A question about Fission and Fusion and energy production.

[dryson]

We know that Fission involves using other atoms to split apart atoms to create an energetic reaction. We also know that Fusion is the joining together of atoms to create an energetic reaction.

The question I have is this: What type of energetic reaction would be created if atoms were sent speeding towards each other where they would pass through a ring where the ring would in essence strip the electrons away from the atom allowing the nucleus to then be collided together? If enough force was present during the collision would the result be similar to how the singularity of a black hole is formed and could the result be used as a source of energy production?

Just a simple question meant to spark interest in looking at energy production in a different way.

 

[csmyth3025]

We know that Fission involves using other atoms to split apart atoms to create an energetic reaction. We also know that Fusion is the joining together of atoms to create an energetic reaction.

The question I have is this: What type of energetic reaction would be created if atoms were sent speeding towards each other where they would pass through a ring where the ring would in essence strip the electrons away from the atom allowing the nucleus to then be collided together? If enough force was present during the collision would the result be similar to how the singularity of a black hole is formed and could the result be used as a source of energy production?

Just a simple question meant to spark interest in looking at energy production in a different way.

The Europeans are already doing this with the LHC in Switzerland. The Wikipedia article on it can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHC

A steady succession of increasingly powerful particle colliders have been built in the US and elsewhere starting around 1931. So far no one has been able to use them as a source of energy production.

Chris

 

[dryson]

Why is the LHC using lead? Shouldn't the LHC be usingFe (iron)? According to a Discovery episode I watched the reason why a blackhole collapses is because of the uncontrollable propogation of iron atoms that absorb all of the energy of the Sun until the iron atoms theirself absorb their own energy and collapse into a singularity.

 

[csmyth3025]

Why is the LHC using lead? Shouldn't the LHC be [us]ing Fe (iron)? According to a Discovery episode I watched the reason why a blackhole collapses is because of the uncontrollable propogation of iron atoms that absorb all of the energy of the Sun until the iron atoms theirself absorb their own energy and collapse into a singularity.

I don't know why they're using lead. Considering the great number of highly talented physicists who contribute to the selection and the design of the experiments being conducted and planned for the LHC, I suspect they have specific and very good reasons for their choice.

The main objective of the LHC is not to create "mini" black holes as far as I know. They're trying to investigate the nature of the particles and physical reactions the occur at extremely high energies.

Concerning the accumulation of iron in the core of a star in the last stages before it undergoes core collapse, there is no "uncontrolable propogation of iron atoms that absorb all the energy of the Sun". An explanation of the process that takes place can be found in the Wikipedia article on Type II supernova, which can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova

Chris

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Why is the LHC using lead? Shouldn't the LHC being Fe (iron)? According to a Discovery episode I watched the reason why a blackhole collapses is because of the uncontrollable propogation of iron atoms that absorb all of the energy of the Sun until the iron atoms theirself absorb their own energy and collapse into a singularity.

What are they using lead for ? Might it have to do with the presense of strong magnetic fields ?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Why is the LHC using lead? Shouldn't the LHC being Fe (iron)? According to a Discovery episode I watched the reason why a blackhole collapses is because of the uncontrollable propogation of iron atoms that absorb all of the energy of the Sun until the iron atoms theirself absorb their own energy and collapse into a singularity.

No, again, more complete ignorance of physics. People who learn their science from the Discovery channel only... :roll:

From Wiki:

Shielding: The term 'biological shield' refers to a mass of absorbing material placed around a reactor, or other radioactive source, to reduce the radiation to a level safe for humans. The effectiveness of a material as a biological shield is related to its cross-section for scattering and absorption, and to a first approximation is proportional to the total mass of material per unit area interposed along the line of sight between the radiation source and the region to be protected. Hence, shielding strength or "thickness" is conventionally measured in units of g/cm2. The radiation that manages to get through falls exponentially with the thickness of the shield. In x-ray facilities, the plaster on the rooms with the x-ray generator contains barium sulfate and the operators stay behind a leaded glass screen and wear lead aprons. Almost any material can act as a shield from gamma or x-rays if used in sufficient amounts.

 

[csmyth3025]

Why is the LHC using lead? Shouldn't the LHC being Fe (iron)? According to a Discovery episode I watched the reason why a blackhole collapses is because of the uncontrollable propogation of iron atoms that absorb all of the energy of the Sun until the iron atoms theirself absorb their own energy and collapse into a singularity.

