- Thank you received: 0
Heavy element production in MM
20 years 9 months ago #8089
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />The process of decay is rather well documented as opposed to the creation of atoms larger than iron.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Could that 'standard' model be wrong there too that heavier elements (than iron) could also be produced in normal stars? Seeing there are so many problems with our understanding of any fusion this could be a possibility.
Does anyone know of any other potential process for creating heavier that hydrogen elements? Quasars? Supermassive stars? Planets? Tooth fairy?
<br />The process of decay is rather well documented as opposed to the creation of atoms larger than iron.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Could that 'standard' model be wrong there too that heavier elements (than iron) could also be produced in normal stars? Seeing there are so many problems with our understanding of any fusion this could be a possibility.
Does anyone know of any other potential process for creating heavier that hydrogen elements? Quasars? Supermassive stars? Planets? Tooth fairy?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8090
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Radioactive decay is responsible for breaking down larger elements into smaller one, i.e. Uranium to lead to Helium (with intermediaries). <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Elements lighter than iron don't spontaneously decay at all. Iron never goes to Helium by any intermediary whatsoever. As far as I know there is no known instance of an iron nucleus decaying into other elements.
Elements lighter than iron don't spontaneously decay at all. Iron never goes to Helium by any intermediary whatsoever. As far as I know there is no known instance of an iron nucleus decaying into other elements.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 9 months ago #8133
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
EBTX,
Uranium breaks down to lead with intermediaries and Helium is a byproduct of the alpha decay. Remember that an Alpha particle is a Helium nuclei. It has an atomic mass of 4, 2 of the mass units derived from protons, the other 2 from neutrons. When the Helium nuclei encounters free electrons, either from metals or more usually the beta particles (electrons) from other decay processes; then a helium atom is formed and the original Uranium loses 4 mass units (since 2 are protons, the uranium transmutes into Thorium. This process continues until stable lead is formed. As a side note, in nature the helium found to fill your birthday balloons is tapped from lead mines where decaying isotopes and uranium are also located.
The natural decay series for U-238 is as follows can be found at www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html
Several folks have asserted that we have a poor understanding of fusion. I am not sure where this assertion comes from. We have performed fusion many times in true scientific experiments where the yield of the reaction can be modelled and predicted at least in H-bombs. Perhaps our failures at reactor design and manipulating high pressure/high temp materials is responsible for assuming that the process is a mystery. I feel well supported in saying that science has a good understanding of fusion and fission and that these explanations are not usually at odds with the MM as I understand it. Spectroscopy of the galaxy has shown evidence of star compositions coupled with our satelite exploration and earth observations of our sun.
Fusion processes follow a similar proportional plan very similar to electron configurations. Protons and neutrons stack up in a planned order. Those nuclei that do not comply to this complex arrangement are said to be radioactively decaying until they do reach a stable configuration. This is why many of the large atoms decay to lead then stop. Lead, iron, carbon, oxygen, helium (there are several others) are like stable islands in a decaying flood of radioactivity. Fusion calculations predict that iron is the stopping place for fusion in small stars because the pressure/temp necessary to fuse two iron nuclei together is beyond a small stars forces. I am compelled by the evidence suggesting that elements larger than iron must be formed during supernova and then spread into nebula to be incorporated in new star and solar system development. Element distribution studies support these probabilities as well.
Mark
Uranium breaks down to lead with intermediaries and Helium is a byproduct of the alpha decay. Remember that an Alpha particle is a Helium nuclei. It has an atomic mass of 4, 2 of the mass units derived from protons, the other 2 from neutrons. When the Helium nuclei encounters free electrons, either from metals or more usually the beta particles (electrons) from other decay processes; then a helium atom is formed and the original Uranium loses 4 mass units (since 2 are protons, the uranium transmutes into Thorium. This process continues until stable lead is formed. As a side note, in nature the helium found to fill your birthday balloons is tapped from lead mines where decaying isotopes and uranium are also located.
The natural decay series for U-238 is as follows can be found at www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html
Several folks have asserted that we have a poor understanding of fusion. I am not sure where this assertion comes from. We have performed fusion many times in true scientific experiments where the yield of the reaction can be modelled and predicted at least in H-bombs. Perhaps our failures at reactor design and manipulating high pressure/high temp materials is responsible for assuming that the process is a mystery. I feel well supported in saying that science has a good understanding of fusion and fission and that these explanations are not usually at odds with the MM as I understand it. Spectroscopy of the galaxy has shown evidence of star compositions coupled with our satelite exploration and earth observations of our sun.
Fusion processes follow a similar proportional plan very similar to electron configurations. Protons and neutrons stack up in a planned order. Those nuclei that do not comply to this complex arrangement are said to be radioactively decaying until they do reach a stable configuration. This is why many of the large atoms decay to lead then stop. Lead, iron, carbon, oxygen, helium (there are several others) are like stable islands in a decaying flood of radioactivity. Fusion calculations predict that iron is the stopping place for fusion in small stars because the pressure/temp necessary to fuse two iron nuclei together is beyond a small stars forces. I am compelled by the evidence suggesting that elements larger than iron must be formed during supernova and then spread into nebula to be incorporated in new star and solar system development. Element distribution studies support these probabilities as well.
Mark
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8091
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
If you have the evidence you claim about fusion can you post any of it? The bomb data is not available from DOD so where did you get it? I have tryed to get data on several H-bomb events that happened in the 1950s and there is nothing available. I wonder why you believe the fusion theory is anything that can really happen?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 9 months ago #8505
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Jim,
None of the hot fusion reactors that have been built are scientific failures. They are (so far) engineering failures. They work like the theory (model) expects them to work. It is just a lot harder to make money with them than was imagined in the beginning.
I'm not saying that the theories are complete, and completely accurate in every last detail. But they are well within the ball park.
LB
None of the hot fusion reactors that have been built are scientific failures. They are (so far) engineering failures. They work like the theory (model) expects them to work. It is just a lot harder to make money with them than was imagined in the beginning.
I'm not saying that the theories are complete, and completely accurate in every last detail. But they are well within the ball park.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 9 months ago #8093
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
Larry, I agree totally. Jim, a good source for H bomb data and theory is "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" (pulitzer prize winning) and "The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb". Forgot the author right now, but they are good at filling in the cracks in H bomb development and theory. As far as the science, most of it I learned from Buzz Hentz at NC State. Unless I am mistaken most of what I said is regular knowledge, so far as I know the fusion process is well understood if not controllable and cost effective right now. These problems are materials oriented mainly. Deuterium and Tritium reactions are taught in university chemistry and are generally very well accepted by the scientific community. Remeber that these processes are occuring at the atomic level, and we can observe these experiments empirically. I have myself extracted deuterium from regular tap water when I was back in school. Unfortunately for the safety of the world, atomic technology is not too hard.
Mark
Mark
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.818 seconds