Category Archives: nuclear power

Germany’s hydrogen trains and boats almost make sense

1 Reply

Germany’s green transition is a disaster. Twenty years ago, Germany had 23 nuclear power plants that generated 30% of the country’s electricity cleanly, cheaply, and reliably. These plants have all been shut by the government as part of a commitment to clean energy. What could be cleaner? Germany has switched to a mix of wind and solar, plus a significant shift to coal power. Wind and solar use a lot of land compared to nuclear, and they break down leaving fields of debris. There is now a lack of electricity to power homes and industries, and what power there is, is unreliable, due to the many dark windless days in Germany.

The lack of reliable electricity is crippling German industry now that Russian gas has been cut off. In this environment, why would the Germans order special trains and boats that burn, hydrogen that’s made from electricity and natural gas? My understanding of the reason is that, Germany sometimes has too much wind power and nothing to do with it. They plan to store this excess by making hydrogen that they can use to power their trains and boats. The cost is high, and the efficiency is poor, but the electricity is free.

Hydrogen is not as compact a fuel as gasoline, nor is it as cheap as electricity, but it’s cleaner than gas, and in some ways it’s better than battery-stored electricity. While hydrogen takes a lot of storage space relative to gasoline, high pressure helps, and the storage is cheaper than with batteries. Also, hydrogen fuel is transferred faster than electric fuels. Trains and ships are chosen for hydrogen because they are good at carrying bulky items. The transition to hydrogen is relatively straightforward with trains, since many are already powered by electricity. Hydrogen fuel cells can make the electricity on board (in theory), while avoiding the need for expensive overhead wires. The idea sort-of makes sense.

Germany’s first hydrogen train. cancelled after 1 year of poor operating.

The first German train to use hydrogen powered them with fuel cells that generated electricity. It began service in October 2022, but the fuel cells proved unreliable. Service ended one year later, October 2023, replaced by polluting diesel (see here). The Hannover line plans to replace these with battery-powered trains over the next few years. There are also plans for a hydrogen-powered ferry, but it is not clear why the ferry should prove more reliable than the train, or cheaper.

San Francisco’s hydrogen-powered ferry, $30 million, 15 knots top speed, 75 passengers, no cars. Long delayed.

In the US, the Biden administration has paid, so far, $30 million for a hydrogen ferry in San Francisco. It’s two years behind schedule and over cost, taking only 75 passengers and no cars at 15 knots, 17mph. In the US, and likely in Germany, most of the hydrogen will be made from natural gas. A better solution, I think would be to power the ferris and trains by natural gas and to store the excess electricity in land-based batteries or as land-based hydrogen for land-based fuel cells.

Germany is committed to electric trains, though, and hydrogen provides a route to power these trains with excess electricity. German customers take the train, in part, because they like them, and in part because German politicians have banned short-hop planes on competing routes, and subsidized electric trains. Yet another option to balance times of excess solar and wind power would be to subsidize electric cars, or at least allow theirs owners to trade electricity: to buy electricity when it’s cheap and resell it to the grid when demand and prices are high.

Robert Buxbaum, June 8, 2024

Britons did better than Germans since Brexit

Leave a reply

Britain and Germany are the two largest economies in Europe. When Britain voted to leave the EU seven years ago, 23 June 2016, economists, royals, and the richer, smarter set predicted disaster. The unemployment rate at the time was 5.2% in the UK; economists guaranteed it would rise with Brexit due to the loss of access to the common market. Unemployment fell to 3.7% today: Embarrassing for economists, a bonus for British workers. Germany unemployment today is 5.6%, basically slightly higher than the 4.3% of 2016. There has been a large influx of Ukrainians into both countries, and of illegal boat people into the UK. These are people coming to get jobs, seeking a better life than available in the rest of the EU. That boat people don’t go the other way suggests that things are better in the UK.

Fromm Bloomberg, October 2022. See full article here. UK unemployment is down to 2.5% in February 2023.

Britain’s GDP was supposed to suffer from Brexit, too. Instead, GDP has grown by 18% since 2016, about 2.5% per year on average, outpacing Germany’s 10.6% total growth, 1.5% per year. Between 2016 and 2022, the British GDP rose to $3.19T from $2.7 T. Germany’s GDP increased to $3.57T, from $3.14T (data from the world bank). Separating from the EU helped, it seems and helped us too something Trump promoted. Germany chose close ties to Russia instead. That does not seem to be a big plus.

German Inflation has traditionally been low. It has increased in the past few months due to rising food and energy costs.

Inflation is higher in the UK than in Germany, 10.4% as of February 2023 versus 8.7% in Germany, or 9.9% in the European Union and a whole. I don’t think that’s Brexit. The UK typically has seen higher inflation rate than Germany, something seen by the steady drop of the pound. They have a tradition of inefficiency and silliness. Part of the problem today is that Britain gets much of its electricity from natural gas, while the French use nuclear power. Nuclear is cheap and clean, compared to natural gas. Coal is cheap and dirty; China uses it extensively and plans to use more. But the real cause of the UK’s higher inflation is inherent in the British and Germans, IMHO. The Germans hate inflation, the Brits don’t mind.

