Fission versus Fusion: 101

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Fission is basically the splitting of an atom into 2 atoms, and fusion is the fusing of two or more atoms together; the consequence in both scenarios is a release of heat and energy. The Earth's Sun releases heat and energy, so fission is responsible and/or fusion is responsible for the release of energy from the Earth's sun. As you can see, my argument contains "premise and conclusion", so my argument is a valid one, and now I would like to ratchet this up to a new level. At some time in the distance past, a rather large cloud of gas comprised mostly of hydrogen cooled and condensed in a process know as cold fusion. As the masses condensed, pressure began to build up until one day the Earth’s Sun ignited into a massive nuclear furnace, but when did the cold fusion stop? Did it stop? It is quite possible that fusion is no longer active within the Earth’s Sun. I think the Earth’s Sun is in the process of dissipation, and that fusion is no longer or barely an active process, because the Sun needs fuel to maintain fusion. In other words, the Sun has already fused mostly everything already. Therefore, the main sources of heat and energy releases from the Sun are effects of fission, and not fusion. The Sun is dissipating/decaying or fizzling out, and unless we can feed the Sun it will die.<hr /></blockquote>

bonzelite · Oct 9, 2005

ok, i saw this new thread. so i will post a carry-over from the other one that inspired this one. this is from kmarinas86 and myself: bonzelite wrote: one of the basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the “zone of stability”. this is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. kman replies: Of course. Fission works by jamming neutrons into the nucleus. Fission occurs. But in the end, if the velocity of the output does not exceed the escape velocity, then it will not exit the object. bonz: you cannot physically EVER have a neutron-only object. kman: Of course not. bonz: nuclear physics prohibits such an occurrence. an atom will seek radioactive balance no matter what, even if that means EXPLODING an ustable star apart to shed charge. or in the case of pulsars, shedding charge to some other object or region of charge. kman: Often, a neutron star used to be pulsar. But as its angular momentum goes down, due to the escaping massless momentum of light, it no longer spins above, or even near, escape velocity. Escape velocity is proportional to the sqaure root of the Mass/Radius ratio, i.e. Escape Velocity = sqrt(2GM/R). bonz: pulsar discharges are ELECTRICAL phenomena. a nucleus or “charge free” atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. single neutrons "decay" into proton/electron pairs in less than 14 minutes kman: And they can also fuse back into a neutron. Depends on the conditions. bonz: as atomlike collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously in seeking nuclear balance. kman: Again, we know that a neutron cannot exist in free space for very long. But when GM/R is very, very large, we know that gravity will able to force the opposite charges together

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

"...neutrons "decay" into proton/electron pairs in less than 14 minutes... and some of those protons and electrons are ejected into space via the poles through dissipation or fission. I will come back with velocity later, I guess.

bonzelite · Oct 9, 2005

then this is my reply to the last thread that i was going to post in the big bang busted thread. but i will put it in here as we have changed topic: my reply to kman: kman, this stands out for me: "Of course. Fission works by jamming neutrons into the nucleus. Fission occurs. But in the end, if the velocity of the output does not exceed the escape velocity, then it will not exit the object. " bonz replies: and that very thing will totally support the idea that particles cannot "escape." in other words, the faster the spin, the higher the escape velocity. and the less likely anything can "get out." ok. that is true. we need rockets to escape the earth's gravity. but you are assuming that electrical discharges are not responsible for pulsar emissions, or cannot reach escape velocity sufficiently enough to create arcing in space, just as solar flares already do --they are not beholden to escape velocity when the repulsion of charge has overwhelmed the gravitational field of the star. they're out of there. and they eject matter thousands of miles high. sometimes millions of miles high. and you are also assuming that a neutron star's spinning is responsible for the cycles of burst emissions. how can you explain a star rotating in milliseconds, for example? this is highly unbelievable. even a star rotating at 1sec cycles is highly unrealistic. i support the idea that the emissions are electrical and require no tremendous axial spinning of a super-dense object. the idea is the same as a spark jumping the gap of a plug in your car. and this: kman: "And they can also fuse back into a neutron. Depends on the conditions." bonz: yes, and they can then go right back into fission, depends on the conditions: the electrical repulsion of like charges, + to +, in a charged interior of a star, shedding electrons, will make the very evolution of anything into a neutron star highly unlikely, as the te

