Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Unclear fusion Pratt 3

G

Genome

Jan 1, 1970
0
Consider deuterium. Take away its electron. It becomes a boson. I
mentioned bosons in 'It's a fundamental universe'. Bosons like to get
together and occupy the same energy/space.

Why doesn't it go bang and turn into helium?

Look at the energy per nucleon curve. If that wasn't there the universe
would be something different.

Things do depend on uncertainty in position though.

DNA
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Consider deuterium. Take away its electron. It becomes a boson. I
mentioned bosons in 'It's a fundamental universe'. Bosons like to get
together and occupy the same energy/space.

Why doesn't it go bang and turn into helium?

The electrostatic repulsion between two protons is fierce, so you need
a lot of pressure (or velocity) to push them close enough that the
strong nuclear force kicks in and glues them together. If you fire
them at each other in an accelerator, you'll get a lot of near misses,
billiard-ball elastic collisions where they almost stick but at the
last attosecond slime past each other because of the huge
electrostatic repulsion. I think you'll get inelastics too, with
photons or something kicked out and wasting energy.

Room-temperature neutrons can just sort of casually saunter into a
nucleus and blow it up. Protons and antiprotons snuggle up like
bunnies.

John
 
D

Dave VanHorn

Jan 1, 1970
0
Room-temperature neutrons can just sort of casually saunter into a
nucleus and blow it up. Protons and antiprotons snuggle up like
bunnies.

Exploding bunnies, that is.

Interesting point though, leaving the electron on probably helps, since it
masks the positive charge till a bit later.. But it probably dosen't help
much, because the nucleus is so tiny.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave VanHorn said:
Exploding bunnies, that is.

Interesting point though, leaving the electron on probably helps, since it
masks the positive charge till a bit later.. But it probably dosen't help
much, because the nucleus is so tiny.
What's smaller than Nanotech? Picotech? Just build sub-nanoscopic
manipulators
out of neutronium, and grab four individual hydrogen atoms by the protons,
and hold them together until they release the appropriate amount of energy.
One of the engineering challenges would then, of course, be how to capture
that energy. I think if you design the picomanipulators properly, you could
have the alpha particle get kicked out the same direction every time,
making a nifty torch ship motor. Probably do some pretty decent MHD, too.

Anybody know enough nuclear physics to calculate out how hot (i.e. fast)
the helium/alpha exhaust would be going? (clearly, you have to dump the
electrons as well - pointing that stream could be interesting as well.)

Cheers!
Rich
 
F

Fritz Schlunder

Jan 1, 1970
0
Anybody know enough nuclear physics to calculate out how hot (i.e. fast)
the helium/alpha exhaust would be going? (clearly, you have to dump the
electrons as well - pointing that stream could be interesting as well.)

Cheers!
Rich


Greetings,

Since this post is fairly long the answer is in the last two paragraphs for
those that might be too put off by length to read the whole thing. That
said...

The first step in making this calculation would be to find the "Q" value for
this reaction. Of course this reaction (four protons coming together to
form an alpha particle) doesn't really occur in real life, so this is just a
theoretical exercise...

The Q value tells us how much energy is released by this reaction. We use
Einstein's E=mc^2 formula along with the mass defect (difference in masses
between the four individual separate protons and the mass of the single
alpha particle).

mass proton = 1.0072764669 amu
mass neutron = 1.0086649233 amu
mass electron = 5.48579911E-4 amu
Helium 4 atom = 4.0026032497 amu
Approximate alpha particle mass = mass(He-4 atom) - 2*mass(electron)
Approximate alpha particle mass = 4.001506089878 amu

Note: MeV stands for mega electron volts.

So mass defect between four protons and one alpha particle ~= 4*1.0072764669
amu - 4.001506089878 amu = 0.02759977772 amu. To find the Q value simply
multiply the mass defect by the conversion factor 931.5MeV/amu.

Theoretical Q for this reaction = 0.02759977772 amu * 931.5 MeV/amu = 25.71
MeV.

This is how much energy would theoretically be liberated by this reaction.
A small amount of mass was converted into this much energy.

For comparisons sake a single fission of some atom such as U-235 releases
approximately 200MeV, while the oxidation of say carbon liberates only a few
electron volts.