Population growth (green) or decline (orange) in Europe

For high-power, white collar workers, Britain seems to be as good a spot as Germany, maybe better. Maximum tax rates are slightly lower than in Germany (45% vs 47.45%), and the population is growing (slowly). Apparently, people like it enough to come there and have children; children are a good sign, IMHO. It’s harder to get good workers, but population growth suggests that the problems won’t be catastrophic (as they were in Japan, and likely will be in Germany). If you want a developed economy with yet-lower taxes, plus good workers, the US is the place to be, IMHO. Our maximum tax rate is 37%. You get fewer free services (healthcare), but you can earn enough to afford it. Prince Harry moved to the US recently, joining foot-baller David Beckham, and Pele a few years back. Former Python, John Cleese, came here too… They complain that Americans are cheap when it comes to helping others (but that’s out attraction). They claim that we’re violent and crass (true enough!) but say that the UK isn’t what it was. The fact that refugees seem to prefer the UK to Germany, suggests that Britain is a place to go. Britain, I’d say seems to have come out pretty well from Brexit.

Robert Buxbaum, April 11, 2023

Fusion advance: LLNL’s small H-bomb, 1.5 lb TNT didn’t destroy the lab.

Leave a reply

There was a major advance in nuclear fusion this month at the The National Ignition Facility of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), but the press could not figure out what it was, quite. They claimed ignition, and it was not. They claimed that it opened the door to limitless power. It did not. Some heat-energy was produced, but not much, 2.5 MJ was reported. Translated to the English system, that’s 600 kCal, about as much heat in a “Big Mac”. That’s far less energy went into lasers that set the reaction off. The importance wasn’t the amount in the energy produced, in my opinion, it’s that the folks at LLNL fired off a small hydrogen bomb, in house, and survived the explosion. 600 kCal is about the explosive power of 1.5 lb of TNT.

Many laser beams converge on a droplet of deuterium-tritium setting off the explosion of a small fraction of the fuel. The explosion had about the power of 1.2 kg of TNT. Drawing from IEEE Spectrum

The process, as reported in the Financial Times, involved “a BB-sized” droplet of holmium -enclosed deuterium and tritium. The folks at LLNL fast-cooked this droplet using 100 lasers, see figure of 2.1MJ total output, converging on one spot simultaneously. As I understand it 4.6 MJ came out, 2.5 MJ more than went in. The impressive part is that the delicate lasers survived the event. By comparison, the blast that bought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie took only 2-3 ounces of explosive, about 70g. The folks at LLNL say they can do this once per day, something I find impressive.

The New York Times seemed to think this was ignition. It was not. Given the size of a BB, and the density of liquid deuterium-tritium, it would seem the weight of the drop was about 0.022g. This is not much but if it were all fused, it would release 12 GJ, the equivalent of about 3 tons of TNT. That the energy released was only 2.5MJ, suggests that only 0.02% of the droplet was fused. It is possible, though unlikely, that the folks at LLNL could have ignited the entire droplet. If they did, the damage from 5 tons of TNT equivalent would have certainly wrecked the facility. And that’s part of the problem; to make practical energy, you need to ignite the whole droplet and do it every second or so. That’s to say, you have to burn the equivalent of 5000 Big Macs per second.

You also need the droplets to be a lot cheaper than they are. Today, these holmium capsules cost about $100,000 each. We will need to make them, one per second for a cost around $! for this to make any sort of sense. Not to say that the experiments are useless. This is a great way to test H-bomb designs without destroying the environment. But it’s not a practical energy production method. Even ignoring the energy input to the laser, it is impossible to deal with energy when it comes in the form of huge explosions. In a sense we got unlimited power. Unfortunately it’s in the form of H-Bombs.

Robert Buxbaum, January 5, 2023

Of covalent bonds and muon catalyzed cold fusion.

Leave a reply

A hydrogen molecule consists of two protons held together by a covalent bond. One way to think of such bonds is to imagine that there is only one electron is directly involved as shown below. The bonding electron only spends 1/7 of its time between the protons, making the bond, the other 6/7 of the time the electron shields the two protons by 3/7 e– each, reducing the effective charge of each proton to 4/7e+.

We see that the two shielded protons will repel each other with the force of FR = Ke (16/49 e2 /r2) where e is the charge of an electron or proton, r is the distance between the protons (r = 0.74Å = 0.74×10-10m), and Ke is Coulomb’s electrical constant, Ke ≈ 8.988×109 N⋅m2⋅C−2. The attractive force is calculated similarly, as each proton attracts the central electron by FA = – Ke (4/49) e2/ (r/2)2. The forces are seen to be in balance, the net force is zero.

It is because of quantum mechanics, that the bond is the length that it is. If the atoms were to move closer than r = 0.74Å, the central electron would be confined to less space and would get more energy, causing it to spend less time between the two protons. With less of an electron between them, FR would be greater than FA and the protons would repel. If the atoms moved further apart than 0.74Å, a greater fraction of the electron would move to the center, FA would increase, and the atoms would attract. This is a fairly pleasant way to understand why the hydrogen side of all hydrogen covalent bonds are the same length. It’s also a nice introduction to muon-catalyzed cold fusion.

