Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!

Fussion solutions,maybe

  1. Mar 24, 2003 #1
    since a stellarator uses magnetic fields the contain the plasma,and the plamsa still touches the walls and stops the reaction,have you ever thought that by using positive magnetic fields to repel the hydrogen nuclei inward,that the free electrons in the plasma are attracted to the walls and stop the reaction,if you get all the free electrons out of the plamsa and have only pure nuclei in the reaction chamber it might work better to substain a fussion reaction.and I had a thought on how to do that.bombard the plasma with positrons to annihalate the electrons in the plasma by anti matter, matter interaction,or use positive electrical fields to attract the electrons out of the plamsa to see what happens!
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 26, 2003 #2
    ever wonder why if protons when they fuse release energy that if proton fuse and decay and fuse and decay,that the starting energy of the proton wouldnt be the same, when two particle moving at high velocity,at equal speed when they hit forces them to 0 velocity instantly,where does the energy of the motion go,need i say more!
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2003
  4. Mar 28, 2003 #3
    As far as i know in a real fusion reaction the protons are not fusing and fissoning (breaking apart). Simply stated the protons say in a hydrogen reaction fuse to make ...dueterium?..lithium? I can't remember right now. Anyhoo, once this happens then the energies are not enough to overcome the repulsion of two protons together repelling the other single or paired protons. Once all the protons are paired then the reaction needs an infusion of energy to kick the kinetic energy up a little so the pairs will overcome the em repulsion to form whatever the heck is next on the list. This continues until you get iron. Then it stops. At least it does in a star, from what I have been taught everything heavier than iron is made in Super novas and the like (big stars go boom!). However I digress.

    In answer to the second part, energy does not "disappear". First law of thermodynamics. Basically the kinetic energy of the protons is "used" to overcome the repulsion of the protons and once that happens and they "fuse" together, then that energy is released as em waves mostly. Visible light, heat (infrared rays), and various forms of dangerous radiation (gamma rays, x rays etc).

    It is not quite that simple because the density of a star is so darn high that it generally takes quite a bit of absorbing and radiating before a photon makes it to the surface from say the core.

    I know you are talking about fusion in a lab but since the star does it so well it makes sense to explain it using the star as a model. Basically when we have a self sustained fusion reaction achieved then it will literally be a small star inside that lab.
  5. Mar 29, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings chosenone !

    The problem with your suggestion is that even
    if you manage to remove the electrons, there is
    no way that a segnificant positive charge like
    that can be contained. The forces will be to
    great and you'll have discharges from the walls.
    In short, this won't work... :wink:

    Live long and prosper.
  6. Mar 29, 2003 #5
    If you read my other post on the 4 states of matter.heat increases the negative field,and decreases the positive field of partilces or the atoms,so the negative fields of the atoms repel against one another creating pressure,thus making ice go from a solid to a liquid to a gas by the increase in the negative field,so the opposite must be true that in the star the heat reduces the positive field of the proton,that is why fusion becomes possible,the high heat is needed to reduce the field to allow them to overcome the mutual repulsion!
  7. Mar 29, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    No offense, but that's one of the strangiest stuff
    I ever heard.

    Nuclear fusion occurs in stars because gravity
    contains the reaction.

    Live long and prosper.
  8. Mar 30, 2003 #7
    Sorry it doesn't work like that. Then all of the equations for electric current would be wrong. There is no evidence that there is any problems with the basic equations of EM. If heat increases the so called negative field (a dubious name for and em field)then voltage would increase as a circuit gets warmer. Then the voltage would rise because your "field" would get stronger. This in turn would cause more joule heating (heating from more current being shoved through a circuit). The joule heating would then create a rise in the field then voltage would go up and etc etc. Basically according to your idea we would get a voltage very quickly rising to infinity from the smallest difference in potential.
  9. Apr 2, 2003 #8
    I beg to differ.their are 6.28*10^18 electrons that pass any given point at any given time in a circuit.and thats only one amp.electrons don't just hang out to get hot as they pass by in and out of a circuit.they travel close to light speed.their in and out in millionths of a second.It's like putting your hand over a flame.it takes a few seconds before your hand heats up and burns you,because the atoms in your hand are at 98.6.if you move your hand fast enough you won't get burned.nice try!
  10. Apr 2, 2003 #9
    OK....um first of all you should probably pay a little more attention to what you are writing. Your case will not be made with poor grammer and even poorer spelling (coming from me considering how badly I spell that is saying something).

