Question ???

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by JimmyJames, May 26, 2001.

1. JimmyJamesMaster JediRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
60
Hey all...I have a question ??? How do we fuse atomic particles ??? I mean what kind of mechanics fuse atomic particals to create nuculear engery ???

3. papa_smirfRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
61
Well from what i understand it all is aplicable to the 4 forces which are known to control the atom. Your maingly messing with the magnetic force and the strong force in fusion. So when you want to fuse the nucleouses of an atom you need to make them touch. This is hard since there both positevely charged like magnets so they don't want to touch, but once you do force them to touch through magnetic confinement or self compacting ways the strong force takes over. Basically it's like a really sticky glue force. Now once your nuclei are fused energy is released. Where this energy comes from I'll have to study up on.

5. discord5Registered Senior Member

Messages:
88
Nikola Tesla
and
Ed Leedskalnin

they both have some rather interesting theories on what holds it all together and where the energy does come from.

7. wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
discord5 said:

Please give us a discourse. Go into it, if you will. You make me curious.

Last edited: May 27, 2001

Messages:
88

Messages:
8,616

10. wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
Leedskalnin

I read the part on magnetism. I have a question as it got me to wondering. I might add that I realise that you are not a phyisist and that I don't expect an answer as you did not put forward this idea.

He makes the hypothesis that if you were to reverse the moon’s magnetic field that the moon would come down out of its orbit. The problem I have here is that the sun changes its magnetic field every 11 years or there about. It happens during the time of highest solar flare activity. It completely swaps it's poles. The last pole swap happened just a month or two ago. But the earth doesn’t fall out of its orbit. Further, the earth too changes it’s magnetic field but on a longer interval as seen by geologic records in the rocks. I may be wrong, as it has been some time since I looked at the info, but I believe it is on the order of 5,000 years to 5 million years. (it is not regular). I think that in this one area that Leedskalnin must be wrong.

That is not to discount the rest of his theory as it seems both well thought out and demonstrable by his experiments which he offers to the reader to do themselves.

Last edited: May 27, 2001
11. CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
Hi wet1,

Yes you are right, the earth also switches its magnetic poles every now and then (I have an estimate of the time-interval between those swaps lying around somewhere - too lazy to look it up though, but I remember it was roughly every 40000 years or so). Direct evidence of this swapping was found when studying the magnetic alignment in large structures of rock.

Bye!

Crisp

12. discord5Registered Senior Member

Messages:
88
i wouldnt be so quick to call him wrong on that ....

what i know from reading his writings is that he had an amazing understanding of how magnetism worked.
my theory on why we dont crash into the sun when the poles shift is simple ..... we are spining the moon is not , and if you have ever seen a little toy called a levitron this would make more sense. the levitron is a top (spinner) that is a round magnet and the base is a large magnet so when it is spining it manages to keep itself floating in the air. it has to do with the push of a magnet being stronger than the pull of the magnet. once the levitron slows down it will crash down onto the base magnet.

not that im a physicist or anything =>

13. georgebachRegistered Member

Messages:
1

Magnetism has nothing to do on keeping the moon in its orbit. The earth and moon’s magnetic fields are way to small compared to their masses to have a minimum affect in that regard. Only atomic particles are attracted or repelled thus deviated from their respective paths when passing near the earth because their electric charge is high in relation with the particle mass.
The force that keep the moon and for that mater all astronomical objects in orbit is Gravity.

14. discord5Registered Senior Member

Messages:
88
ah yes that force gravity ....
you are refering to the same force of gravity that does not react the same at the atomic particle level as it does on the planetary level. many articles i have read lately have put forth the idea that Einstein and Newton described things correctly for the information they had but may actually have been mistaken.

please forgive if my numbers are incorrect here ....
one article i read said that on a planetary scale gravity has a force of 10-10th gev and on an atomic scale it has a force of 10-16th gev. again i must say Newton and Einstein could not have known this major difference and a difference like that could only be explained by some other force acting on things and filling in that huge power difference.