Most fusion takes place only at high temperatures, at 100 million °C in a TOKAMAK Fusion reactor, or at about 15 million °C in the high pressure interior of the sun. Muon catalyzed fusion creates the equivalent of a much higher pressure, so that fusion occurs at room temperature. The trick to muon catalyzed fusion is to replace one of the electrons with a muon, an unstable, heavy electron particle discovered in 1936. The muon, designated µ-, behaves just like an electron but it has about 207 times the mass. As a result when it replaces an electron in hydrogen, it forms form a covalent bond that is about 1/207th the length of a normal bond. This is the equivalent of extreme pressure. At this closer distance, hydrogen nuclei fuse even at room temperature.

In normal hydrogen, the nuclei are just protons. When they fuse, one of them becomes a neutron. You get a deuteron (a proton-neutron pair), plus an anti electron and 1.44 MeV of energy after the anti-electron has annihilated (for more on antimatter see here). The muon is released most of the time, and can catalyze many more fusion reactions. See figure at right.

While 1.44MeV per reaction is a lot by ordinary standards — roughly one million times more energy than is released per atom when hydrogen is burnt — it’s very little compared to the energy it takes to make a muon. Making a muon takes a minimum of 1000 MeV, and more typically 4000 MeV using current technology. You need to get a lot more energy per muon if this process is to be useful.

You get quite a lot more energy when a muon catalyzes deuterium fusion or deuterium- fusion. With these reactions, you get 3.3 to 4 MeV worth of energy per fusion, and the muon will be ejected with enough force to support about eight D-D fusions before it decays or sticks to a helium atom. That’s better than before, but still not enough to justify the cost of making the muon.

The next reactions to consider are D-T fusion and Li-D fusion. Tritium is an even heavier isotope of hydrogen. It undergoes muon catalyzed fusion with deuterium via the reaction, D+T –> 4He +n +17.6 MeV. Because of the higher energy of the reaction, the muons are even less likely to stick to a helium atom, and you get about 100 fusions per muon. 100 x 17.6 MeV = 1.76 GeV, barely break-even for the high energy cost to make the muon, but there is no reason to stop there. You can use the high energy fusion neutrons to catalyze LiD fusion. For example, 2LiD +n –> 34He + T + D +n producing 19.9 MeV and a tritium atom.

With this additional 19.9 MeV per DT fusion, the system can start to produce usable energy for sale. It is also important that tritium is made in the process. You need tritium for the fusion reactions, and there are not many other supplies. The spare neutron is interesting too. It can be used to make additional tritium or for other purposes. It’s a direction I’d like to explore further. I worked on making tritium for my PhD, and in my opinion, this sort of hybrid operation is the most attractive route to clean nuclear fusion power.

Robert Buxbaum, September 8, 2022. For my appraisal of hot fusion, see here.

Alice’s Restaurant and Nuclear Waste

Leave a reply

It’s not uncommon for scientists to get inspiration from popular music. I’d already written about how the song ‘City of New Orleans’ inspires my view of the economics of trains, I’d now like to talk about dealing with nuclear waste, and how the song Alice’s Restaurant affects my outlook.

As I see it, nuclear power is the elephant in the room in terms of clean energy. A piece of uranium the size of a pencil eraser produces as much usable energy as three rail cars of coal. There is no air pollution and the land use is far less than for solar or wind power. The one major problem was what to do with the left over eraser-worth of waste. Here’s the song, it’s 18 1/2 minutes long. The key insight appeared in the sixth stanza: “…at the bottom of the cliff there was another pile of garbage. And we decided that one big pile Is better than two little piles…”

The best way to get rid of nuclear waste would be (as I’ve blogged) to use a fast nuclear reactor to turn the worst components into more energy and less-dangerous elements. Unfortunately doing this requires reprocessing, and reprocessing was banned by Jimmy Carter, one of my least favorite presidents. The alternative is to store the nuclear waste indefinitely, waiting for someone to come up with a solution, like allowing it to be buried in Yucca Mountain, the US burial site that was approved, but that Obama decided should not be used. What then? We have nuclear waste scattered around the country, waiting. I was brought in as part of a think-tank, to decide what to do with it, and came to agree with several others, and with Arlo Guthrie, that one big pile [of waste] Is better than two little piles. Even if we can’t bury it, it would be better to put the waste in fewer places (other countries bury their waste, BTW).

That was many years ago, but even the shipping of waste has been held up as being political. Part of the problem is that nuclear waste gives off hydrogen — the radiation knocks hydrogen atoms off of water, paper, etc. and you need to keep the hydrogen levels low to be able to transport the waste safely. As it turns out we are one a few companies that makes hydrogen removal pellets and catalysts. Our products have found customers running tourist submarines (lead batteries also give off hydrogen) and customers making sealed electronics, and we are waiting for the nuclear shipping industry to open up. In recent months, I’ve been working on improving our products so they work better at low temperature. Perhaps I’ll write about that later, but here’s where you’d go to buy our current products.