No, again, more complete ignorance of physics....

I think dryson is asking why the LHC is set up to collide lead nuclei instead of iron nuclei. An excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the LHC states:

The LHC physics program is mainly based on proton–proton collisions. However, shorter running periods, typically one month per year, with heavy-ion collisions are included in the program. While lighter ions are considered as well, the baseline scheme deals with lead ions

. The experiment in question is ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment), which Wikipedia has a separare article about.

Chris

 

[SpaceTas]

Iron is the most stable element. It's binding energy is the greatest per nucleon (proton or neutron). So when you crash 2 iron atoms together it uses energy. If you try to split an iron nucleus it uses energy. This is why the production of iron is the end-point of nuclear fusion reactions in stars.

Here the Discovery channel explanation is a simplification to the point of misunderstanding. When a core of iron (gas) is formed in a massive stars, there is no more energy being produced, so the core collapses, increasing the temperature and pressure, but this cannot trigger any new fusion reactions and energy sources. The temperature/pressures (the key) go so high that the iron nuclei get pushed together till the protons combine with electrons making neutrons and neutrinos. This uses energy and core collapse till neutron-neutron pressure halts contraction making a neutron star or the mass of the core is too large and it collapses to a black hole. The neutrinos plus a shock wave explode the rest of the star as a supernova.

Why lead at LHC?
Because any reactions will use energy there is less energy available for reactions between protons and neutrons. Also the nuclear pieces being created will have lower energies. Now lead is a easily obtained heavy element (lots of protons an neutrons), a lot easier to make thin sheets (the target is often a very thin sheet), does not have radio-active isotopes... and the nuclear bits will have higher energies.

I am an astronomer rather than a high energy physicist, so I am basing the above on my nuclear physics courses ...
If I find out a better answer I'll post it.

 

[dryson]

Iron is the most stable element. It's binding energy is the greatest per nucleon (proton or neutron). So when you crash 2 iron atoms together it uses energy. If you try to split an iron nucleus it uses energy. This is why the production of iron is the end-point of nuclear fusion reactions in stars.

Here the Discovery channel explanation is a simplification to the point of misunderstanding. When a core of iron (gas) is formed in a massive stars, there is no more energy being produced, so the core collapses, increasing the temperature and pressure, but this cannot trigger any new fusion reactions and energy sources. The temperature/pressures (the key) go so high that the iron nuclei get pushed together till the protons combine with electrons making neutrons and neutrinos. This uses energy and core collapse till neutron-neutron pressure halts contraction making a neutron star or the mass of the core is too large and it collapses to a black hole. The neutrinos plus a shock wave explode the rest of the star as a supernova.

Why lead at LHC?
Because any reactions will use energy there is less energy available for reactions between protons and neutrons. Also the nuclear pieces being created will have lower energies. Now lead is a easily obtained heavy element (lots of protons an neutrons), a lot easier to make thin sheets (the target is often a very thin sheet), does not have radio-active isotopes... and the nuclear bits will have higher energies.

I am an astronomer rather than a high energy physicist, so I am basing the above on my nuclear physics courses ...
If I find out a better answer I'll post it.

Thanks Tas, that has been the best response in awhile other than the usual your wrong this and that with out an explanation to why I was wrong.

 

[dryson]

Iron is the most stable element. It's binding energy is the greatest per nucleon (proton or neutron). So when you crash 2 iron atoms together it uses energy. If you try to split an iron nucleus it uses energy. This is why the production of iron is the end-point of nuclear fusion reactions in stars.

Here the Discovery channel explanation is a simplification to the point of misunderstanding. When a core of iron (gas) is formed in a massive stars, there is no more energy being produced, so the core collapses, increasing the temperature and pressure, but this cannot trigger any new fusion reactions and energy sources. The temperature/pressures (the key) go so high that the iron nuclei get pushed together till the protons combine with electrons making neutrons and neutrinos. This uses energy and core collapse till neutron-neutron pressure halts contraction making a neutron star or the mass of the core is too large and it collapses to a black hole. The neutrinos plus a shock wave explode the rest of the star as a supernova.

