Fission versus Fusion: 101

[jatslo]

If fusion converts hydrogen to helium, then fission converts helium to hydrogen, and combustion is fission, just like manufacturing the conbustable is fusion.<br /><br />Crack, fizzle, pop, fuse; Crack, fizzle, pop, fuse; Crack, fizzle, pop, fuse...<br /><br />If fusion were the primary source of of energy, then helium would be more than 25%, and 25% is a best guess. There are all different kinds of stars.<br /><br />Can you think of a test that will prove your fusion theory? I mean, it is a theory, right? I mean, the theory could be wrong, right? Oh, I was assuming that there is oxygen in the sun, and that is why stated water and energy, crack the water, burn the (H), fizzle me that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I am not claiming victory either, so try to be civil please.

 

[bonzelite]

"Combustion has absolutely nothing to do with the processes inside a star. Nor is it in any way similar to fission."<br /><br />i don't think he means that. <br /><br />and this: <br /><br />In reply to:<br />I think that fission is dominate in our star<br /><br />"This is most likely because you do not know high school chemistry."<br /><br />again, this assumes the fusion model is correct. it is only a model. a sacred one, yes, but not the only one. it is assumed to be true because universitites reward it's study. and degrees are given in it. it is not necessarily the only model. or necessarily absolutely correct. it is not proven. <br /> <br />lightning in the atmosphere exists, is proven to exist. is not a mathematical construct. fusion may well exist. and if it does, then it may still not be the only process creating starlight. <br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

You know, in a graduate course that I took in nuclear physics, the most useful piece of information I probably ever got slapped into me at 8 AM was the binding energy per nucleon curve, and example of which can be found here:<br /><br />http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html#c2<br /><br />If you understand this curve, you can understand a LOT about both fission and fusion, and the stability of iron.<br /><br />It is a classic example of nature telling you her secrets in one simple curve.<br /><br />The words behind the concept are just as simple. In the case of fusion, if you take two elements and put them together, and get something that is more tightly bound that before, energy is released. This works on the left side of the peak.<br /><br />For fission, on the right hand side of the peak, if you take something apart, and get two things that are more tightly bound than before, energy is released.<br /><br />Nature drives to a stable configuration in both cases.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

By the way, something important to understand, turning helium into hydrgen does not in fact produce energy. Such a process leads down the binding energy curve. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Yeah, my head hurts just thinking about it. I am working on velocity affects: mass, length, and time. Fission and fusion are pieces of my puzzle, but I am not really getting into the details; I mean, where does one start talking about what is going on in the Sun? <br />It makes more since that the sun is past a fusion dominant state, whereas fission is primary now.

 

[jatslo]

Oh, I didn't know that. TY

 

[bonzelite]

wayne, that is a cool link. <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

Isn't it great to live in an age when a keyword search can bring up *so* much.<br /><br />I used to joke that the most important skill I learned in college was how to use an index. These days, its google (or the like).<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

I will bring out the elements tomorrow and try to build a quick what if star model that contains metallic helium, hydrogen, oxygen, mercury, iron, and anything else I left out, because I am brain dead at the moment. I need to sleep and repair the damage that dissecting a sun in my mind did. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Or at least I can tell why I think oxygen is abundant.<br />

 

[frobozz]

Nice link. Question: If the elements that are heavier than iron cannot be created via fusion (assuming I understand the link correctly) how did the elements that are heavier then iron come about naturally?

 

[jatslo]

Oh, good! Maybe won't have to bring out the cold fusion elements tomorrow after all. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

An excellent question! Here are a couple of references that you might find useful:<br /><br />http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=77<br /><br />http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_1c.html<br /><br />There are many more references to this effect that are available if you are curious.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Nice link. Question: If the elements that are heavier than iron cannot be created via fusion (assuming I understand the link correctly) how did the elements that are heavier then iron come about naturally?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Warning: I am not a physicist, so I may screw this up. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But this is my understanding of it.<br /><br />Heavy elements can be formed through fusion, but not through the kind of neat, tidy, stable fusion reaction such as produced purely by gravity in the heart of a star. It takes much more energy to do it, and it's rare for such energy to be released. However, novas and supernovas can produce enough energy to do it. It has to do with the way shockwaves propagate through the various shells of elements in a really big star that have been produced as the "ash" from stable fusion in earlier phases of the star's life.<br /><br />So the next time you put on a gold ring, consider this -- the stuff of that ring was made in some of the most violent processes in the universe. Pretty cool, huh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"So the next time you put on a gold ring, consider this -- the stuff of that ring was made in some of the most violent processes in the universe."<br /><br />Yeah, the process is called "marriage"....<br /><br />LOL <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Cold Fusion (Low Temperature Physics): A Correlation to Some Star Births</b><br /> <br />Like I said a 1000-times already: I am working on the affects of velocity: Increased Mass -(m _i); Time Dilation; -(t _d); Length Contraction -(L _c); however, this analysis is going to be utilized in real world working simulations too. Therefore, fission and/or fusion is critical to my theories success. I am not so much concerned with the whole shebang, so to speak, as much as I am concerned with the lighter elements, i.e. Helium (He), Hydrogen (H), ..., Oxygen (O ₂), ..., etc. I would prefer to work with (He), but containment might not be possible, so I may be required to move down to (H). The fact of the matter is: I am not sure yet, and that is why I opened this Fusion versus Fission thread. <br /> <br />With respect to (He), (He) breaks down to various sub-elements, and at the moment I am only interested in Helium-3 and 4, as in (₃He and ₄He), and as a result, I am more inclined to lean towards fusion for my experiments, if I ever get the opportunity to try my experiments that is. You see, charged particles travel faster that the speed-of-light -(c) within a medium, (fusion and fission), and we are currently utilizing various mediums comprised of liquid(s) that projecting varying degrees of temperatures. The fusion reactors with lithium mediums are nice, but they are far less efficient than Helium (He) reactors; plus they are hotter than hell. If I am going to go through the pain staking work of inventing cold reactors, then I will prefer to work with (He), if you all get my drift.<br /><br /><b>So, without further ado; I present to my audience Cold Fusion (Low Temperature Physics):</b><br /><br />Temperature physics is a science concerned with the production and maintenance of extreme temperatures that are far below and above normal, and we are primarily c</p></blockquote>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">process is called "marriage"....</font><br /><br />ROTFLMAO... violent fusion indeed!