Robert Buxbaum, July 4, 2021. I’ve done a few hydrogen-related posts in a row now. In part that’s because I’d noticed that I went a year or two talking history and politics, and barely talking about H2. I know a lot about hydrogen — that’s my business– as for history or politics, who knows.

How not to make an atom bomb

Leave a reply

There are many books on how the atom bomb was made. They are histories of the great men who succeeded at site Y, Los Alamos, usually with a sidelight of the economics and politics in the US at the time. It’s sometimes noted that there was an equally great German group working too, and one in Japan and in Russia, that they didn’t succeed, but it’s rarely discussed what they did wrong. Nor does anyone make clear why so many US scholars were needed. What did all those great US minds to do? The design seems sort-of obvious; it appears in the note Einstein sent to Roosevelt, so what were all these people thinking about all that time, and why did the Germans fail? By way of answer, let me follow the German approach to this problem, an approach that won’t get you anywhere, or anywhere that I’ve seen.

It seems that everyone knew that making a bomb was possible, that it would be fearsomely powerful, and that it would be made using a chain reaction in uranium or plutonium. Everyone seems to have understood that there must be a critical mass: use less and there is no explosion, use more and there is one. The trick was how to bring enough uranium together make the thing go off, and as a beginning to that, there is the concept of “a barn.” A barn is a very small unit of area = 10−24 cm², and a typical atom has a cross-section of a few barns. Despite this, it is generally thought to be very easy to hit an atom at the nucleus, that is, at the right spot, as easy as hitting the board side of a barn (hence the name). The cross section of a uranium atom is 600 barnes at room temperature, or 6×10−22 cm². But each cubic centimeter of uranium holds .5 x 1023 atoms. Based on this, it comes out that a thermal neutron that enters a 1 cm cube of uranium has a virtual certainty of hitting an atom — there are 3 cm² of atoms in a 1 cm² box. You could hardly miss.

Each uranium atom gives off a lot of energy when hit with a neutron, but neutrons are hard to come by, so a practical bomb would have to involve a seed neutron that hits a uranium atom and releases two or more neutrons along with energy. The next neutron has to hit another nucleus, and it has to releases two or more. As it happens uranium atoms, when hit release on average 2.5 neutrons, so building a bomb seems awfully easy.

But things get more difficult as the neutron speeds get greater, and as the atoms of uranium get hotter. The cross-section of the uranium atom goes down as the temperature goes up. What’s more the uranium atoms start to move apart fast. The net result is that the bomb can blow itself apart before most of the uranium atoms are split. At high speed, the cross -section of a uranium atom decreases to about 5 barnes you thus need a fairly large ball of uranium if you expect that each neutron will hit something. So how do you deal with this. For their first bomb, the American scientists made a 5 kg (about) sphere of plutonium, a man-made uranium substitute, and compressed it with explosives. The explosion had to be symmetrical and very fast. Deciding how fast, and if the design would work required a room full of human “computers”. The German scientists, instead made flat plates of uranium and slowed the neutrons down using heavy water. The heavy water slowed the neutrons, and thus, increased the effective size of the uranium atoms. Though this design seems reasonable, I’m happy to say, it can not ever work well; long before the majority of the reaction takes place, the neutrons get hot, and the uranium atoms fly apart, and you get only a small fraction of the promised bang for your bomb.

How fast do you need to go to get things right? Assume you want to fusion 4 kg of uranium, or 1 x 1025 atoms. In that case, hitting atoms has to be repeated some 83 times. In tech terms, that will take 83 shakes (83 shakes of a lamb’s tail, as it were). This requires getting the ball compressed in the time it takes for a high speed neutron to go 83 x 3 cm= 250 cm. That would seem to require 1 x 10-7 seconds, impossibly fast, but it turns out, you can go somewhat slower. How much slower? It depends, and thus the need for the computers. And how much power do you get? Gram for gram, uranium releases about 10 million times more energy than TNT, but costs hardly more. That’s a lot of bang for the buck.

Robert Buxbaum, Mar 29, 2020.

Recycle nuclear waste

3 Replies

In a world obsessed with stopping global warming by reducing US carbon emissions, you’d think there would be a strong cry for nuclear power, one of the few reliable sources of large-scale power that does not discharge CO2. But nuclear power produces dangerous waste, and I have a suggestion: let’s recycle the waste so it’s less dangerous and so there is less of it. Used nuclear fuel rods, in particular. We burn perhaps 5% of the uranium, and produce a waste that is full of energy. Currently these, semi-used rods are stored in very expensive garbage dumps waiting for us to do something. Let’s recycle.

I’ve called nuclear power the elephant in the room for clean energy. Nuclear fuel produces about 25% of America’s electricity, providing reliable baseline generation along with polluting alternatives: coal and natural gas, and less-reliable renewables like solar and wind. Nuclear power does not emit CO2, and it’s available whether or not the sun shines or the wind blows. Nuclear power uses far less land area than solar or wind too, and it provides critical power for our navy aircraft carriers and submarines. Short of eliminating our navy, we will have to keep using nuclear.

Although there are very little nuclear waste per energy delivered, the waste that there is, is hard to manage. Used nuclear fuel rods in particular. For one thing, the used rods are hot, physically. They give off heat, and need to be cooled. At first they give off so much heat that the rods must be stored under water. But rod-heat decays fractally. After ten years or so, rods can be stored in naturally cooled concrete; it’s still a headache, but a smaller one The other problem with the waste rods is that they contain about 1.2% plutonium, a material that can be used for atomic bombs. A major reason that you can’d just dump the waste into the ocean or into a salt mine is the fear that someone will dig it up and extract the plutonium for an a- bomb. The extraction is easy compared to enriching uranium to bomb-grade, and the bombs work at least as well. Plutonium made this way was used for the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki.

The original plan for US nuclear power had been that we would extract the plutonium, and burn it up by recycling it to the nuclear reactor. We’d planned to burry the rest, as the rest is far less dangerous and far less, long-term radioactive. We actually did some plutonium recycling of this sort but in the 1970s a disgruntled worker named Silkwood stole plutonium and recycling was shut down in the US. After that, political paralysis set in and we’ve come to just let the waste sit in more-or-less guarded locations. There was a thought to burry everything in a guarded location (Yucca Mountain, Nevada) but the locals were opposed. So the waste sits waiting to leak out or be stolen. I’d like to return to recycling, but not necessarily of pure plutonium as we did before Silkwood: there is no guarantee that there won’t be other plutonium thieves.

Instead of removing the plutonium for recycling, I’d like to suggest that we remove about 40% of the uranium in the rod, and all of the “ash”, this is all of the lighter atom elements created from the split uranium atoms. This ash is about 5% of the total. The resultant rods would have about 2% plutonium, 97.5% enriched uranium (about 1% enriched at this stage) plus about 0.5% higher transuranics. This composition would be a far less dangerous than purified plutonium. It would be less hot and it would not be possible to use it directly for atom bombs. It would still be fissionable, though, at the same energy content as fresh rods.

There is an uncommonly large amount of power available in nuclear fuel

Several countries recycle by removing the ash. Because no uranium is removed, the material they get has about half the usable life of a fresh rod. After one recycle, there is not much more they could do. If we remove uranium material is a lot more easily used, and more easily recycled again. If we keep removing ash and uranium, we could get many, many recycles. The result is a lot less uranium mining, and more power per rod, and fewer rods to store under guard.

The plutonium of multiply recycled rods is also less-usable for fission bombs. With each recycle, the rods build up a non-fisionabl isotope of plutonium: Pu 240. This isotope is not readily separated from the fissionable isotope, Pu 239, making multiply used rods relatively useless for fission bombs.

Among the countries that do some nuclear waste recycling are Canada, France, Russia, China, and Germany. Not a bad assortment. I would be happy to see us join them.

Robert Buxbaum September 9, 2019

Let’s visit an earth-like planet: Trappist-1d

Leave a reply

According to Star Trek, Vulcans and Humans meet for the first time on April 5, 2063, near the town of Bozeman, Montana. It seems that Vulcan is a relatively nearby, earth-like planet with strongly humanoid inhabitants. It’s worthwhile to speculate why they are humanoid (alternatively, how likely is it that they are), and also worthwhile to figure out which planets we’d like to visit assuming we’re the ones who do the visiting.

First things first: It’s always assumed that life evolved on earth from scratch, as it were, but it is reasonably plausible that life was seeded here by some space-traveling species. Perhaps they came, looked around and left behind (intentionally or not) some blue-green algae, or perhaps some more advanced cells, or an insect or two. A billion or so years later, we’ve evolved into something that is reasonably similar to the visiting life-form. Alternately, perhaps we’d like to do the exploring, and even perhaps the settling. The Israelis are in the process of showing that low-cost space travel is a thing. Where do we want to go this century?

As it happens we know there are thousands of stars with planets nearby, but only one that we know that has reasonably earth-like planets reasonably near. This one planet circling star is Trappist-1, or more properly Trappist 1A. We don’t know which of the seven planets that orbit Trappist-1A is most earth-like, but we do know that there are at least seven planets, that they are all roughly earth size, that several have earth-like temperatures, and that all of these have water. We know all of this because the planetary paths of this star are aligned so that seven planets cross the star as seen from earth. We know their distances from their orbital times, and we know the latter from the shadows made as the planets transit. The radiation spectrum tells us there is water.

Trappist 1A is smaller than the sun, and colder than the sun, and 1 billion years older. It’s what is known as an ultra-cool dwarf. I’d be an ultra cool dwarf too, but I’m too tall. We can estimate the mass of the star and can measure its brightness. We then can calculate the temperatures on the planets based their distance from the star, something we determine as follows:

The gravitational force of a star, mass M, on a planet of mass, m,  is MmG/r2, where G is the gravitational constant, and r is the distance from the star to the planet. Since force = mass times acceleration, and the acceleration of a circular orbit is v2/r, we can say that, for these orbits (they look circular),

MmG/r2 = mv2/r = mω2r.

