Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator....?

Quote from MatLaPatate

Quoted from "Mortvana"

But... Matter+Anti-Matter=BOOM!!!!
Yup, but there that's because of oposite charge. And because of that, you can't assemble these into a bigger one (that was what he was suggesting). At least you could assemble Neutron + Neutron, but that wouldn't be created something bigger, as they wouldn't be especially attracted one by the other (so that wouldn't make any nucleus, just 2 Neutrons closer than before )

I don't know quantum physics very much so don't believe everything I say. However I think the antimatter-matter-annhilation is not becuase they're opposite charge, otherwise hydrogen will spontaneously explode in a vacuum. And things called antineutrons, antineutrinos exist too, and they do explode when they meet neutrons and neutrinos respectively.

Plus isn't a di-neutron supposed to be unstable?

Quote from Epic Lulz

However I think the antimatter-matter-annhilation is not becuase they're opposite charge, otherwise hydrogen will spontaneously explode in a vacuum. And things called antineutrons, antineutrinos exist too, and they do explode when they meet neutrons and neutrinos respectively.

Plus isn't a di-neutron supposed to be unstable?

No shit sherlock! I just meant, that Positron + Electron will anihilate if you try to put those together, because they're attracted by each other, where you can't make 2 proton meet because the energy needed to make one move to the other increase while distance decrease, and because it tend to +*Idon'tknowhowtotypetheinfinitesymbol* when distance tend to 0.

And that's what I told, di-neutron is unstable just because it's nothing else than 2 neutrons. [and I don't think there is something else than gravitation between these 2 particles]

Quote from Mortvana

Ozone [O3], no Azote

I meant Nitrogen. N2

The gas in the atmosphere, Nitrogen, also referred to as azote (term created by Lavoisier, many languages still useit, including mine, Portuguese, tough we say azoto.)

It constitutes 78.09% of our atmosphere. It is inert, but its presence lowers the concentrations of oxygen. If those 78.09% were also oxigen, lighting a match would make of the Earth a very pretty fireball

Also, antimatter has a opposite charge relatively to matter, in a way that when matter collides into antimatter, both annihilate, turning into energy at a 100% rate. In numbers, 1/4 of a gram of antimatter is enough to blow a hole with 800m radius. Do the math :). You wouldn't need much to blow the Earth up, heck, the solar System

Quote from Viper8797

The gas in the atmosphere, Nitrogen, also referred to as azote (term created by Lavoisier, many languages still useit, including mine, Portuguese, tough we say azoto.)

Lol, I didn't even notice you didn't use the english-word. Too bad Lavoisier didn't know the periodic chart. He'd name it A, so that would be easier to know (it belongs to the few exception, such as Hg or W, which aren't logical for a frenchman ^^. Lol, I just think of how stupid it seems for English-speaking people to call Iron Fe (though it's "Fer" in french ^^) or Ag for Silver (Argent in french).

(pre-Edit for the math- an explanation for lulz was cut)
Anyway, this is outside the original discussion- we are talking about Radioactive power without sustained chain reaction. In matter of the usual reactor- IC2 generator is presumably capable of turning heat into electricity in a non-obvious way (is it a heat difference causing charge? a hidden self contained steam mechanism in the machine block?), so that's the same.

On the practical side, i suggest just making an radio-thermal cell item, which is either eight near-depleted isotope cells surrounding an ingot of gold/lead (if there is a mod that adds lead), which simply burns in a furnace, generator, or a solid fuel firebox for a long long time (40,000 heat units, for 1,000,000 eu in a generator per thermal cell with no chance of depleted cell), or, if it is possible to make a fuel item with damage value (i am not a pro- not in gaming, life, or gramming, so i have no clue if i have any idea what i am talking about), made with a machine block surrounded by four ingots of gold/lead (if there is a mod that adds lead) and four basic circuits,which is filled, E.I. crafted to raise the damage value bar, with near depleted isotope cells (5000 heat units worth of damage value per isotope cell) and again "burns" in furnace, generator, or solid fuel firebox, returning a less filled (lowered damage value) thermal cell.

