I'm trying to develop a nuclear fusion powered engine?

>>7802105
>How much power would a nuclear engine need to generate to power pic related?
i never got why people asked shit like that. how much power does it take to operate? and what does uranium have to do with fusion?
either way its not really feasible

>>7802105
Just buy an old russian nuclear sub and retrofit it with wings.

>>7802112
Ok, well what about a small UAV drone?

>>7802189
not really. you couldnt make it small enough because you need to use a thermal conversion cycle to convert the heat to electricity. if you wanted to use a fuel cycle that would produce fewer neutrons than D-T, the requirements for ignition increase, so youd need more power input. you could do a D-He3 FRC plasma device, but good luck achieving ignition

File: HTRE-3.jpg (164KB, 772x954px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 772x954px

>>7802189
when you manage to scale pic related down to UAV dimensions I'll gladly buy one from you

kek

>>7802195

So how do I get/make one of these Deutrium-Helium3 plasma reactors?

>>7802218
Thats Brilliant - Thanks for posting that, never saw that B4.
Nuclear plane? No. Nuclear TRAIN however !!!

>>7802105
related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCw0s0BJKY

Spoiler: the reasons they couldn't build a nuclear-powered plane were

1/the weight of shielding and
2/the danger of it crashing

File: miami_nano.jpg (22KB, 300x262px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x262px

>>7802105
Just use a load of these. Nuclear batteries

File: frcfusion.jpg (102KB, 531x675px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 531x675px

>>7802224
knowledge of:

plasma physics
power electronics
pulsed and superconducting magnet systems
radiation shielding

money

>>7802224
Fusion isn't energy positive. Making a working fusion reactor with net energy output would be a major achievement and not something you could do in your garage.

>>7802105
>> how much power
If you can't even calculate this on your own, you have no business even attempting to build a nuclear reactor.

File: FEL_Dark_Horse_mini-Mike.jpg (37KB, 831x626px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 831x626px

While pure fusion experiments have so far not produced any net energy, Inertial Confinement Fusion of small hollow glass Deuterium-Tritium filled spheres were proved to produce full fusion ignition in Halite-Centurion LANL and LLNL field tests at the Nevada Test Site in the late 1980s to 1990s. Fusion or pure He3-He3 fusion fuel in inertial confinement fusion power plants in mobile applications like aircraft or even tools could use periodic bursts of fusion energy to produce electricity through magneto-hydrodynamic power conversion (no moving parts - near 100% Carnot cycle energy conversion efficiency) to supply fusion produced electricity to propel an electric prop aircraft.

--------
Mankind currently possesses several dozen laboratory fusion technologies that have never worked even once in 60 years after thousands of shots in hundreds of different experimental machines.
Mankind also currently possesses one fusion technology that worked the first time it was tried in 1952, and has since that time never failed to work
In 1952 Ivy-Mike D-D fusion produced a release of net energy from fusion with an engineering fusion gain factor Qe >= 100,000 (One hundred thousand times more energy produced from the fusion device than the energy required to trigger and initiate the fusion device while bringing Deuterium plasma up to D-D fusion conditions)
.
As a result of masterful physics and supporting engineering by chief nuclear designer Dr. Richard Garwin and LANL Engineering staff, Ivy-Mike worked the very first time this technology was tried (and has never since failed to work).
Why not start with ICF fusion technology proven to work (first time - every time) and build on that to produce a practical pure fusion device optimized for energy generation and for building commercial fusion power plants?
(Picture of a pure DD fusion mini-Mike device ignited by an economical light-ion beam produced from a low cost high rep-rate inductive magnetic pulse-power fusion driver)

>>7803371
>near 100% Carnot cycle energy conversion efficiency
that's not even good though, considering direct conversion has the potential to offer 90%+ conversion efficiency. and fusion-based bombs arent the same as a fusion power system, especially a compact system used for aircraft.

Inertial Confinement mini-Mike is probably the only fusion technology that has reasonable chance of achieving fusion conditions for advanced aneutronic fusion reactions like He3-He3 that produces charged particles (protons) instead of energetic neutrons. Protons can be used in magnetohydrodynamic direct conversion power blocks (basically static collection grids which when exposed to pulses of charged protons produce electricity that then can be used to power electric motors that drive aircraft props.

mini-Mike is not a bomb and is designed not to produce blast effects but rather is a pure fusion device that is optimized to cleanly produce energy. All inertial confinement fusion devices operate similarly in producing fusion energy in a succession of small discrete controlled fusion bursts. The energy produced from a mini-Mike device is intended by designers to be about 250 GJ per shot (the energy released in efficiently burning about 2000 gallons of gasoline). First generation mini-Mike using DT-DD fusion is just as clean as the cleanest Tokamak, Stellarator, or fusor fusion experiment and produces only non-radioactive Helium and neutrons as the result of D-D fusion of Deuterium separated from sea-water.

>>7802105
impossible
the first plane not powered by petrol/wind/solar will be a fusion powered plane

nuclear in its current state needs a medium to transfer heat and drive turbines
also nuclear plants require a shit load of water

imagine trying to build a steam powered plane

not to mention nobody would want to be anywhere near a flying chernobyl

>>7803462
whoops misread your post
what a fucking retard

Dense plasma focus might be viable for nuclear powered flight
it can directly produce electricity although it would still need coolant

>>7802235
Actually the shielding and possibility of crashing were both solved. (Although the believed ability for the reactor to survive a crash was likely overoptimistic). The real reason they couldn't build a nuclear power plane was that ICBMs and aerial refueling of conventional bombers rendered the lulzy range advantage nuclear power gave irrelevant.

File: Tory_II-C_nuclear_ramjet_engine.jpg (70KB, 663x482px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 663x482px

Fission ramjets and rockets are feasible, and both were tested in the 50s and 60s. The problem is that shielding is too heavy, but for unmanned vehicles that wouldn't be an issue.

>>7802112
>not fesable

Not with that attitude it isn't

>>7803462
>>7803469
You don't need to produce electricity to produce thrust, there are a few designs for purely thermal engines.

File: Aircraft_Reactors_Arco_ID_2009.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>7803744
A shitton of money was thrown at it during the golden age of america

>>7802105
1.21 jigawatts

>>7802105

>i want to use uranium in a fusion reaction to produce thrust

RIP OP and the town he grew up in