Why lead at LHC?
Because any reactions will use energy there is less energy available for reactions between protons and neutrons. Also the nuclear pieces being created will have lower energies. Now lead is a easily obtained heavy element (lots of protons an neutrons), a lot easier to make thin sheets (the target is often a very thin sheet), does not have radio-active isotopes... and the nuclear bits will have higher energies.

I am an astronomer rather than a high energy physicist, so I am basing the above on my nuclear physics courses ...
If I find out a better answer I'll post it.

Thanks SpaceTas, that has been the best response in awhile other than the usual your wrong this and that with out an explanation to why I was wrong.

The next question that I have for you SpaceTas is could the process of

The neutrinos plus a shock wave..

be controlled to be used as form of propulsion where the shock wave could be reduced to providing a forward velocity based upon the sudden release of the neutrino's?

 

[csmyth3025]

...The next question that I have for you SpaceTas is could the process of

The neutrinos plus a shock wave..

be controlled to be used as form of propulsion where the shock wave could be reduced to providing a forward velocity based upon the sudden release of the neutrino's?

In terms of propulsion, the first question you should ask is: How is the shock wave being produced? By the spacecraft? If so, how does it produce a shock wave?
Using neutrinos for propulsion is even more impractical than using photons for propulsion. Neutrinos are almost massless (but not quite totally massless, as are photons - according to some current evidence about the properties of neutrinos). They're a lot harder to produce than are photons. And neutrinos interact extremely weakly with matter. Most of the neutrinos that come in our direction from the sun pass right through the Earth as though it wasn't even there.

As impractical as photon drives are (infinitesimal thrust), you can at least focus and reflect photons in order to get them to go in a certain direction (out the back of your spaceship). Even if you had a means of producing massive numbers of neutrinos on your spaceship, they would just fly off in any direction - forward, backward, and sideways right through the walls of your spaceship as if it wasn't there.

Chris

 

[dryson]

In terms of propulsion, the first question you should ask is: How is the shock wave being produced? By the spacecraft? If so, how does it produce a shock wave?
Using neutrinos for propulsion is even more impractical than using photons for propulsion. Neutrinos are almost massless (but not quite totally massless, as are photons - according to some current evidence about the properties of neutrinos). They're a lot harder to produce than are photons. And neutrinos interact extremely weakly with matter. Most of the neutrinos that come in our direction from the sun pass right through the Earth as though it wasn't even there.

As impractical as photon drives are (infinitesimal thrust), you can at least focus and reflect photons in order to get them to go in a certain direction (out the back of your spaceship). Even if you had a means of producing massive numbers of neutrinos on your spaceship, they would just fly off in any direction - forward, backward, and sideways right through the walls of your spaceship as if it wasn't there.

Here the Discovery channel explanation is a simplification to the point of misunderstanding. When a core of iron (gas) is formed in a massive stars, there is no more energy being produced, so the core collapses, increasing the temperature and pressure, but this cannot trigger any new fusion reactions and energy sources. The temperature/pressures (the key) go so high that the iron nuclei get pushed together till the protons combine with electrons making neutrons and neutrinos. This uses energy and core collapse till neutron-neutron pressure halts contraction making a neutron star or the mass of the core is too large and it collapses to a black hole. The neutrinos plus a shock wave explode the rest of the star as a supernova.

The shock wave is created at the instant that the explosion occurs which is the matter around the exploding star being forced to accelerate at a faster rate than normal which may or may not excite the atoms to become more energetic than they normally would. The shockwave would in essence be like encountering a solid brick wall of atoms that are still in atomic form.

The process that I am talking about is the process that creates the neutrino's. If the process of creating the neutrino's can be recreated on a smaller scale then the process that releases the shockwave might be able to be harnessed into a thrust potential. Basically using an LHC type set-up that collides iron atoms into each other along with other reactant's might be able to produce a result similar to the collapse of sun into a supernova while avoiding the creation of a blackhole.

 

[csmyth3025]

Here the Discovery channel explanation is a simplification to the point of misunderstanding. When a core of iron (gas) is formed in a massive stars, there is no more energy being produced, so the core collapses, increasing the temperature and pressure, but this cannot trigger any new fusion reactions and energy sources. The temperature/pressures (the key) go so high that the iron nuclei get pushed together till the protons combine with electrons making neutrons and neutrinos. This uses energy and core collapse till neutron-neutron pressure halts contraction making a neutron star or the mass of the core is too large and it collapses to a black hole. The neutrinos plus a shock wave explode the rest of the star as a supernova.