 

[jatslo]

If you have not figured out yet, then I will give you the answer: The Earth's Sun's primary source of energy permeates from within, and this process is called “Cold Fission”. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

OK, you have formed a hypothesis. An idea if you will.<br />Believe me, that is both the easy and the hard part.<br /><br />It is hard in that it is creative, but also requires understanding. It is easy in that it is, at this point, just an idea. Many people come up with ideas. What takes an idea from the easy regime to the special regime, and into the rarified air of a theory is what follows:<br /><br />You have to start thinking about how to either look at existing data, or think of experiments that would provide evidence that support or not support your hypothesis. (Note I did not say "prove" - seeking to prove something shows a bias that make your thinking questionable)<br /><br />Now, for your specific example, one potential place to look at the data is in the area of neutrinos. You have to understand for your process exactly what flavor of neutrino you expect to see, and at what rates.<br /><br />Neutrinos also are one area that is still somewhat of a problem for the standard solar model. Observations of solar neutrino flux (A cousin of mine spent years in deep Russian mines doing neutrino counting work) have shown a flux that is one the order of 3 too low.<br />The hard part of dealing with this is of course that there are still subtlies in neutrino lifetimes that need to be addressed.<br /><br />Now, what I have talked about takes a lot of work. When I point it out, most recoil at the notion, because this is a different, in some ways less satisfying than simply stating ideas. It requires a discipline and a true devotion to establishing the veracity of the idea. A discipline to understand what data is available, and understand what it means.<br /><br />Its the scientific method.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[frobozz]

Thanks for the explaination. I'll be carefull about them dangerous gold rings <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

"<br />Neutrinos also are one area that is still somewhat of a problem for the standard solar model. Observations of solar neutrino flux (A cousin of mine spent years in deep Russian mines doing neutrino counting work) have shown a flux that is one the order of 3 too low. <br />The hard part of dealing with this is of course that there are still subtlies in neutrino lifetimes that need to be addressed. "<br /><br />not enough neutrinos. no fusion. <br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

"not enough neutrinos. no fusion."<br /><br />Not neccessarily. Some fascinating work has been done on this area - its a career keeping up with, and understanding it, as it crosses across a number of different disciplines.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I was referring to that under the fascinating work reference earlier. (And the factor of 3).<br /><br />I beleive that not all are satisfied with this explanation, though I admit to having "lost the bubble" on this quite a while ago.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

You constantly state your opinion as fact, and that is a fact, so I have to take your statement as a grain of salt, and any statement you make thereafter, for you are the little boy who cried wolf. The argument is not: whether or not fission and fusion exist in the Earth's Sun; the argument involves primary versus secondary sources, and I <b>think</b> fission is currently converting known matter into energy, as in -[ E = m( c _v + c _i ) ² ], whereas -( c _i ) may or may not be zero. However, I am more inclined to change -(c) to -(v), as in -[ E = m( v _v + v _i ) ² ] , because I may need a direct pulse to permeate from absolute zero relative to the Earth's Sun.<br /><br />You see, I need a shock wave to strip atoms as it reverberates through the Earth's Sun. Similar to solar wind that erodes, and/or feeds the planets.<br />

 

[drwayne]

I don't see where he stated an "opinion" at all - there is a significant body of work dealing with the issue of neutrinos / neutrino type / neutrino mass / neutrino lifetime / neutrino detectability that has been published over the years that steve is referring to.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

That's just it: I can't tell if stevehw33 is talking about fact or science fiction most of the time, because he uses statistical probabilities in conclusions that may or may not be true, and he is very consistent, as if he did the math. Very frustrating.