Here, v is the velocity of the planet and ω is its rotational velocity, ω = v/r. Eliminating m, we find that

r3 = MG/ω2.

Since we know G and ω, and we can estimate M (it’s 0.006 solar masses, we think), we have a can make good estimates of the distances of all seven planets from their various rotation speeds around the star, ω. We find that all of these planets are much closer to their star than we are to ours, so the their years are only a few days or weeks long.

We know that three planets have a temperatures reasonably close to earths, and we know that these three also have water based on observation of the absorption of light from their atmosphere as they pass in front of their star. To tell the temperature, we use our knowledge of how bright the star is (0.0052 times Sol), and our knowledge of the distance. As best we can tell, the following three of the Trappist-1 planets should have liquid surface water: Trappist 1c, d and e, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th planets from the star. With three planets to choose from, we can be fairly sure that at least one will be inhabitable by man somewhere in the planet.

The seven orbital times are in small-number ratios, suggesting that the orbits are linked into a so-called Laplace resonance-chain. For every two orbits of the outermost planet, the next one in completes three orbits, the next one completes four, followed by 6, 9 ,15, and 24. The simple whole number relationships between the periods are similar to the ratios between musical notes that produce pleasant and harmonic sounds as I discussed here. In the case of planets, resonant ratios keep the system stable. The most earth-like of the Trappist-1 planets is likely Trappist-1d, the third planet from the star. It’s iron-core, like earth, with water and a radius 1.043 times earth’s. It has an estimated average temperature of 19°C or 66°F. If there is oxygen, and if there is life there could well be, this planet will be very, very earth-like.

The temperature of the planet one in from this, Trappist-1c, is much warmer, we think on average, 62°C (143°F). Still, this is cool enough to have liquid water, and some plants live in volcanic pools on earth that are warmer than this. Besides this is an average, and we might the planet quite comfortable at the poles. The average temperature of the planet one out from this, Trappist-1e, is ice cold, -27°C (-17°F), an ice planet, it seems. Still, life can find a way. There is life on the poles of earth, and perhaps the plant was once warmer. Thus, any of these three might be the home to life, even humanoid life, or three-eyed, green men.

Visiting Trappist-1A won’t be easy, but it won’t be out-of hand impossible. The system is located about 39 light years away, which is far, but we already have a space ship heading out of the solar system, and we are developing better, and cheaper options all the time. The Israeli’s have a low cost, rocket heading to the moon. That is part of the minimal technology we’d want to visit a nearby star. You’d want to add enough rocket power to reach relativistic speeds. For a typical rocket this requires a fuel whose latent energy is on the order mc2. That turns out to be about 1 GeV/atomic mass. The only fuel that has such high power density is matter-antimatter annihilation, a propulsion system that might have time-reversal issues. A better option, I’d suggest is ion-propulsion with hydrogen atoms taken in during the journey, and ejected behind the rocket at 100 MeV energies by a cyclotron or bevatron. This system should work if the energy for the cyclotron comes from solar power. Perhaps this is the ion-drive of Star-Trek fame. To meet the Star-Trek’s made-up history, we’d have to meet up by April, 2063: forty-four years from now. If we leave today and reach near light speed by constant acceleration for a few of years, we could get there by then, but only as time is measured on the space-ship. At high speeds, time moves slower and space shrinks.

This planetary system is named Trappist-1 after the telescope used to discover it. It was the first system discovered by the 24 inch, 60 cm aperture, TRAnsiting Planets and PlanetesImals Small Telescope. This telescope is operated by The University of Liége, Belgium, and is located in Morocco. The reason most people have not heard of this work, I think, has to do with it being European science. Our news media does an awful job covering science, in my opinion, and a worse job covering Europe, or most anything outside the US. Finally, like the Israeli moon shot, this is a low-budget project, the work to date cost less than €2 million, or about US $2.3 million. Our media seems committed to the idea that only billions of dollars (or trillions) will do anything, and that the only people worth discussing are politicians. NASA’s budget today is about $6 billion, and its existence is barely mentioned.

The Trappist system appears to be about 1 billion years older than ours, by the way, so life there might be more advanced than ours, or it might have died out. And, for all we know, we’ll discover that the Trappist folks discover space travel, went on to colonize earth, and then died out. The star is located, just about exactly on the ecliptic, in the constellation Aquarius. This is an astrological sign associated with an expansion of human consciousness, and a revelation of truths. Let us hope that, in visiting Trappist, “peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars”.

Robert Buxbaum, April 3, 2019. Science sources are: http://www.trappist.one. I was alerted to this star’s existence by an article in the Irish Times.

Disease, atom bombs, and R-naught

5 Replies

A key indicator of the speed and likelihood of a major disease outbreak is the number of people that each infected person is likely to infect. This infection number is called R-naught, or Ro; it is shown in the table below for several major plague diseases.

R-naught - communicability for several contagious diseases, CDC.

R-naught – infect-ability for several contagious diseases, CDC.

