Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!rutgers!att!cbnews!henry@zoo.toronto.edu
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Cold fusion on the battlefield...
Message-ID: <5395@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Apr 89 02:19:36 GMT
References: <5138@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5170@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5269@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)



>>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...
>
>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!  

You've missed the point entirely, I'm afraid.  When the power plant is
running, yes, the two are quite similar.  But fission plants cannot ever
be completely shut down, which was my point.  The trouble is that after
they've been running for a while, they accumulate substantial amounts of
radioactive fission products, which continue to generate quite a bit of
heat even if the reactor is nominally switched off.  So cooling must be
kept going even if no fission is taking place.  This is a significant noise
problem for submarines.  The problem can be dealt with moderately well,
if you're willing to make enough compromises, but it cannot be eliminated.
Fusion plants (probably) would not face this.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu