Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Nuclear Probe to Explore Earth’s Interior

beyondearthlyskies.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: A Nuclear Probe to Explore Earth’s Interior

#61

Post by cstross »

ISL wrote: post #34
ISL wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. That's a scary thing to build. Cobalt-60 gammas are hard to shield, and 2000K is really hot. The laws of physics don't forbid building such a thing, but I wouldn't want to be in the same building with it. Okay, so you have something that's so self-heating that it'll easily melt rock. In fact, it's hot enough that it self-liquifies quickly at STP. Cobalt reacts weakly with oxygen, but you'll still have t…

I spoke too-quickly regarding the radioactive shielding requirements, they're more manageable than I thought [1]. For the 10-cm thick tungsten wall, following [1], it looks like the shielding factor is ~25,000. That's more significant than it sounds, because only the gammas emitted at the surface of the cobalt see that shielding factor. The rest are better shielded, up to factors of 10^11 in the best case (propagatin…

It's utterly insane!

A 30cm sphere has a volume of around 1.1 x 10^5 cm^3. Cobalt's density is about 8.9g/cm^3, so we're looking at roughly 10^6 grams of 60Co, or about a ton of the stuff.

60Co puts out 1100 Curies of radiation per gram, so this sphere represents about 1.1 billion Curies. To put this in perspective, a nuclear weapon detonation releases on the order of 1-5 MCuries of fallout: the Chernobyl disaster vented about 200 MCuries into the environment: total contamination left behind by the Soviet nuclear weapons program is estimated at around 3 GCuries.

I am not sanguine about a research experiment that requires assembling multiple Chernobyl's worth of high level gamma emitters in a red-hot capsule, dropping it on the ground, and hoping it stays intact ...

Re: A Nuclear Probe to Explore Earth’s Interior

#62

Post by tarre »

gambiting wrote: post #58
Natsu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A self-sinking probe is basically a dumb probe measuring less than 100 cm in diameter - a lump of nuclear waste encapsulated in a tungsten sphere and sunk into the ground. Even more so if you wonder if it couldn't be a way to dispose of waste. Also, if corrosion was an issue, perhaps they could coat it with something?

Nuclear waste is waste because it doesn't produce enough heat anymore to be useful in production of electricity. So I doubt that spent nuclear fuel would be able to produce 1000C+ temperatures for 30 years to bury itself deep enough.

Nuclear waste is waste because it doesn't contain enough fissile nuclides (i.e. nuclides, which could produce heat in fission). It has almost nothing to do with radioactivity or decay power. Radioactivity just makes it harder to manage.

But you have it right: The decay power density of nuclear waste is quite soon not enough for such a probe.

Re: A Nuclear Probe to Explore Earth’s Interior

#63

Post by mikeash »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #29
mikeash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think most nuclear waste gets nearly hot enough.

If it did, we could just harvest it.

Excellent point. If you have a sphere that can maintain 2000C and melt through rock, toss it into a steam turbine and hook it up to the grid.

Re: A Nuclear Probe to Explore Earth’s Interior

#64

Post by VLM »

Crito wrote: post #12
ISL wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. That's a scary thing to build. Cobalt-60 gammas are hard to shield, and 2000K is really hot. The laws of physics don't forbid building such a thing, but I wouldn't want to be in the same building with it. Okay, so you have something that's so self-heating that it'll easily melt rock. In fact, it's hot enough that it self-liquifies quickly at STP. Cobalt reacts weakly with oxygen, but you'll still have t…

I imagine the safe way of deploying the thing would be to assemble it on-site, over the bore hole, robotically. Don't have any humans anywhere near the entire operation as long as all of that cobalt is in the same place (deliver it to the site with several delivery missions, each only having a relatively safe amount of cobalt). (Apparently the cobalt would be inserted into the tungsten sphere as a not-yet-liquid sphe…

"assemble it on-site"

This allows you to transport the Co-60 taking advantage of square-cube law scaling. In summary its a zillion times easier to keep a million Co-60 ball bearings cool and frozen than one big sphere because of surface area.