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

I thought I saw evidence somewhere about star birth as collapse and condense from an accretion of gas, mostly hydrogen, in a process called cold fusion, but I cannot find it. The following ALMA observatory is slated for 2011, and it holds great promise.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Radio astronomers hope ALMA's capabilities will push aside the veil on the earliest days of the universe and allow for detailed observation of galaxy formation. The array is expected to resolve distant objects at least five to 10 times better than the Hubble Space Telescope or the VLA. "ALMA will be on the lookout as far back in time as you possibly can reach," Simon said, adding that the instrument could detect protogalaxies, a cauldron of stars and gas in the midst of becoming a full-fledged galaxy. "We expect that it will be able to detect signatures from planets as they form and stars as they collapse and condense from an accretion of gas." Large, hot extrasolar planets - like those on the scale of Jupiter in size - may even be observed directly, rather than watching the wobble of a star as it moves. The "wobble" method infers the existence of an extrasolar planet by the gravitational effect it has on a parent star.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Plans for the new telescope, called the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), are the result of years of preparation on both sides of the Atlantic. That preparedness came to a head last week, when the European Southern Observatory (ESO) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) agreed to fund the $552 million project's construction in Chile's high Atacama Desert. "ALMA will be the first large-scale millimeter telescope in the world," said Charles Blue, spokesman for the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), in a telephone interview. The observatory is coordinating North American involvement in the project, including Canada as</blockquote></blockquote>

bonzelite · Oct 9, 2005

the ALMA instrument is designed/based upon the Newtonian paradigm of solar system creation due to milllions of years of accretion from a proto-disk. to me, the thing is a$$ backwards: stars do not condense and collapse --for any reason. they EXPLODE and eject matter, ie, fission, as in solar flares, but as well in events that far exceed what is currently observed as "coronal mass ejections,"events that are extremely violent and sudden, ie, nova and supernova. these events probably take seconds, or minutes into days, from nova to "accretion" of the resulting object, be it another star or a gas planet. for example, the debris in the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter will not accrete to form anything. saturn's ring will not accrete. jupiter's ring will not accrete. if anything, these are the remains, the electric arc dross, the LEFTOVERS from a cataclysmic expulsion of matter as the anode star (or planet) (+) ejected free electrons (-) in a near-nova like event to create the planet or companion star. in this fission, you have a planet as a result --it is called a gas giant and sun. you have another star, you call it a binary system. you have jupiter and io, you call it planet and moon --all of it is the same process of fission. the existence of numerous gas giant planets around extrasolar stars, many of them observed to be FRIGHTENINGLY close to their sun, indicates such an event of expulsion. in this context, the "gas giant" planet was not quite a star, but was ejected, star or not, as the parent star sought to balance it's interior charge of + to + whose repelling forces overwhelmed the star's gravity. nowhere in this scenario is accretion of matter, over millions of Newtonian years, figuring in. so what i propose is that even when they find these huge disks of gas, dust lanes, it is not indicative of an "accretion disk." but the data will be seen in this way because the engineers are in a fascist lockstep of myop

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

An ignorant fool is someone who believes that gravity is the only solution, because gravity could be a fairy tale like fire breathing dragons, talking frogs, and unicorns. Come back from lolly-pop world stevehw33. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