Then how about something more akin to fuel cans? Just make a thermal cell and load it in a canning machine with near depleted isotope cells/uranium/thorium for +5,000, +35,000, +5000 heat, up to a total of 80,000, and when you're satisfied just burn it in a furnace, generator, or solid-fuel firebox).

proposed recipe:

( = gold ingot/lead ingot, =golden nugget, =nothing)

Btw, an actual Thermoelectric Nuclear Generator would be cool to me if I could use it to generate EU with way less efficiency than Nuclear Reactor, but without building these and without explosion-related issues ^^. For example, a single block generator generating 250 000 EU/Uranium Cell, 10 000 per Coal Dust (because of C14 ^^) and 25 000/Depleted Isotope Cell would be cool, at 15EU/t for he Ura, 5 for the Depleted and 2 for The Coal Dust. As for Nuclear Reactor, we can just imagine it has an integrated turbine for those who haven't Railcraft, and these using it can assume they're using a more efficient one

Yah, the sound of a less efficient but way more simple reactor sounds good to me!
Hopefully this will do well with those wanting the power of uranium without having to code an actual reactor control panel

Quote from MatLaPatate

No shit sherlock! I just meant, that Positron + Electron will anihilate if you try to put those together, because they're attracted by each other, where you can't make 2 proton meet because the energy needed to make one move to the other increase while distance decrease, and because it tend to +*Idon'tknowhowtotypetheinfinitesymbol* when distance tend to 0.

And that's what I told, di-neutron is unstable just because it's nothing else than 2 neutrons. [and I don't think there is something else than gravitation between these 2 particles]

Two neutrons are unstable due to the binding energy not being sufficient to prevent the natural decay of a neutron (n -> p + w^-, w^- -> e^- + v_e). If you have a nucleus consisting of about 10^50 or so neutrons, it is stable (aka a neutron star), gravity provides the needed binding energy.

Two protons can be bonded together, the problem is that the energy stored in the electromagnetic force from doing so is sufficient to "spawn" a positron and an electron neutrino, which allows the following reaction to occur: p -> n + w⁺, w⁺ -> e⁺ + v_e (there should be a bar over that last v_e, but no idea how to do that with this text editor)


This results in the di-proton rapidly decaying into deuterium.

Antimatter/matter annihilation occurs as the net spin/charge/colour(QCD "charge")/etc is zero when a particle meets its anti-particle. This allows for the system to turn into any system with the same net number of the above quantities, where the most stable thing to turn into would be photons (two photons needed). This results in all of the energy of the pair of particles being converted into photons going on opposite directions.

Quote from Thutmose

Two neutrons are unstable due to the binding energy not being sufficient to prevent the natural decay of a neutron (n -> p + w^-, w^- -> e^- + v_e). If you have a nucleus consisting of about 10^50 or so neutrons, it is stable (aka a neutron star), gravity provides the needed binding energy.

Two protons can be bonded together, the problem is that the energy stored in the electromagnetic force from doing so is sufficient to "spawn" a positron and an electron neutrino, which allows the following reaction to occur: p -> n + w⁺, w⁺ -> e⁺ + v_e (there should be a bar over that last v_e, but no idea how to do that with this text editor)


This results in the di-proton rapidly decaying into deuterium.

Antimatter/matter annihilation occurs as the net spin/charge/colour(QCD "charge")/etc is zero when a particle meets its anti-particle. This allows for the system to turn into any system with the same net number of the above quantities, where the most stable thing to turn into would be photons (two photons needed). This results in all of the energy of the pair of particles being converted into photons going on opposite directions.

Kk lol, didn't knew that much *backtomypoorKeplerlaws*

Quote from Thutmose

Two neutrons are unstable due to the binding energy not being sufficient to prevent the natural decay of a neutron (n -> p + w^-, w^- -> e^- + v_e). If you have a nucleus consisting of about 10^50 or so neutrons, it is stable (aka a neutron star), gravity provides the needed binding energy.

Two protons can be bonded together, the problem is that the energy stored in the electromagnetic force from doing so is sufficient to "spawn" a positron and an electron neutrino, which allows the following reaction to occur: p -> n + w⁺, w⁺ -> e⁺ + v_e (there should be a bar over that last v_e, but no idea how to do that with this text editor)


This results in the di-proton rapidly decaying into deuterium.

Antimatter/matter annihilation occurs as the net spin/charge/colour(QCD "charge")/etc is zero when a particle meets its anti-particle. This allows for the system to turn into any system with the same net number of the above quantities, where the most stable thing to turn into would be photons (two photons needed). This results in all of the energy of the pair of particles being converted into photons going on opposite directions.