The shock wave is created at the instant that the explosion occurs which is the matter around the exploding star being forced to accelerate at a faster rate than normal which may or may not excite the atoms to become more energetic than they normally would. The shockwave would in essence be like encountering a solid brick wall of atoms that are still in atomic form.

The process that I am talking about is the process that creates the neutrino's. If the process of creating the neutrino's can be recreated on a smaller scale then the process that releases the shockwave might be able to be harnessed into a thrust potential. Basically using an LHC type set-up that collides iron atoms into each other along with other reactant's might be able to produce a result similar to the collapse of sun into a supernova while avoiding the creation of a blackhole.

Quoting from the Wikipedia article that I linked to previously:

When the mass of the iron core exceeds 1.44 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), an implosion ensues. The rapidly shrinking core heats up, causing rapid nuclear reactions that result in the formation of neutrons and neutrinos from the reversed beta-decay process. The collapse is halted by neutron degeneracy this time, causing the implosion to bounce outward. The energy of this expanding shock wave is sufficient to detach the surrounding stellar material, forming a supernova explosion

The "process that creates the neutrinos" is the mass of 1.44 Suns crushing a plasma of iron ions. The "process that releases the shockwave" is the mass of 8 Suns worth of outer shell stellar material crashing down towards the center of the star and coming to a sudden halt when it hits this (almost) incompressible remnant ball of neutronium. All of this infalling stellar plasma bounces back outward, creating an outward moving wave front (a shockwave).

You can't do this with the physics we know unless you start with about 9 Suns worth of mass.

Chris

 

[dryson]

The "process that creates the neutrinos" is the mass of 1.44 Suns crushing a plasma of iron ions. The "process that releases the shockwave" is the mass of 8 Suns worth of outer shell stellar material crashing down towards the center of the star and coming to a sudden halt when it hits this (almost) incompressible remnant ball of neutronium. All of this infalling stellar plasma bounces back outward, creating an outward moving wave front (a shockwave).

You can't do this with the physics we know unless you start with about 9 Suns worth of mass.

Chris

We wouldn't need the amount of energetic release that the process creates. We would only need a portion of the energetic release that we would be able to create in a lab. How difficult would creating the amount able to be created actually be and how fast could the eneretic release theoretically propell a craft.

 

[MeteorWayne]

We wouldn't need the amount of energetic release that the process creates. We would only need a portion of the energetic release that we would be able to create in a lab. How difficult would creating the amount able to be created actually be and how fast could the eneretic release theoretically propell a craft.

What the heck are you talking about? Was that supposed to make sense? If so, it didn't.

 

[Couerl]

Hi Dryson, I don't think MW is trying to say you're "wrong" all the time without any explaination, he's just letting you know in a seemingly gentle way that you're understanding of things is spotty if not downright well, nutty. Okay, everyone gets that you have this need to have humans with faster than light travel but, you won't get that by simply ignoring physics as it is. I had no idea what you were talking about either and I think you're pulling stuff out of thin air sometimes. Ask yourself sometime why it is so important for there to be faster than light travel for people. Is it okay with you if we never get FTL travel and just simply sit here and go extinct in a few thousand years like everything else instead and if not than why? :ugeek:

 

[dryson]

The "process that creates the neutrinos" is the mass of 1.44 Suns crushing a plasma of iron ions. The "process that releases the shockwave" is the mass of 8 Suns worth of outer shell stellar material crashing down towards the center of the star and coming to a sudden halt when it hits this (almost) incompressible remnant ball of neutronium. All of this infalling stellar plasma bounces back outward, creating an outward moving wave front (a shockwave).

You can't do this with the physics we know unless you start with about 9 Suns worth of mass.

Chris

I did alittle net research and found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

Each type also has a corresponding antiparticle, called an antineutrino. Electron neutrinos (or antineutrinos) are generated whenever protons change into neutrons, or vice versa—the two forms of beta decay. Interactions involving neutrinos are mediated by the weak interaction.

Now if electron neutrino's are created whenever proton's change into neutron's and vice versa we could theoretically crush a plasma of iron atoms forcing them to change into neutrons where we could then change the neutron into another type of atom that could create a reactive mass of thrust.

