>how do fusionbros get their tritium? >from a fission reactors


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

>how do fusionbros get their tritium?
>from a fission reactors

I love dropping this bomb on nuke-illiterate normies.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ??? you breed tritium in the blanket of a fusion reactor, you don't need fission... but of course there are no commercial fusion reactors for at least 50 more years minimum so this is just as hypothetical as fusion itself is

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    uhmm sweetie it's called HYDROGEN fusion, hydrogen is in water mmkay? ain't hard to get

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      anything but d-t is science fiction

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        uhmm sweetie it's called HYDROGEN fusion, hydrogen is in water mmkay? ain't hard to get

        Lithium-6 Deuteride is presently the only practical nuclear fusion fuel. That's lithium bonded to a hydrogen. Lithium is not itself hydrogen.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          first off the actual fusion event for what you're describing is still d-t, the whole point of using lithium deuteride is to produce tritium to fuse with deteurium, those are both hydrogen isotopes, and secondly what you're describing is how fusion bombs work. for fusion reactors the idea is to imbed the lithium in the blanket of the fusion reactor to collect enough tritium fuel in the blanket to keep the reaction going. the lithium in the blanket has nothing to do with the literal fusion reaction happening in the plasma

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what you're describing is how fusion bombs work.
            aka the only practical fusion.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              well what are you even responding to here

              anything but d-t is science fiction

              then? i already agreed that anything but d-t is science fiction. and i already said that commercial fusion is hypothetical here

              ??? you breed tritium in the blanket of a fusion reactor, you don't need fission... but of course there are no commercial fusion reactors for at least 50 more years minimum so this is just as hypothetical as fusion itself is

              are you proposing Lithium-6 Deuteride for the fusion blanket or something?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >well what are you even responding to here

                anything but d-t is science fiction

                then?
                Because thermonuclear bombs are the only practical form of nuclear fusion. Everything else is basically science fiction.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Because thermonuclear bombs are the only practical form of nuclear fusion.
                what do you mean by practical here? practical in killing people? sure. but if you mean practical in producing usable energy, then no, you are wrong. even the shittiest nuclear fusion reactor is more practical than a thermonuclear bomb for producing useful energy. And commercial d-t nuclear fusion is not even remotely science fiction, you have no clue what you are talking about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >what do you mean by practical here? practical in killing people?
                I mean the only one that does what it's meant to do, instead of being a fruitless experiment.

                >even the shittiest nuclear fusion reactor is more practical than a thermonuclear bomb for producing useful energy
                Not a single nuclear fusion reactor in the world can produce more energy than they consume. Practical nuclear fusion power plants DO NOT EXIST.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                oops this

                i dont know why retards like you are so obsessed with saying fusion power is sci-fi. there is nothing about commercial fusion that is theoretically impossible or even surprising or unlikely. in fact, it's all very mundane. nuclear reactors are nothing but massive steam generators. the part of fusion actually producing electricity is 300 year old technology. literally just look into the sky, day or night, and you'll realize everything you have ever known in your entire life is solely due to the existence of fusion. that fusion is gravitationally confined. there are other PRACTICAL ways to confine fusion (you must agree because you keep mentioning thermonuclear bombs) which have been done successfully. there is inertial confinement, such as in a thermonuclear bomb (or highly experimental fusion reactors). and there is also magnetic confinement for most of the big test fusion reactor like JT-60, JET, and ITER, which is the most likely pathway to commercial fusion for a hundred reasons. JT-60 and JET reached what's called "extrapolated breakeven" already in the late 90s, meaning that if they were to have used tritium in the reactions (which they don't, because tritium is radioactive and expensive, so small preliminary fusion test reactors use d-d instead) then they would have "produced more energy than the plasma consumed" (Q>1), but nobody is bothering much with scientific breakeven anymore because ITER is only 3 years from completion and it's expected to reach Q = 10. But retards like you will keep moving the goalpost as Q surpasses every type of breakeven, until you are at the last arbitrary goalpost which the universe does not care about at all, which we call "commercial breakeven" (enough energy to make money). At this point you will be dead (you are no doubt a boomer) and completely forgotten, so nobody will even care enough about you to smugly dance on your grave

                was meant for you buddy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          first off the actual fusion event for what you're describing is still d-t, the whole point of using lithium deuteride is to produce tritium to fuse with deteurium, those are both hydrogen isotopes, and secondly what you're describing is how fusion bombs work. for fusion reactors the idea is to imbed the lithium in the blanket of the fusion reactor to collect enough tritium fuel in the blanket to keep the reaction going. the lithium in the blanket has nothing to do with the literal fusion reaction happening in the plasma

          also the lithium in fusion reactor blankets is not Lithium-6 Deuteride
          >In order to produce heat necessary for electricity generation and tritium as fuel for nuclear fusion, pebbles of lithium titanate (Li2TiO3) and beryllium are packed into the blanket.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i dont know why retards like you are so obsessed with saying fusion power is sci-fi. there is nothing about commercial fusion that is theoretically impossible or even surprising or unlikely. in fact, it's all very mundane. nuclear reactors are nothing but massive steam generators. the part of fusion actually producing electricity is 300 year old technology. literally just look into the sky, day or night, and you'll realize everything you have ever known in your entire life is solely due to the existence of fusion. that fusion is gravitationally confined. there are other PRACTICAL ways to confine fusion (you must agree because you keep mentioning thermonuclear bombs) which have been done successfully. there is inertial confinement, such as in a thermonuclear bomb (or highly experimental fusion reactors). and there is also magnetic confinement for most of the big test fusion reactor like JT-60, JET, and ITER, which is the most likely pathway to commercial fusion for a hundred reasons. JT-60 and JET reached what's called "extrapolated breakeven" already in the late 90s, meaning that if they were to have used tritium in the reactions (which they don't, because tritium is radioactive and expensive, so small preliminary fusion test reactors use d-d instead) then they would have "produced more energy than the plasma consumed" (Q>1), but nobody is bothering much with scientific breakeven anymore because ITER is only 3 years from completion and it's expected to reach Q = 10. But retards like you will keep moving the goalpost as Q surpasses every type of breakeven, until you are at the last arbitrary goalpost which the universe does not care about at all, which we call "commercial breakeven" (enough energy to make money). At this point you will be dead (you are no doubt a boomer) and completely forgotten, so nobody will even care enough about you to smugly dance on your grave

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >i dont know why retards like you are so obsessed with saying fusion power is sci-fi. there is nothing about commercial fusion that is theoretically impossible
      It literally doesn't exist. There is not a single practical commercial fusion power plant in existence.

      Therefore it is science fiction.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fusion isn't impossible per se, it's inefficient and unprofitable. The biggest problem is that it takes more energy to sdustain the fusion reaction than you get out. Not to mention the megawatts required to just maintain the superconducting magnets and cryogenics. And how do you get that energy out, from a steam turbine (heat engine), which even with our most efficient designs can only capture below half of all that energy to turn into electricity? You're investing 100 million K worth of energy only to get out half of it and even then you use that energy to maintain the machine itself. The only viable and promising way to make use of fusion is direct energy conversion and even that's still sci-fi tech as there's little research done with it. It's an unprofitable scientific experiment.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Li-6 in breeding mantle and external production in breeding fission reactors

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >1 fusion generates 1 neutron
      >1 neutron generates 1 tritium

      nice perfect neutron economy reactor you have there sir.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Friendship with science ended
    >Fission is now my best friend

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How much lithium is in asteroids anyways? we're gonna be needing a lot of that shit

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *