Eaist plausible nuclear reactor

Bureaucromancer

Earliest plausible nuclear reactor

Setting aside natural occurrences and trying to avoid massively rewriting the leadup (as in no survival of Rome), how early could we realistically see a sustained nuclear reaction? It doesn't seem entirely implausible to me that fission could be in some way or another discovered or stumbled upon in the 19th century, and I'm interested in the mind of outcomes people envision.

I could definitely see some messy problems if heavy nuclear research experimentation were to start before a decent undersea ing of atomic physics exists...

Of course the biggest problem is the availability of uranium and other potentially fissile material, so on the one hand how might we see more availability (or interest in extraction) at an earlier date, and on the other what if uranium is just a hell of a lot more plentiful to begin with?
 
Last edited:

dgharis

There really isn't a resonable way to bring that about much earlier than IOTL without a POD more than a thousand years ago. The necessary discoveries build on prior discoveries which build on prior discoveries which ... you get the idea. You need to start the entire chain earlier to get these earlier, which means going way, way back.

If you haven't already done so by all means read 'Connections' by James Burke; it's an excellent treatise on how new inventions build on prior ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top