Data Rider

That's a sophestry. D+3He produces no neutrons, but how do you stop D+D, a more reactive chain, from producing netrons in the same plasma? In seeking neutron free fusion we must rule-out any fuel containing Deuterium. 3He+3He produces 4He + protons. Protons fuse to make Deuterium, which fuse to make neutrons. In that way, any fuel with 3He produces neutrons. 6Li is burned with protons or 3He, both of which produce neutrons as described above. 7Li fuses with protons, that fuse to produce neutrons. 11B also fuses with protons, producing neutrons when the protons fuse. While the quoted reactions produce no neutrons themselves, each one happens in a fuel mixture that results in neutrons from side reactions, as shown. That was my point. Pardon me. I confused its high cost with scarcity. Looking into it, I see that lithium supply will not be a problem.

Hi, There are no fusion reaction that don't produce neutrons. Technically some don't, but they're ones that happen at a couple magnitudes greater pressure or temperature as deuterium, and they also produce large amounts of easy fusioning isotopes that produce neutrons. If you can define the fuel for a neutron-free fusion reactor, I'd like to see it. Fusion neutrons really are pesky. There doesn't seem to be a way to avoid them. There's not a lot of lithium in the world and it's very expensive, so it better be good at catching the neutrons. It takes yards of concrete to catch them all. But there's a bigger problem: the magnets will be exposed to the full neutron flux regardless of external shielding. With neutrons transmuting elements in the magnets, their chemical bonds will no longer fit them and disappear: concrete turns to powder under neutron bombardment. No only do we need super magnets, we need ones that continue to function as they disintigrate. Talk about a challenge! Data Rider http://data-rider.org

Hi, When I compare the reactions of fission to fusion, I notice that fusion produces more than ten times as many neutrons per unit energy. The neutrons in a fission reactor are absorbed by the shielding mass. The problem is that they are absorbed into the atoms of the shielding. The isotopes and even elements change under neutron bombardment, so that the shielding itself becomes too radioactive to work near. After 50 years they shut down the reactors and abandon them. If there are ten times as many neutrons produced by fusion, doesn't that mean a fusion reactor will burn-up its shielding in only a few years? Data Rider http://data-rider.org