silylene old · Oct 9, 2005

"fusion is no longer active inside the sun." Yes, only an ignorant fool would believe such a thing. Such tripe would NEVER be allowed on any bona fide scientific website. This is moderation failure. Creationism and 'Intelligent Design' are even more inane theories. Yet are moderators for some reason allow those threads to proliferate on our scientific forums. And yes, these threads are destroying the SDC. I see fewer and fewer of our scientists posting here; rather they have mostly moved on to other forums where the moderation is better. Belief in EPH and disbelief in fusion is simply misguided ignorance of the details of physics. At least it does attempt to debate (barely) which scientific theories best match the observations. SDC should create a special forum section for 'out of the mainstream debates' and move these types of threads to there. Belief in Creationism and ID'ism is a fundamental disbelief in the most fundamental principle of modern scientific thought, that is the principle that the same natural laws apply everywhere, all the time. Rather they believe in continual supernatural and magical interventions rather than the universality of natural laws. EPH, disbelief in fusion, creationism and ID'ism are the result of a fundamental failure of our educational system. I would add that they are also the result of a failure of our leadership, and also a consequence of (many) religious idoctrinations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />There is a lack of scientists on these boards, because they do not feel intellectually challenged, and that is about to change. I posted the statements that I posted to open deliberations in fusion and fission, and I deliberately posted controversy as bait. We have much work to do, so stop crying like a little baby and let us get work. Creationism and 'Intelligent Design' are even more inane theories. Yet are moderators for some reason allow those threads to proliferate on our scientific forums. And yes, these threads are destroying the SDC. I see fewer and fewer of our scientists posting here; rather they have mostly moved on to other forums where the moderation is better. For starters: Try showing some professional aptitude. Who do you think you are? I am not impressed with your behavior, and if you are going to continue to act like a fool then go somewhere else, because some of us are trying to think out the facts. Belief in EPH and disbelief in fusion is simply misguided ignorance of the details of physics. At least it does attempt to debate (barely) which scientific theories best match the observations. SDC should create a special forum section for 'out of the mainstream debates' and move these types of threads to there. Listen buddy, you want to start quoting me before you start running your mouth off, because you are off topic. I am a ”Believe When I See It” person, and anyone who knows me will confirm this statement. I am leaning towards electromagnetism (EM), yes, but that does not mean that gravity (G) is make believe. Where is the evidence? The strong force (S), the Weak Force (W) and (EM), but what happened to (G)? Someone made an imaginary friend called Super-String (SS) that is forever philosophical. Belief in Creationism and ID'ism is a fundamental</blockquote>

bonzelite · Oct 9, 2005

[I've met 12 year olds who know more physics than do some around here. "fusion is no longer active inside the sun." Yes, only an ignorant fool would believe such a thing. Such tripe would NEVER be allowed on any bona fide scientific website. This is moderation failure.] ----it is not a matter of knowing "more physics." i can know more ways to cook a goose than you, and it will not help me in any way to understand how to lay brick. applying knowledge of cooking the goose to masonry would reveal ignorance very quickly. some things may be applicable, but most would not. the reason the entire fusion model is so sacrosanct is because it is an entrenched assumption based upon a gravitational model that is never questioned. and if it is, the premise is from "an ignorant fool." and is "moderation failure." it is highly likely that stars NEVER create their energy from fusion. you can get all the pro-fusion scientists you want to come on this board, and they will all scoff and malign anyone who thinks otherwise. you cannot dissent from the church of gravity. or big bang. or neutron star.

tmccort · Oct 9, 2005

This is so bloody sad...

odysseus145 · Oct 9, 2005

WooWoo Credo 1. Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis). 3. Don't accept mainstream science unless it's something you've believed in for years (like gravity). 12. Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby. Other woo-woos love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question. They have no tolerance for those "mean old nasty" types who demand evidence for everything. 34. When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact". This may cause just enough initial confusion to let you escape with a momentary triumph. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

Okay, your well versed. Very good.

