time is our pastime...it's why we're here.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Don't forget that penguins are polarized.

But ALL the same.
They're monopolarised.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Don't forget that penguins are polarized.

...or even polarised (bloody Americans)

but it's pronounced as "zzz"

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Since when did that have anything to do with English spelling...

So "polarized" would be more appropriate, that's what Noah Webster thought.



Most people think the American system MM/DD/YYYY is odd, I actually agree with that.

The OED lists polarize before polarise. (That may be because the ize spelling dominated before the 18th century "Frenchification" of English).

How is it pronounced in french?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

With a outrageous accent probably

(With apologies to John Cleese)

ha ha

I need to learn how to pronounce all those French and Italian scientists' names.

Way to ruin a perfectly good joke through over analiz/sation.

Just in case there are any lurkers with questions about penguin polarity. Electrolytic penguins always have their negative legs marked by a white stripe.

NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES reverse the polarity of an electrolytic penguin. They WILL explode!

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Way to ruin a perfectly good joke through over analiz/sation.

Just in case there are any lurkers with questions about penguin polarity. Electrolytic penguins always have their negative legs marked by a white stripe.

NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES reverse the polarity of an electrolytic penguin. They WILL explode!

Exploding Penguin - YouTube

In theory, it wouldn't be totally impossible to accelerate neutrons, the reason why I am not going to disclose here. But it would, by far, be, highly unpractical. We would require rather high order effects. And it would make little to no use. Colliding protons with electrons would probably be simpler.

Of course you can innitiate nuclear fission with a cyclotron. but a linear accelartor would also do.

Hey there... i also had t same kind of ideas inspired from arc reactor from the ironman movi... u cannot just pass on the radiation from a cyclotron into a gaint pool of water as t radiations are at speeds wich cannot be controlled wen it is out of t cyclotron....