Not an insane physicist for nothing lol.

The shame about anti-matter is that we will never use it to produce electricity, because the way of producing antimatter right now, is trough electricity, and due to electric loss, the process wouldn't be profitable. It would be of we could "collect" antimatter, just like we do for oil or coal, but the closest masses of anti-matter are million light years away. It could be used in spaceships, as fuel, acting as some sort of super huge battery, but other than that, nothing. (and the spaceship would need radiators the size of Florida just to dissipate the heat).

About the suggestion. I am afraid that is going to be like many others, loved by the community, yet lost in time and space.

Quote from MatLaPatate

No shit sherlock! I just meant, that Positron + Electron will anihilate if you try to put those together, because they're attracted by each other, where you can't make 2 proton meet because the energy needed to make one move to the other increase while distance decrease, and because it tend to +*Idon'tknowhowtotypetheinfinitesymbol* when distance tend to 0.

And that's what I told, di-neutron is unstable just because it's nothing else than 2 neutrons. [and I don't think there is something else than gravitation between these 2 particles]

As far as I know it is possible to combine 2 protons by using proton-proton chain fusion, which is happening in our sun: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/ppchain.html (there is a wiki article about that, but when I tried to copy paste that into this, it changes into proton%something%proton) It just sad that the power/volume is equal to a compost pile

Quote from thepowdertoy

As far as I know it is possible to combine 2 protons by using proton-proton chain fusion, which is happening in our sun: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/ppchain.html (there is a wiki article about that, but when I tried to copy paste that into this, it changes into proton%something%proton) It just sad that the power/volume is equal to a compost pile

Yup, but the energy needed to start that fusion would be quite higher. Just because, you know, ITER is supposed to use the Deuterium + Tritium reaction because it's the cheaper available (others would be triggered by an even higher temperature)

Not just high, it would be almost impossible to start it short of using an actual star http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fusionfuel.php

Anyway, have you tried Polywell? It is smaller than ITER, way smaller (as far as I know it theoretically could work with the containment structure about 1.5 m) and it could be fueled by proton (aka hydrogen) + boron fusion, which make it safer, and because it nearly doesn't spew out neutron, most of the energy is in the alpha particle, making it much more easier for direct conversion to electricity (no steam). The advantages that I could think of is a nice spaceship capable of taking off from land and go to mars directly

Quote from thepowdertoy

Not just high, it would be almost impossible to start it short of using an actual star http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fusionfuel.php

Anyway, have you tried Polywell? It is smaller than ITER, way smaller (as far as I know it theoretically could work with the containment structure about 1.5 m) and it could be fueled by proton (aka hydrogen) + boron fusion, which make it safer, and because it nearly doesn't spew out neutron, most of the energy is in the alpha particle, making it much more easier for direct conversion to electricity (no steam). The advantages that I could think of is a nice spaceship capable of taking off from land and go to mars directly

One slight problem with the polywell design over the ITER is the difficulty in setting up the correct field geometry to contain the electrons.
The ITER should produce 10x more energy than it consumes, so that technology would be viable for power production. As for the polywell, It is very nice in theory, but I do not think than anyone has managed to design a field geometry which can contain the electrons.

For the lack of neutrons emitted, that has nothing to do with steam, as even if it just emits energetic helium, that helium's energy would then be converted into heat, then used to make steam, then used to make electricity. The importance of the lack of neutrons is that it will not make the inside walls of the device slowly get radioactive.

Quote

Lol, I didn't even notice you didn't use the english-word. Too bad Lavoisier didn't know the periodic chart. He'd name it A, so that would be easier to know (it belongs to the few exception, such as Hg or W, which aren't logical for a frenchman . Lol, I just think of how stupid it seems for English-speaking people to call Iron Fe (though it's "Fer" in french ) or Ag for Silver (Argent in french).

*RAGE!* YOU SHUT YO MOUTH!!!!!!!!

lol, jk. It is kinda funny. Although I personally think that principles like Science and Education are above the concepts of patriotism for nationalities. Usually, because if you advance something in science, you are doing it for the greater whole of the human species, regardless of what sub-division those members are apart of. But yes, "Fe" for Iron does seem odd for English people, but I personally just treat it as a quick labeled symbol and think nothing of it afterwords, lol...