odysseus145 · Oct 9, 2005

Thanks, I do what I can. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

Motion is a change in position as observed by me, and velocity is a vector quantity, just like speed is; however speed is a scalar quantity, whereas velocity has both magnitude and direction. With respect to Newton's Laws of motion, there are three: [1] Rest is rest and motion is motion., unless acted upon by internal and/or external force. [2] For every action there is a reaction. [3] a = f / m, the acceleration of mass by unbalanced force is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass. To be honest, I really do not have a problem with the laws of motion. the ALMA instrument is designed/based upon the Newtonian paradigm of solar system creation due to milllions of years of accretion from a proto-disk. Stars condense in birth, and stars implode then explode in death, but some stars fizzle out, yes. This are really not stars though, I like to think of them as really big balls of lightning, as in ball lightning. They are much bigger than the traditional stars, and short lived as well, so I think we can have the better of two worlds here. to me, the thing is a$$ backwards: stars do not condense and collapse --for any reason. they EXPLODE and eject matter, ie, fission, as in solar flares, but as well in events that far exceed what is currently observed as "coronal mass ejections,"events that are extremely violent and sudden, ie, nova and supernova. these events probably take seconds, or minutes into days, from nova to "accretion" of the resulting object, be it another star or a gas planet. I am not sure what to say about accretions of smaller objects; I would like to thing that everything with charge will dissipate and decay to nothing. For example, the Earth will cool and lose it electromagnetic field, and then the sun will erode the rest away, but I imagine the sun will fail long before that happens. Have you heard of c

bonzelite · Oct 10, 2005

ok. this is cool stuff: you said: "Stars condense in birth, and stars implode then explode in death, but some stars fizzle out, yes. />>>This are really not stars though, I like to think of them as really big balls of lightning, as in ball lightning.<<< They are much bigger than the traditional stars, and short lived as well, so I think we can have the better of two worlds here. " keep that lightning idea close to your mind and heart. THAT is something. that is what our sun would be under the electric model. it is exactly that. it is a perpetually happening ball of lightning. literally. and yes i know about carbon dating. carbon 14, for example. measures decay of isotopes as a scale for approximate age of something. and this is really good here: "There are plasma stars and there are cold fusion stars; however, there probably are plasma planets; I mean, ball lighting comes in all shapes and sizes. Jupiter is condensed gases; mostly hydrogen (H), but Saturn seems to be mostly something else; something more akin to water. Water is a byproduct of burning hydrogen. " this is actually a good happy medium between fusion and fission validity. it may go down this way. who really knows? i am more apt to shy away from fusion. but your statement "we could use jupiter to feed our star so that it lives longer." --this is more than likely ALREADY happening. as the sun is the anode (+), jupiter may act as a cathode (-), completing an electric circuit between it and the sun in an exchange of energy. the radiation belts of jupiter will act not just on io,(as io is within a plasma taurus), but also with the sun. in this model, as well, there is a lattice work, a filamentous plasma structure, existing between the sun and all of it's constituent planets.

odysseus145 · Oct 10, 2005

What is wrong with the current fusions models for the sun? The reason nobody really tries to question it is because it fits the observations. Prove the current model wrong and then you push your theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Oct 10, 2005

keep that lightning idea close to your mind and heart. THAT is something. that is what our sun would be under the electric model. it is exactly that. it is a perpetually happening ball of lightning. literally. and yes i know about carbon dating. carbon 14, for example. measures decay of isotopes as a scale for approximate age of something. Right, dissipate and decay is fission, I think, and everything fizzles until it is fed. When that something is fed it fuses, as in fusion. Does that sound fuzzy? Believe you and me that I know there is rather large balls of plasma stars out their. this is actually a good happy medium between fusion and fission validity. it may go down this way. who really knows? i am more apt to shy away from fusion. but your statement "we could use jupiter to feed our star so that it lives longer." --this is more than likely ALREADY happening. as the sun is the anode (+), jupiter may act as a cathode (-), completing an electric circuit between it and the sun in an exchange of energy. the radiation belts of jupiter will act not just on io,(as io is within a plasma taurus), but also with the sun. in this model, as well, there is a lattice work, a filamentous plasma structure, existing between the sun and all of it's constituent planets. Great observation! However, I think you have it backwards. Excretion is the process of eliminating from energy -(e) and mass -(m) waste products that are of no use, and it is the internal subtraction and/or division processes for everything. I would like to think that excretion is a byproduct of fission. Excretions counterpart is accretion, whereas accretion is the means by which energy -(e) and mass -(m) increase by gradual or cataclysmic external additions and multiplications. The cumulating is sometimes also called accretion, and the opposite of accretion is excretion; essentially, cumulation tra

jatslo · Oct 10, 2005

I am more concerned with unifying the sciences; including and not limited to psychology, and I would be delighted to comment on a model, if you would be so kind as to provide a link. I will then show you accretion and excretion processes that will prove that fission is the primary source of energy within the Earth's Sun. How does that sound?