Of the diseases shown, measles is the most communicable, with an Ro of 12 to 18. In an unvaccinated population, one measles-infected person will infect 12- 18 others: his/her whole family and/ or most of his/her friends. After two weeks or so of incubation, each of the newly infected will infect another 12-18. Traveling this way, measles wiped out swaths of the American Indian population in just a few months. It was one of the major plagues that made America white.

While Measles is virtually gone today, Ebola, SARS, HIV, and Leprosy remain. They are far less communicable, and far less deadly, but there is no vaccine. Because they have a low Ro, outbreaks of these diseases move only slowly through a population with outbreaks that can last for years or decades.

To estimate of the total number of people infected, you can use R-naught and the incubation-transmission time as follows:

Ni = Row/wt

where Ni is the total number of people infected at any time after the initial outbreak, w is the number of weeks since the outbreak began, and wt is the average infection to transmission time in weeks.

For measles, wt is approximately 2 weeks. In the days before vaccine, Ro was about 15, as on the table, and

Ni = 15w/2.

In 2 weeks, there will be 15 measles infected people, in 4 weeks there will be 152, or 225, and in 6 generations, or 12 weeks, you’d expect to have 11.39 million. This is a real plague. The spread of measles would slow somewhat after a few weeks, as the infected more and more run into folks who are already infected or already immune. But even when the measles slowed, it still infected quite a lot faster than HIV, Leprosy, or SARS (SARS is a form of Influenza). Leprosy is particularly slow, having a low R-naught, and an infection-transmission time of about 20 years (10 years without symptoms!).

In America, more or less everyone is vaccinated for measles. Measles vaccine works, even if the benefits are oversold, mainly by reducing the effective value of Ro. The measles vaccine is claimed to be 93% effective, suggesting that only 7% of the people that an infected person meets are not immune. If the original value of Ro is 15, as above, the effect of immunization is to reduce the value Ro in the US today to effectively 15 x 0.07 = 1.05. We can still  have measles outbreaks, but only on a small-scale, with slow-moving outbreaks going through pockets of the less-immunized. The average measles-infected person will infect only one other person, if that. The expectation is that an outbreak will be captured by the CDC before it can do much harm.

Short of a vaccine, the best we can do to stop droplet-spread diseases, like SARS, Leprosy, or Ebola is by way of a face mask. Those are worn in Hong Kong and Singapore, but have yet to become acceptable in the USA. It is a low-tech way to reduce Ro to a value below 1.0, — if R-naught is below 1.0, the disease dies out on its own. With HIV, the main way the spread was stopped was by condoms — the same, low tech solution, applied to sexually transmitted disease.

Image from VCE Physics, https://sites.google.com/site/coyleysvcephysics/home/unit-2/optional-studies/26-how-do-fusion-and-fission-compare-as-viable-nuclear-energy-power-sources/fission-and-fusion---lesson-2/chain-reactions-with-dominoes

Progress of an Atom bomb going off. Image from VCE Physics, visit here

As it happens, the explosion of an atom bomb follows the same path as the spread of disease. One neutron appears out of somewhere, and splits a uranium or plutonium atom. Each atom produces two or three more neutrons, so that we might think that R-naught = 2.5, approximately. For a bomb, Ro is found to be a bit lower because we are only interested in fast-released neutrons, and because some neutrons are lost. For a well-designed bomb, it’s OK to say that Ro is about 2.

The progress of a bomb going off will follow the same math as above:

Nn = Rot/nt

where Nn is the total number of neutrons at any time, t is the average number of nanoseconds since the first neutron hit, and nt is the transmission time — the time it takes between when a neuron is given off and absorbed, in nanoseconds.

Assuming an average neutron speed of 13 million m/s, and an average travel distance for neutrons of about 0.1 m, the time between interactions comes out to about 8 billionths of a second — 8 ns. From this, we find the number of neutrons is:

Nn = 2t/8, where t is time measured in nanoseconds (billionths of a second). Since 1 kg of uranium contains about 2 x 1024 atoms, a well-designed A-bomb that contains 1 kg, should take about 83 generations (283 = 1024). If each generation is 8 ns, as above, the explosion should take about 0.664 milliseconds to consume 100% of the fuel. The fission power of each Uranium atom is about 210 MeV, suggesting that this 1 kg bomb could release 16 billion Kcal, or as much explosive energy as 16 kTons of TNT, about the explosive power of the Nagasaki bomb (There are about 38 x10-24 Kcal/eV).

As with disease, this calculation is a bit misleading about the ease of designing a working atomic bomb. Ro starts to get lower after a significant faction of the atoms are split. The atoms begin to move away from each other, and some of the atoms become immune. Once split, the daughter nuclei continue to absorb neutrons without giving off either neutrons or energy. The net result is that an increased fraction of neutrons that are lost to space, and the explosion dies off long before the full power is released.