"Dogma sucks!"

15. PlatoRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
366
let's put some things right

First of all I have to correct papa_smirf that is is not the magnetic forces but the electrostatic forces that need to be overcome to make fusion possible :
Nucleae have a positive electric charge, therefor they repel each other. This is the so called potential barrier that needs to be surpassed, they can do that given sufficient kinetic energy (this means if they have enough speed to smash onto one another) or by quantum tunneling. The last way happens only on very rare occasions since the probability for this to happen is very very low, therefor the only real way is the first. This is for example what happens in the centre of our sun where temperatures are high enough to obtain enough kinetic energy to overcome the barrier.

Where does the energy comes from one the fusion happens ?
Well it is the same kind of energy that comes free when you burn something : exothermal reaction. While in the burning of wood you are dealing with chemical energy and in the 'burning' of atoms you are dealing with nuclear energy. It is called binding energy : in order to make a helium nucleus one takes two neutrons, two protons and puts them together, this resulting in a helium nucleas and its binding energy.
The fusion of nucleae isn't always exothermal once you get to iron atoms you need more energy to make heavier atoms then you get out of the process. This is why stars can burn only so long as they don't start making iron cause that is the end of the line. This is also why elements heavier then iron aren't that abundant in nature : it is very hard to make them (it takes a supernova actually).

The above picture gives some insight, I hope.
The pit actually represents lower energy states where protons and neutrons can reside in if they are close enough together. The energy difference between their energy in their free states and in their bound states represent the binding energy that comes free.
However since neutrons and protons are fermions, no two particles can be in the same quantum state. In other words as one piles protons and neutrons into the pit, it becomes full. Before you know it, it becomes harder to put anything more behind the potential barrier since all the states below your ground state are filled. If you still want to pile things on top, it will cost you more energy !
Very heavy nucleae are almost overloaded with particles and tend to lose a few now and then, this is called radioactive decay.

About the magnetic field of the moon and the earth :
There is a very big difference between the two : first of all the moon has no full covering magnetic field as the earth has. In fact it is a far stretch to talk a bout a magnetic field for the moon at all since it is a combination of several magnetic fields stemming from patches of moon rock that are magnetised. This however is very close to the surface and would for example not serve at all to hold a compas at a magnetic north pole. The field of the moon is static and will never change only diminish over time. So there is no way that it can switch poles.
The field of the earth however finds its origin in the semi liquid core, there electical currents are sustained in semi steady paths thus maintaining a magnetic field spanning the entire planet with two distinct poles. The paths that the currents follow change over time due to the earths rotation and the not so homogeneous constitution of its core. This results in a depolarisation over time and ultimately a switch of poles.

Last edited: May 29, 2001
16. wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
I realize that the orbital mechanics rely on gravity to keep the body falling in the same path(orbit). However if you read the link that was posted, the notes mention that the author believes that if you could change the polarity of the moons' magnetic field that the moon would "fall out of orbit" so to say.
It was to this statement that I had responded to.

I also notice that there seems to be a good bit of interest in this subject by the crowd that seems to be gathering. So I think that tomarrow I'll go buy a lighting rod so I can hold one end! (Just teasing folks)

Last edited: May 30, 2001
17. discord5Registered Senior Member

Messages:
88
can i bring a camera ?
you know just in case you solve the mysteries of the universe i want to get it on film =>

18. Science GeekRegistered Member

Messages:
7
high speed

The way that you could accomplish the fusion of particles of the same charge could be done by using a high rate of speed. Preferably if you were able to use a high rate of speed in a small space. The smaller space would limit the amount of room the particles would have to travel. If the particles are close together when introduced at an exxelorated speed, they should fuse nicely.

19. papa_smirfRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
61
Good luck aiming your guns directly at eachother.

20. Kram006Registered Member

Messages:
14
Haha

It is possible.... but pretty damn near impossible to aim them perfectly