 

[kg]

It is possible to make neutrinos in bulk if you want but you are not going to get more energy out of the enterprise than you put into it.

 

[Startreker]

No, again, more complete ignorance of physics. People who learn their science from the Discovery channel only...

Are you the moderator? I have seen several posts like the one above that were attributed to you. Is this the tone and example you wish to set? Does the golden rule not apply to you? I was just wondering...............

 

[csmyth3025]

No, again, more complete ignorance of physics. People who learn their science from the Discovery channel only...

Are you the moderator? I have seen several posts like the one above that were attributed to you. Is this the tone and example you wish to set? Does the golden rule not apply to you? I was just wondering...............

Yes, Meteor Wayne is a moderator. You have to have experienced the scope of dryson's posts to appreciate the frustration and the essential truth of MW's comment. There have been many lengthy attempts to get dryson to actually learn something about science. Despite these efforts, dryson remains commited to ignoring hundreds of years of scientific research, theoretical constructs and experimental verification.

Chris

 

[csmyth3025]

...Now if electron neutrino's are created whenever proton's change into neutron's and vice versa we could theoretically crush a plasma of iron atoms forcing them to change into neutrons where we could then change the neutron into another type of atom that could create a reactive mass of thrust.

I don't think you'll find another human being on the face of the Earth that understands how we "..could theoretically crush a plasma of iron atoms...etc". You'll have to go into more detail about how you feel this can be theoretically done.

Chris

 

[MeteorWayne]

No, again, more complete ignorance of physics. People who learn their science from the Discovery channel only...

Are you the moderator? I have seen several posts like the one above that were attributed to you. Is this the tone and example you wish to set? Does the golden rule not apply to you? I was just wondering...............

Yes I am a moderator. However, I am also a user like everyone else, and am therefore free to express my opinions. See the Community Guidelines.

And yes, when confronted with garbage pseudoscience, user Meteor Wayne will always expose it for the crap it is.

Wayne

 

[dryson]

I don't think you'll find another human being on the face of the Earth that understands how we "..could theoretically crush a plasma of iron atoms...etc". You'll have to go into more detail about how you feel this can be theoretically done. Chris

I need to rephrase the question. Instead of theoretically crushing a plasma of iron atoms the question should have been stated as follows. If we were to use lead atoms due to their low energy use to create proton's from the lead atoms and then use those proton's to create iron atoms at a controlled rate of propogation within the presence of
hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in a pressurized vessel where the iron atoms would absorb the energy of the other element's as the iron atoms do within a sun to create a controllable super nova. The energy released could then be harnassed for whatever purpose we needed.

The amount of material used would be far less than than the entire mass of the Sun but a similar result might be able to be achieved to that of a super nova exploding but on a smaller scale.

 

[origin]

I don't think you'll find another human being on the face of the Earth that understands how we "..could theoretically crush a plasma of iron atoms...etc". You'll have to go into more detail about how you feel this can be theoretically done. Chris

I need to rephrase the question. Instead of theoretically crushing a plasma of iron atoms the question should have been stated as follows. If we were to use lead atoms due to their low energy use to create proton's from the lead atoms and then use those proton's to create iron atoms at a controlled rate of propogation within the presence of
hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in a pressurized vessel where the iron atoms would absorb the energy of the other element's as the iron atoms do within a sun to create a controllable super nova. The energy released could then be harnassed for whatever purpose we needed.

The amount of material used would be far less than than the entire mass of the Sun but a similar result might be able to be achieved to that of a super nova exploding but on a smaller scale.

Holy crap dryson! This 'explanation' is complete drivel. The whole thing is utter nonsense.

 

[origin]

No, again, more complete ignorance of physics. People who learn their science from the Discovery channel only...

Are you the moderator? I have seen several posts like the one above that were attributed to you. Is this the tone and example you wish to set? Does the golden rule not apply to you? I was just wondering...............

If you come here and ask a question people will fall all over themselves trying help to answer that question. If you have an idea it will be challenged with known physical laws and you will be asked to defend it. If you ignore the challenges and continue presenting unrealistic ideas time and time again while poo pooing real physics, eventually people's patience will wear thin. Dryson is one such example of this.

As far as the golden rule - if I ever present an idea like some of the ones in this thread, I would hope I would be shot down in flames!