If you're really bored you can do the thermodynamics calculations for how small a pellet has to be to remain cool enough to touch safely (well, other than the radioactivity) in still room temp air, etc. Or if you're willing to clamp the pellet to a 10 C/W transistor heatsink (that heatsink is about the size of a postage stamp, is if you figure on a hot day your skin can tolerate about 10C temp rise without getting a burn, than that means your pellet has to dump less than a watt or so, of course there's no rule you couldn't use a much better larger heatsink, or a modest cooling fan, or drop it in a barrel of water, etc)

The biggest problem you run into with this kind of stuff is thermal shock from expansion. You might be well advised to find some low coeff of expansion cobalt alloy rather than using the straight up stuff. A straight up sphere, would likely shatter if big enough and the exterior is frozen and the inside is very hot.

Re: A Nuclear Probe to Explore Earth’s Interior

#65

Post by VLM »

kefka wrote: post #60
msds wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laser, electron-beam and atomic-hydrogen (no, not crackpot-conspiracy-theory "HHO" atomic hydrogen) welding can work with tungsten, in theory...

Interesting that you mention HHO as crackpot theory. What I am familiar with are kits to generate HHO gas for hydrogen welding. Mainly, they rely on electrolysis of water and gathering of H2. Of course, the amateur kits have blowback preventers and other tech to prevent gas explosions. But nothing crackpot. Guess I don't read the cranks documents.

Atomic hydrogen welding is basically taking a COTS plasma cutter and blowing H2 thru it and welding with it, not welding with H2 but with hydrogen ions. On a scale of hazardous welding technologies, its up there. Possibly the only thing I'd less enjoy doing by hand would be explosive welding or some of the thermite processes. Its not "is there going to be a fire" but "how much damage will the inevitable fire cause vs the cost of alternative fabrication"

On the bright side (oh the pun) during the welding its pretty efficient at preventing weld pool oxidation. On the bad side, if long term hydrogen embrittlement is an issue with the base metal, this is an interesting way to find out. Also you can get some gas porosity problems as the weld bubbles while cooling, exactly CO2 in soda water, although hydrogen is better than the noble gasses (like argon in a plasma cutter)

Burning homemade H2 in a modified acetylene torch like you're talking about is comparatively harmless with the exception that H2 can find leaks that acetylene can't find, although its not that much worse. Oh and the regulator is different because acetylene comes out of a coke bottle solution like CO2 out of soda, but hydrogen comes out of a tank like O2 so the pressures are a bit higher.

Re: A Nuclear Probe to Explore Earth’s Interior

#67

Post by msds »

kefka wrote: post #60
msds wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laser, electron-beam and atomic-hydrogen (no, not crackpot-conspiracy-theory "HHO" atomic hydrogen) welding can work with tungsten, in theory...

Interesting that you mention HHO as crackpot theory. What I am familiar with are kits to generate HHO gas for hydrogen welding. Mainly, they rely on electrolysis of water and gathering of H2. Of course, the amateur kits have blowback preventers and other tech to prevent gas explosions. But nothing crackpot. Guess I don't read the cranks documents.

I think the name "HHO" itself hints that some amount of bullshit is taking place - the electrolysis units are obviously burning a 2:1 mixture of H2 and O2, not some weird mixture of atomic hydrogen and oxygen or impossible isomer of water. Empirically (via youtube), there is a strong connection between "HHO" promoters and "water-fueled car" and "over-unity generator" fraudsters. Oxyhydrogen torches are pretty awesome - I've used both a small electrolysis unit for jewelry work, and a larger tank-fed torch for working with fused quartz. Amazingly clean and hot flame, with definite niche-applications. However, oxyhydrogen combustion (electrolysis-derived, or otherwise) isn't exactly a revolutionary technology. We've made industrial use of it since the 1860s [1], and the trend has been gradual replacement by other fuels and techniques (TIG, electric arc furnaces, etc) that are more controllable and lack H2's unique shortcomings - eg. hydrogen embrittlement, massive range of explosive concentrations, and incredible ability to diffuse through things.

[1] Faraday's 1861 lecture on platinum-group metals is a great example. Small-scale platinum casting is one of the big uses for oxyhydrogen - the combination of a high melting point and severe carbon embrittlement make H2 ideal for working with platinum.

Post reply on HN