    First of all an amp is not 6.28 * 10^18 electrons/given moment. It is per second (I don't recall the exact number of electrons per second but I will assume you looked it up and your number is correct). Second of all, only one amp is a hell of a lot of current, one amp can kill a person. Third of all, what you said has nothing to do with what I said. Unless of course your rebuttal (damn I can't remember if that's spelled correctly) has nothing to do with what I said then please just go to the next thread. However if you did intend to dispute what I stated, then please read on and be enlightened.

    Electrons do not feel heat in the sense that you and I feel heat. The two phenomena you compared have very little to do with each other. When I pass my hand through a flame, there isn't enough time for the energy to transfer from the flame to my hand (this part you got correct). But if I left my hand there, the electons in my hand would begin to jiggle (actually the molecules would begin to jiggle starting with water). Then after a while the energy would begin to destroy the cells and the exact process is better explained by a biologist (or better yet a Dr.) You can't heat electrons up like a hand. Electons only "feel" heat as an increase in their individual kinetic energy. Basically the only difference between a cold electron and a hot electon is how much kinetic energy it has. Now the atoms in my hand are NOT 98.6 degrees F (I am assuming because you didn't bother to explain the units you used). My body temp is 98.6 degrees F which has very little to do with individual electrons and more to do with the cells and organs in my body.

    Now back to your original statements. I was explaining that what you stated would mean a PD that increases to infinity in a finite amount of time. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure that would violate the second law as well because you would be taking a system with a starting amount of entropy and over time the entropy would decrease without interacting with an external system. Why does the entropy decrease? Because you go from a system with say x amount of heat then the energy gets converted into an ordered EM field that has the capacity to do work (place a charge in the field and it will move thus you have work). Then the heat increases (first law breakage) and thus the PD increases (decrease in entropy) and so on and so forth.
  11. Apr 2, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    If I may add, electrons do not really move "all the
    way" through the circuit. In fact, they move a few
    millimiters at most and ussualy less at a time.
    (You might say they are carried by waves like at sea.)
    Second, their speed is far slower than light speed.
    It is the potential difference - voltage that forces
    the electrons at the "end"(positive side)of the
    circuit to move as soon as they "feel" it.

    Live long and prosper.
  12. Apr 3, 2003 #11
    Well if you insist on making you point so clearly.please then tell me what science officially considers then changing of matters states.how do they go from a solid to a liquid ,then to a gas,if not for a unseen force,forcing them apart.increased negative electromagnetic fields,increasing and decreasing do to heat and cold,seemed the likely solution.the colder they get the less the field strength gets,the closer they can get.the hotter they become,the greater the field they farther apart they get,thus pressure,thus a gas.if you have another arguement that proofs this hypothesis wrong,I'm listening!!!!!!!!!!1
  13. Apr 3, 2003 #12
    This getting to be a lot of fun. Although I disagree with you Chosenone I am enjoying our debate. Anyhow down to business. OK the reason mass undergoes phase changes or freezes, melts, sublimates, etc is NOT because there are any changes in the forces that hold the mass together. It is because the individual molecules have more kinetic energy. The molecules are pulling harder on the bonds that tie them together so at some point they will break and you have a phase change. When an ice cube melts, the temperature of the water is not above 0 degrees C at any point until the entire ice cubes has melted. This is because all of the energy that goes into the ice cube is being "used" to break the bonds that hold the ice cube together. Same goes for water when it boils. The water temp never gets over 100 degrees C while it is boiling because all the energy is being "used" to break all the bonds that are holding it in a liquid state. That is why steam tables in buffets work or you melt chocolate over a pot of boiling water, the temp is stable at 100 degrees C as long as water is boiling (or simmering).

    There are no unseen forces or changes in the actual forces that are present at the time you begin any experiment. It is just that the molecules are aquiring added kinetic energy and the bonds can no longer hold them together.

