Will the idealized cold fusion reactor be as efficient as a fast breeder nuclear reactor that is currently employed in industry?

 

Please elicit your perspectives on the subject.

How do you define the efficiency of something that doesn't work?

Quite right. Making a non-functioning device work is a stretch for the use of "idealized"

The simplest fusion is process of joining two protons together:

 

p+ + p+ -> D+ + e+ + Ve

 

In order it to happen, there is needed to overcome natural electrostatic repelling of two equal charges.

 

Do you understand now why they have to be accelerated?

Hot particle = fast particle.

Cold particle = slow particle.

 

This can be rewritten using quarks:

 

uud + uud -> uud + udd + e+ + Ve

 

At least one of up quarks must have enough kinetic energy, or receive from external source, to be converted to down quark which according to quark model has higher mass than up quark.

Newly created neutron is joining with proton forming Deuterium.

 

p+ + n0 -> D+

uud + udd -> ududud

Edited October 25, 201312 yr by Sensei

Quite right. Making a non-functioning device work is a stretch for the use of "idealized"

 

Here I am using the word "idealized" as a 100% efficient cold fusion reactor if and where it exists (and whenever).

It is more in the nature of hypotheses than inference.

Please note.

 

Here I am using the word "idealized" as a 100% efficient cold fusion reactor if and where it exists (and whenever).

It is more in the nature of hypotheses than inference.

Please note.

 

And that's the problem. There is no cold process, so thinking about a 100% efficient nonexistent process is a contradiction.

An idealised 100% efficient magic spinning wheel will be more efficient than a fast breeder reactor. (By definition because it is 100% efficient)

On the other hand, it will never actually exist.

Which should I buy shares in?