odysseus145 · Oct 10, 2005

How is this? Also, could you explain what you mean when you say fission? As I understand it fission is the result of a heavy atom splitting into two or more atoms. These atoms' total mass is slightly less than that of the original atom, and the difference is what was converted in to energy. The sun is mainly H and He, so I don't really see fission as having any part in its energy output. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Oct 10, 2005

Right, fission is spliting like cutting metal in welding class, and fusion is welding metal back together.

odysseus145 · Oct 10, 2005

Right, but what is being fissioned? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Oct 10, 2005

In the sun, everything is fusing and fizzing. Helium that does not have sufficient escape velocity would fizz back, hydrogen will fizz to water and electricity, and fuse into helium, over and over, but proportionally, I think that fission is dominate in our star. To prove something like this you would need to weight outputs of energy against matter to prove or disprove fusion. I just think there would be a heck of a lot more helium around, if fusion were the primary source of energy. Burning, or the fission of hydrogen is the primary source.

bonzelite · Oct 10, 2005

jatslo, to address this: "Everything is fizzing and fusing, whereas fission is primary and fusion is secondary, but you have to look at –[ E = m( c v + c i ) 2 ] and then rationalize yet once again. The Earth’s Sun is fizzing at a faster rate than the Planet Jupiter, so Jupiter is the one that is feeding at a faster rate. With that said: What are your thoughts about masses that are relative to the Sun in terms of position with respect to accretion? Jupiter could very well swallow Earth long before the Sun swells to a Red Giant." ok, you can set up a premise that accretion can be, but not always, a RAPID occurrence. or it could also be "Newtonian," taking millions of years. i look at the size and governance of jupiter's magnetosphere and radiation belt structure. it is overwhelmingly larger a structure than even the earth is as an entire planet. i will assume this magnetosphere, as in any, is a result of an electric current. and an exchange of plasma between jupiter and the sun is not only direct, but as well linked, as in a synapse "nerve net," with our planet and the others in concentric arrangement around the sun. and in this network is an exchange of energy. will this more likely occur between earth and jupiter before the sun can swallow us whole? i would say there is no way to know. jupiter does not seem as prone to explode as the sun is, as that planet's plasma state is in a far less volatile "mode" as opposed to the sun. and if it were to undergo a fission event, it may only reach as far as it's local neighborhood, producing an ejecta disk that would nearly immediately accrete to form another moon or planetoid. jupiter's ring is in my belief to be evidence of such the remains of an ejecta disk, the leftover "grissle" that did not redistribute, "accrete," to become ---whatever it was ---be it io, callisto, europa, whomever. i understand you what you say about excretion. in the electric sun model, the sun is shedd

odysseus145 · Oct 10, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Helium that does not have sufficient escape velocity would fizz back,<hr /></blockquote> That doesn't make any sense. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />hydrogen will fizz to water and electricity<hr /></blockquote> How can you split an atom that contains only one proton and one electron? Where would the oxygen come from to make water? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I think that fission is dominate in our star<hr /></blockquote> This is most likely because you do not know high school chemistry. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />To prove something like this you would need to weight outputs of energy against matter to prove or disprove fusion. I just think there would be a heck of a lot more helium around, if fusion were the primary source of energy.<hr /></blockquote> You'll need more than thoughts to disprove a very widely accepted theory. Numbers would be a great start. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Burning, or the fission of hydrogen is the primary source. <hr /></blockquote> Combustion has absolutely nothing to do with the processes inside a star. Nor is it in any way similar to fission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Fission versus Fusion: 101

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

silylene old

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

tmccort

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

jatslo

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

jatslo

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page