    Think of it this way. If you try to hold a dog that is just lying there it is easier than trying to hold a dog that is squirming with all of him might to get out. The molecules are the dog and when you add heat to the system the molecules begin to squirm and it gets harder to hold on to them. At some point the squirming gets too much and the molecules get to run away.
  14. Apr 4, 2003 #13
    well for one thing atoms of like elements whether they are in a high state of excitation from the heat or cold and get closer together,don't bond together like a molecule,they stay separate.atoms go from solid to liquid to gas,because the distance between the atoms becomes greater or less.If you but water in a container and seal it,then heat it up it will exploded from thy pressure,fast moving atoms only hit each other more often,not force each other from getting near each other.putting pressure on the container.the pressure is caused by the mutual repulsion of each atom next to each other,forcing them to stay at a greater distance apart not letting them get any closer.just like molecules in the air.in a room all the atoms equalize through out the room never having more in one spot than another.its the same property!
  15. Apr 4, 2003 #14
    Chosenone-I almost can't keep up with the speed at which you are changing gears. Phase changes in matter is generally a chemical thing as opposed to a Nuclear thing. Melting, sublimating, freezing, boiling, and condensing all have to do with molecular bonding (I'm not a chemist so I could be overlooking some exception to the rule). You can't mix up nuclear reactions (like Fusion) and chemical reactions (like phase changes). They just aren't the same. Atoms of like elements are still bonded together as molecules. Like elemental oxygen is O2 (chemically) and it can freeze, melt, boil etc. But the thing to rememeber is that it is the O2 that bonds together not the O by itself. Chemical things are basically all just interactions of the valence electrons of various molecules (I just gave virtual wedgies to all the chemists out there). This has absolutly nothing to do with fusion, that is a nuclear reaction (the only players are protons and nuetrons).

    The reason that the distance between the molecules becomes larger as we go from a solid to liquid to gas is because the kinetic energy of the individual molecules becomes larger and thus are moving around more. Again this has nothing to do with Fusion.
  16. Apr 4, 2003 #15
    O.k. I see where on two different trains of thought.I'm not saying the electrons have anything to do with fusion,I was just using the increase and decrease of electromagnetic fields to illistrate my concept.if heat increase the negative field to make the molecules repel against each other,and cooling them makes them contract by decreasing the field so they can get close,going from gas to liquid to a solid.what i was saying is that if it works this way,then the reason it takes so much heat to keep fusion reactions going,is because the positive field either increases or decrease the same as the electrons.so two ways,either both the electron and protons at the same time,or opposite each other,either way,so if the electron field increase with heat and the proton decrease with heat,that is why the proton overcomes its repulsion to each other to fuse,or the other way is the both increase the same and because of the increased positive field take more force to fuse them by the increasing field,making why it takes so much to fuse them.if it decreases the field good,if it increases then fusion might be obtains by keeping the protons field from increasing by other means that just super heating them,or both together!
  17. Apr 5, 2003 #16
    OK for some reason I can't get my point across. EM fields (at least those that are associated with a single particle like an electron) DO NOT CHANGE EVER!!!! A field only changes with the amount of charge (meaning the amount of charged particles together in a system) and the distance you are from them. Thats it. It doesn't matter what temperature anything is, the EM field doesn't change. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER. If that were the case then none of the equations for PD or capacity or current or anything would ever work. And they do work, this has been shown millions of times in the last 100+ years. If I am 1 meter from an electron (it is a little bit of a stretch I know but bear with me) then no matter how hot, cold, whatever the field I measure will always be the same. ALWAYS. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS!!!!!!! There is never any variation in the charge and therefore the field coming from a charged particle. I don't know how many ways I can say this but essentially your initial premise which I have debunked multiple times in this thread is not correct.
  18. Apr 5, 2003 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    Hmm... Now that I come to think about it,
    I don't fully understand what holds an entire
    material's atoms and/or molecules together either.
    (I don't mean a molecule - I know that a molecule
    is formed when some electrons pass into orbitals
    around the atoms.) Could someone please explain or
    provide reference to the laws that govern this
    behaviour. I realize that electromagnetic
    interaction is involved, but I'm not sure how ?

    Thanks !

    Live long and prosper.

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Fussion solutions,maybe