Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu From: dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Dave Cole) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Cold fusion on the battlefield... Message-ID: <5325@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 3 Apr 89 05:23:24 GMT References: <5138@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5170@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5269@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: U of Chicago - Astronomy & Astrophysics Lines: 36 Approved: military@att.att.com From: dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Dave Cole) In article <5269@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >There is an obvious big one: diesel-electric submarines become totally >obsolete, even for the smallest nations. Not only would such fusion >plants be easier to build and run, the lack of heat generation from >fission products would eliminate the nuclear sub's biggest silencing >problem: the need to keep reactor cooling going at all times. Now >nuclear subs too could sit on the bottom and shut down *everything*. > Just why do you think that fusion plants would run without generating heat as a fission plant does? The reason fission plants create heat & require reactor pumps is that that's how one gets the energy out of the reaction! It would seem to me that the energy created by fusion, in the form of gamma rays and neutrons, can only effectively be harnessed in the same way, by making it heat up some working fluid and run a turbine. Then there would be no advantage over fission, at least in terms of heat generation. Now if the fusion plants can be made much smaller than existing fission plants, we definitely have the option of making much smaller subs, which could take the place of diesel-electric. Running at slow speeds with the reactor cooled via convection they'd be just about as silent as a sub running on electric, with a much improved ability to stay on station, just like our current nuke boats. -- --------- Dave Cole Yerkes Observatory, Univ of Chicago dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu