Heavy element production in MM

Addendum -

Theories are not really right or wrong (although wrong theories can *sometimes* be falsified). Semantics?

They are useful or not useful.

Semantics?


LB

And if utility is a measurement how can theories that are in favor currently pass? The only use they have is wastefulness if that process is of any use. Is the goal the generation of waste? Waste time, money and energy-is that the grand plan?

I guess you'll have to ask the guys that pay the bills.

One of the larger problems with mainstream science these days is that a LOT of the funding comes from government sources. Just about everything a government touches eventually turns into sh*t. And, of course, this is so because decisions tend to be made for political reasons rather than for technical or economic reasons.

(Hmmm. Mainstream science isn't the only part of modern life that is in trouble, you know.)

Bad models are just one thing that can cause a project to fail.

LB

<i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />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".


Examine very carefully what the reaction is in a hydrogen bomb. Then look at the reaction in a fusion reactor. Is it the same reaction? We do not get net energy out of the fusion reactor even though fusion occurs. We will not get net energy out of it. Now look at "cold fusion". Real energy was released. But was it fusion? There is a red herring in the conventional interpretation of all three processes.

Gregg

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Uranium breaks down to lead with intermediaries and Helium is a byproduct of the alpha decay. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes. And by what mechanism does lead break down into smaller elements?

Let me reply to Gregg and then EBTX:

Gregg, The first fission bomb (Trinity) yielded ~ 15-19 kilotons (I don't remember the exact yield and my source is not in front of me). The first Hydrogen Bomb (Mike) yielded 15 megatons! A trigger based on the fission bombs used to that date (all in the ~20kt range) started the reaction which provided the temperature, pressure and radiation (mostly directed and focused x-rays (as an aside wax paper straws are good at directing high energy xrays for a few shakes)).
Results: Trinity would have vaporized 5 cubic blocks of Manhatten, while Mike would have vaporized most of the whole island. Elugelab island existed where Mike was built and tested. The whole island is gone, for a moment temperatures in excess of the sun were measured and spectroscopy indicated rare radioactive isotopes of all atoms up to iron (consistant with star fusion reactions). I specified that the isotopes were rare because previous geologic samples had identified the composition of the coral atoll Elugelab island. These elements were created and dispersed by the fusion reactions beginning with deuterium and boosted by tritium.

EBTX, the above reply to Gregg indicates the reasons why fusion is hard to accomplish in the lab. In fission reactors, U-238,235, and some other classified isotopes are stacked together like bricks in a wall with carbon or some other mitigator. Neutron bombardment starts a controlled reaction between all of the susceptible isotopes, heat is bled off of the reaction with a coolant, usually water, salt water, or sodium (in the USSR, ouch!!! Chernobyl). The heat transfers water to steam, turbines are spun and the lights work. At the beginning of my reply I stated that fusion reactions occur at solar temperatures!!! Heat is not as problematic engineering problem up to the limits of fission reactions; but, controlling the heats and pressures necessary to meet the requirements of thermonuclear burning is slight more difficult. We can do it however in the lab. The problem, the electromagnets used to separate the plasma from the walls of the furnace use more electricity than can be gleaned from the system. It costs like $1,000,000 bucks to fire it up and about 80% of the energy is returned, we can do it but not for production, yet. The Tokamak reactor at Princeton (I think) has recently increased its %efficiency, but I do not know by how much right now.

Fusion is the way of the future; however, free energy (free because there is enough deuterium in one cubic meter of seawater to sustain electricity for New York City for one year!) is not about to be fully funded because too many people are mortally engaged in petrochemicals. Don't just blame the Cheney's though. Over 59 million people are said to be employed in the petroleum machine (and that doesn't include the proprietors and employess of your local gas station). They might not like the thought of finding new employment.

The pros of fusion as I see them:
1. Cheap
2. Limitless
3. Clean
4. Intergrateable to infrastructure
5. Safe
6. Allows the redirection of petrochemicals to materials science

Number six is important in view of the fact that most auto gasoline is derived from what is called "light sweet crude." This highest quality of oil is also the source of the most fractions of the petrochemicals from which can be made medicines, cooking products, plastics, and all other envisionable polymers, macromolecules, and wonder products. Basically we are frittering away our most valuable resource in a Pinto or even worse in big SUV's. Fusion won't kill the profits of the oil companies, if they play it right, they can make the killing in the economy by changing the product they sell into other products that people with cheap power can then afford to own.

That is my doctrine on nuclear physics, the economy, and meatloaf. Good day and pleasant nights
Mark

Mark Vitrone