Okay, so now how fast is the alpha moving? Well in theory all that 25.71
MeV is transferred into kinetic energy of the product(s) (in this case an
alpha particle). There is a slight problem here in that an alpha particle
is composed of 2 neutrons and 2 protons, not 4 protons. From the
information given above we see a neutron is actually slightly more massive
than a proton. In practice the kinetic energy of the alpha particle in this
theoretical reaction would probably be approximately 1.2MeV less than the
calculated 25.71MeV figure since some of that energy would have to get used
up creating something like a couple of positrons or something so that a
couple of the protons can convert into neutrons. So as a decent
approximation the alpha particle's kinetic energy would be around 24.5MeV.

How fast is that?

Well use the formula 0.5mv^2 = kinetic energy. Where m is mass in kg, and v
is the velocity of the particle in meters per second. You have to be
careful in this step to make sure you don't use classical mechanics if the
particle is moving at relativistic velocities. In this case 24.5MeV for an
alpha particle is quite "slow", so classical mechanics will yield a fairly
accurate result.

So first convert MeV into joules. 24.5MeV (1.6022E-19 J/1 eV) = 3.93E-12 J.
Now find the mass of an alpha particle in kilograms.

4.001506089878 amu * (1.6605387E-27 kg / amu) = 6.6446557205E-27 kg

Solving for velocity v = sqrt(2*kinetic energy / mass) = 34373216
meters/second
Or in other words 3.44E7 m/s

So this "exhaust" for this theoretical reaction is boogieing along with
pretty high velocity. For comparisons sake room temperature (ie: 300 K)
particles have about 0.025eV of kinetic energy. Of course I want to
reemphasize that this reaction does not occur in real life. Even single
proton-proton --> deuterium fusion reactions are exceedingly "slow" at
occurring, much less four protons all perfectly coming together all at once.
 
F

Fritz Schlunder

Jan 1, 1970
0
Fritz Schlunder said:
Greetings,

Since this post is fairly long the answer is in the last two paragraphs for
those that might be too put off by length to read the whole thing. That
said...

The first step in making this calculation would be to find the "Q" value for
this reaction. Of course this reaction (four protons coming together to
form an alpha particle) doesn't really occur in real life, so this is just a
theoretical exercise...

The Q value tells us how much energy is released by this reaction. We use
Einstein's E=mc^2 formula along with the mass defect (difference in masses
between the four individual separate protons and the mass of the single
alpha particle).

mass proton = 1.0072764669 amu
mass neutron = 1.0086649233 amu
mass electron = 5.48579911E-4 amu
Helium 4 atom = 4.0026032497 amu
Approximate alpha particle mass = mass(He-4 atom) - 2*mass(electron)
Approximate alpha particle mass = 4.001506089878 amu

Note: MeV stands for mega electron volts.

So mass defect between four protons and one alpha particle ~= 4*1.0072764669
amu - 4.001506089878 amu = 0.02759977772 amu. To find the Q value simply
multiply the mass defect by the conversion factor 931.5MeV/amu.

Theoretical Q for this reaction = 0.02759977772 amu * 931.5 MeV/amu = 25.71
MeV.

This is how much energy would theoretically be liberated by this reaction.
A small amount of mass was converted into this much energy.

For comparisons sake a single fission of some atom such as U-235 releases
approximately 200MeV, while the oxidation of say carbon liberates only a few
electron volts.

Okay, so now how fast is the alpha moving? Well in theory all that 25.71
MeV is transferred into kinetic energy of the product(s) (in this case an
alpha particle). There is a slight problem here in that an alpha particle
is composed of 2 neutrons and 2 protons, not 4 protons. From the
information given above we see a neutron is actually slightly more massive
than a proton. In practice the kinetic energy of the alpha particle in this
theoretical reaction would probably be approximately 1.2MeV less than the
calculated 25.71MeV figure since some of that energy would have to get
used...


Whoops... I made a slight error here. The kinetic energy of the alpha
should be about 1.02MeV less than the theoretically calculated value of
25.71MeV.

Why 1.02MeV?

Well a positron (an antimatter electron with a positive charge) has a mass
of basically an electron. And by multiplying the mass of an electron by the
conversion factor 931.5MeV/amu we see that a rest electron has effectively
511keV of rest energy (in the form of matter). So a proton also has that
much rest energy (in the form of matter). Thus two positrons has a rest
energy of 2 * 511keV = 1.02MeV. In my head I did this calculation earlier
on the last post and thought it should be 1.2MeV, but that isn't right.

