VERY loosely. They used tridium instead of deuterium. And of course, there's no way some guy can go in with four arms and meddle around with it.Originally Posted by Hawkeye
I've been studying these reactions for some time, and I have serious doubts about any solid structure withstanding 100 million C. I don't know enough nuclear physics to fully comment on the solution they propose to build it, but I know enough to know that this is going to require a hell of a lot more than 6.18 billion dollars. It will be a time and money suck, and I don't expect results for at least 30 years.
That being said, I'm really excited about its prospects. I'd love to work on it, but alas, I'm afraid I wish to apply my skills elsewhere.
edit: [q=ShunNakamura]hmm.... that is a good question... I guess you could have a fusion-fision if that is possibly... using some sort of permanant cycle.. thus nothing but power woudl be realeased... of course this has to have flaws... No way you could just use something like that indefinately... could you?[/q]Standard fission reduces to lead and, um, whatever's #35... radioactive krypton? Yeah, fusion requires hydrogen isotopes, around #1. You can't create a cyclic process, because it would take too much energy to further fiss the fission products down to hydrogen isotopes, and most likely the intermediate products would be too unstable.