Computers are very helpful in the analysis of bombs and plagues, as are smart people. The Manhattan project scientists got it right on the first try. They had only rudimentary computers but lots of smart people. Even so, they seem to have gotten an efficiency of about 15%. The North Koreans, with better computers and fewer smart people took 5 tries to reach this level of competence (analyzed here). They are now in the process of developing germ-warfare — directed plagues. As a warning to them, just as it’s very hard to get things right with A-bombs, it’s very hard to get it right with disease; people might start wearing masks, or drinking bottled water, or the CDC could develop a vaccine. The danger, if you get it wrong is the same as with atom bombs: the US will not take this sort of attack lying down.

Robert Buxbaum, January 18, 2019. One of my favorite authors, Issac Asimov, died of AIDS; a slow-moving plague that he contacted from a transfusion. I benefitted vastly from Isaac Asimov’s science and science fiction, but he wrote on virtually every topic. My aim is essays that are sort-of like his, but more mathematical.

Estimating the strength of an atom bomb

1 Reply

As warfare is a foundation of engineering, I thought I’d use engineering to evaluate the death-dealing power of North Korea’s atomic/hydrogen bomb, tested September 3, 2017. The key data in evaluating a big bomb is its seismic output. They shake the earth like earthquakes do, and we measure the power like earthquakes, using seismometers. I’ve seen two seismographs comparing the recent bomb to the previous. One of these, below, is from CTBTO, the Center for Test Ban Treaty Oversight, via a seismometer in western Kazakhstan (see original data and report).

Seismic output of all North Korean nuclear tests.

Seismic output, to scale, of all declared DPNK nuclear tests as observed from IMS station AS-59 in Western Kazakhstan

North Korea’s previous bomb, exploded 9 September 2016, was reported to be slightly more powerful than the ones we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggesting it was about 20 kilotons. According to CTBTO, it registered 5.3 on the Richter scale. The two tests before that appear somewhat less powerful, perhaps 7-10 kilotons, and the two before that appear as dismal failures — fizzles, in atomic bomb parlance. The MOAB bomb, by comparison, was 9 Tons, or 0.009 kiloTons, a virtual non-entity.

To measure the output of the current bomb, I place a ruler on my screen and measure the maximum distance between the top to bottom wiggles. I find that this bomb’s wiggles measure 5 cm, while the previous measures 5 mm. This bomb’s wiggles are ten times bigger, and from this I determine that this explosion registered 6.3 on the Richter scale, 1.0 more than the previous — the Richter scale is the logarithmic measure of the wiggle amplitude, so ten times the shake magnitude  is an addition of 1.0 on the scale. My calculation of 6.3 exactly matches that of the US geological survey. The ratio of wiggle heights was less on the, NORSAR seismometer, Norway, see suggesting 5.8 to 5.9 on the Richter scale. The European agencies have taken to reporting 6.1, an average value, though they originally reported only the 5.8 from NORSAR, and a bomb power commensurate with that.

We calculate the bomb power from the Richter-scale measure, or the ratio of the wiggles. Bomb power is proportional to wiggle height to the 3/2 power. Using the data above, ten times the wiggle, this bomb appears to be 10^3/2 = 31.6 times as powerful as the last, or 31.6 x 20kTon = 630kTon (630,000 tons of TNT). If we used the European value of 6.1, the calculated power would be about half this, 315 kTons, and if we used the NORSAR’s original value, it would suggest the bomb had less than half this power. Each difference of 0.2 on the Richter scale is a factor of two in power. For no obvious reason we keep reporting 120 to 160 kTons.

NORSAR comparison of North Korean bomb blasts

NORSAR comparison of North Korean blasts — suggests the current bomb is smaller; still looks like hydrogen.

As it happens, death power is proportional to the kiloton power, other things being equal. The bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the 15 to 20 kTon range and killed 90,000 each. Based on my best estimate of the bomb, 315 kTons, I estimate that it would kill 1.6 million people if used on an industrial city, like Seoul, Yokohama, or Los Angeles. In my opinion, this is about as big a bomb as any rational person has reason to make (Stalin made bigger, as did Eisenhower).

We now ask if this is an atom bomb or a hydrogen-fusion bomb. Though I don’t see any war-making difference, if it’s a hydrogen bomb that would make our recent treaty with Iran look bad, as it gave Iran nuclear fusion technology — I opposed the treaty based on that. Sorry to say, from the seismic signature it looks very much like a hydrogen bomb. The only other way to get to this sort of high-power explosion is via a double-acting fission bomb where small atom bomb sets off a second, bigger fission bomb. When looking at movies of Eisenhower-era double-acting explosions, you’ll notice that the second, bigger explosion follows the first by a second or so. I see no evidence of this secondary-delay in the seismic signature of this explosion, suggesting this was a hydrogen bomb, not a double. I expect Iran to follow the same path in 3-4 years.

As a political thought, it seems to me that the obvious way to stop North Korea would be to put pressure on China by making a military pact with Russia. Until that is done, China has little to fear from a North Korean attack to the south. Of course, to do that we’d likely have to cut our support of NATO, something that the Germans fear. This is a balance-of-power solution, the sort that works, short of total annihilation. It was achieved at the congress of Vienna, at the treaty of Ghent, and by Henry Kissinger through détente. It would work again. Without it, I see the Korean conflict turning hot again, soon.

Robert Buxbaum, September 11, 2017.