The cool thing about antimatter is that if it ever meets of up with regular
matter they annihilate each other and convert all of their mass into energy.
In the case of the positrons they eventually meet up with regular electrons
and produce two 511keV gamma rays.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Okay, so now how fast is the alpha moving? Well in theory all that 25.71
MeV is transferred into kinetic energy of the product(s) (in this case an
alpha particle). There is a slight problem here in that an alpha particle
is composed of 2 neutrons and 2 protons, not 4 protons. From the
information given above we see a neutron is actually slightly more massive
than a proton. In practice the kinetic energy of the alpha particle in this
theoretical reaction would probably be approximately 1.2MeV less than the
calculated 25.71MeV figure since some of that energy would have to get used
up creating something like a couple of positrons or something so that a
couple of the protons can convert into neutrons.

Oh, ok - Forgot about that part. Well, since we're in thoughtspace, just
absorb
a couple of the electrons into their protons and make the two neutrons
that way. :)


So as a decent
approximation the alpha particle's kinetic energy would be around 24.5MeV.
....
Solving for velocity v = sqrt(2*kinetic energy / mass) = 34373216
meters/second
Or in other words 3.44E7 m/s
That's pretty fast!

Then, lessee - you've got specific impulse, thrust, etc., etc., -
I read somewhere a millennium or so ago, an article called "Torchships
Now!" which made claims like at 1G continuous accel/decel, you could
get to the moon in like a couple of hours, and Pluto in a few days or
weeks. He had all the math worked out, but I remember equations about
as well as I remember dates. %-]

Cheers!
Rich
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <[email protected]>
I read somewhere a millennium or so ago, an article called "Torchships
Now!" which made claims like at 1G continuous accel/decel, you could
get to the moon in like a couple of hours, and Pluto in a few days or
weeks.

1g is quite a high acceleration. Let's see. Distance at constant
acceleration = 0.5 x acc. x time ^2. 0.5 x 9.81 (g in m/s) x (24 x
3600)^2 = 3.66 x 10^10 metres. The earth-moon distance is 3.8 x 10^8
metres, so it wouldn't take a day to get there but about 2.5 hours.
You' be going past very quickly, though: 9.81 x 2.5 x 3600 = 88290 m/s.
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <[email protected]>


1g is quite a high acceleration. Let's see. Distance at constant
acceleration = 0.5 x acc. x time ^2. 0.5 x 9.81 (g in m/s) x (24 x
3600)^2 = 3.66 x 10^10 metres. The earth-moon distance is 3.8 x 10^8
metres, so it wouldn't take a day to get there but about 2.5 hours.
You' be going past very quickly, though: 9.81 x 2.5 x 3600 = 88290 m/s.

It might be more useful to accelerate at 1g to the half-way point and
then de-accelerate at 1g until you get there. More like 3.5 hours, if
I did the arithmetic right.

Not quite the same thing, but if we built a tunnel to China that went
through the center of the earth I could get there in something like
45min and (assuming the tunnel was evacuated) with zero energy. Hmm..
in that case you'd be weightless for the entire trip.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
R

Roger Hamlett

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro Pefhany said:
It might be more useful to accelerate at 1g to the half-way point and
then de-accelerate at 1g until you get there. More like 3.5 hours, if
I did the arithmetic right.

Not quite the same thing, but if we built a tunnel to China that went
through the center of the earth I could get there in something like
45min and (assuming the tunnel was evacuated) with zero energy. Hmm..
in that case you'd be weightless for the entire trip.
The 'lovely' thing about this one, is that for a tunnel that goes straight
between _any_ two places on the Earth's surface, assuming you free fall all
the way, and the system is frictionless, the journey time is basically
constant!...

Best Wishes
 
W

Walter Harley

Jan 1, 1970
0
Roger Hamlett said:
The 'lovely' thing about this one, is that for a tunnel that goes straight
between _any_ two places on the Earth's surface, assuming you free fall all
the way, and the system is frictionless, the journey time is basically
constant!...

So how come I'm not in free fall whenever I'm in a tunnel?
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Walter Harley
So how come I'm not in free fall whenever I'm in a tunnel?
It's not a geodesic tunnel: there aren't any.
 
Top