FAQ - Thermonuclear?...Fusion?....Reactor? (terms)

[Richard Hull]

Fusion confusion is only natural to those not studied in the intricacies of the above terms. Let us start from right to left above.

Reactor - This is a vessel in which a specific desired reaction takes place. Normally applied to chemistry, but equally applicable to nuclear reactions. Note: Power generation of any useful nature is not a prerequisite for any vessel in which a nuclear reaction occurs! As with chemistry, chemicals, elements and in some cases external energy is applied such as heat or electrical energy. In all cases, if a reaction of a desired nature takes place within the vessel, it may be called a reactor. A reactor may release energy or absorb it based on the desired reaction. The fusor is a fusion reactor, as it is vessel in which fusion takes place with the input of electrical energy. A desired nuclear reaction takes place within.

Fusion - The joining together of two entities to form a new entity. Normally, a biological process in the past. However, this term came into nuclear parlance shortly after the discovery of nuclear fusion of the D-D reaction in 1932. Nuclear fusion is the joining of two nuclei producing a reaction with a final product nucleus and possibly nuclear particulate debris and typically, the release of energy, especially in the case of lighter nuclei.

Thermonuclear - A term used to describe a reaction, almost always assumed to be a fusion reaction. This is typically thought of as the fusion of nuclei within an idealized perfect plasma state of nuclei striped of all electrons due to a specific uniform temperature (energy level) within a well defined and contained volume of such nuclei.

A typical example is that of the hydrogen-bomb where a hydrogen isotope is heated for small period of time rather uniformly in a spherical expanding plasma due to the impetus of a nuclear fission explosion achieving such an energetic, (heated), region about the contained hydrogen isotope to achieve fusion. This is termed a thermonuclear explosion as the reaction proceeds only due to the heating of the fusible element's nuclei.

Another example is a Tokomak. This is, ostensibly, a continuously functioning fusion device where a rather idealized perfect plasma is generated within a controlled volume and which is heated to fusion energy by the continuous application of outside energy, (electrical), to the plasma. This is also considered a thermonuclear reaction.

point #1 - The fusor is a fusion reactor! The fusor is in an enclosed vessel in which fusion reactions are created. Period!

Point #2 - The fusor is not a thermonuclear fusion system. No uniformly heated, contained, idealized, plasma is created within a fusor.

Point #3 - The fusor does all of its fusion within a continuously energized velocity space of fusion capable fuel atoms! Fusion is achieved via randomly ionized and accelerated deuterons and fast neutral deuterium atoms at less than ideal fusion energies via quantum tunneling within the torrent of activity within its contained velocity space environment. There is some "beam-on-target" fusion occurring, as well.

Terms we use in our fusion efforts are important and critical to proper discussion among fusion savvy peers, and professionals we might come into contact with.

Richard Hull

[JoeBallantyne]

Is a fusor a nuclear reactor? Of course it is. (A really, really sucky one, that poses essentially zero risk to anyone other than perhaps the operator.)

Is calling it a nuclear reactor instead of a fusor, a good idea?

Not IMO.

What comes to my mind when I hear the words nuclear reactor - or even just the word reactor?

Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima, huge ugly expensive concrete behemoths, plutonium - which is what nuclear reactors were originally invented and built to make, nuclear bombs, radiation, radiation poisoning, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the NRC, the AEC, regulations and laws out the wazoo, people walking around in hooded full body white and yellow suits holding geiger counters, etc, etc, etc

All of that comes immediately to mind when I do word association on "nuclear reactor".

How much of that comes to mind when I hear the word fusor? NONE OF IT AT ALL.

So, IMO, it is MUCH WISER for us to downplay the FACT that fusors are nuclear reactors, and instead refer to them as we always have, in deference to the man Philo Farnsworth who invented the first one and named it, as fusors.

Unless of course we WANT people to think we are TOTALLY nuts, and be MORE LIKELY to report us to the authorities. "My neighbor says he has a nuclear reactor in his garage, I think you should come by and inspect it..."

People have no clue what a fusor is, and no word associations for it. That is a GOOD THING.

Please, let's refer to our nuclear reactors as fusors.

When someone inevitably asks, "What's a fusor?", we can say, "It's a device for doing hot nuclear fusion." Absolute truth, and no negative word associations...

Plus nuclear reactors have always been about fission, so using that terminology, when we only do fusion, is a really bad idea.

Joe.

[Alexander Ziemecki]

Initially I did not agree with joe, but he makes a good point; people freak out when they hear the word reactor. Causes trouble.

[Richard Hull]

Call it a fusor or a nuclear reactor and you will be spot on correct on both points. Other people's failure to know what a reactor vessel is of no concern to me. What my point was is that the fusor is a nuclear reactor first and last. Whether the term conjures up negative connotations or is supposed to produce real power is immaterial to the term reactor. For me, we make fusors....they are nuclear reactors by definition.

I will never shy away from the truth because of ignorant misconceptions.

I am not renaming the fusor and will never change the name of the fusor to other than fusor. However, I am free to note that it is a nuclear reactor. Anyone who says it isn't is an ignorant dolt, by definition of that term.

Richard Hull