h a l f b a k e r yWe don't have enough art & classy shit around here.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
[suspended idea - possibly wrong assumptions]
I will check again, within a few weeks and notify here
with results.
[edited three times: (a) added quotes, (b) corrected
prefix clarification to read: CHAIN reaction, (c) corected
fusion to read 'fusion or fission'.
I'm NOT talking about inducing
a sustainable fusion or fission CHAIN reaction giving
energy. I'm
talking about using a CONTAINED reaction, just enough
to get
small amounts of precious metal worth the investment,
and concentrated solar energy is NOT that expensive!
//Note: originally this read: I'm Not talking about...
fusion
reaction. Many of the annotations are debating that
claim. I corrected it to read: ... not... a CHAIN
reaction...
According to various engineering and scientific sources
highly concentrated sunlight from parabolic mirrors or
Fresnel lens can reach 13500C and more from a mere 5
or 6
meter diameter. Also claimed, is that this heat will
break
up any material into its atomic level of helium or
hydrogen.
If this is correct what is happening is similar to what
happens at a nuclear reactor, except that it is small
scale, and not continuing as a "nuclear CHAIN reaction".
The proposed system will concentrate the beam on two
spots near each other, creating immense pressure, at
the atomic and even sub-atomic level, so that while
breaking down material into the lowest of atoms,
perhaps it could also create several types of precious
metals from less rare ones.
The problem with transformed gold, according to
Wikipedia, is that it is radioactive. Could none
radioactive gold be produced this way?
Wikipedia [[Plasma arc gasification]] quote: The
temperature a few feet from the torch can be as
high as 5000–8000 °F (2760–4427 °C).[1] At these
temperatures, most types of waste are broken
into basic elemental components in a gaseous
form, and complex molecules are separated into
individual atoms.
So it is the intensity of the heat that causes nuclear
breakdown (aka fission), unless that
article is bad science.
The fact that sunlight can be concentrated to give
similar temperatures as PGP is well established.
So, where is the bad science? At the question of
fusion power? At the use of the term "pressure" to
sub-atomic level. I can show that it is used (in a
free form of speech) in scientific texts, when not
delving into the details.
Here is the Wikipedia on [[Fusion power]]: quote:
The basic concept behind any fusion reaction is to bring
two or more nuclei close enough together so that the
residual strong force (nuclear force) in their nuclei
will pull them together into one larger nucleus. If
two light nuclei fuse, they will generally form a
single nucleus with a slightly smaller mass than the
sum of their original masses (though this is not
always the case). The difference in mass is
released as energy...
In [[Synthesis of precious metals]] under [[#Gold
synthesis from Mercury]] quotes: Mercury 198 + 6.8MeV
gamma ray ---> 1 neutron + Mercury 197 (half-life 2.7
days Gold 197 + 1 positron)
and then:
Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear
reactor by irradiation either of platinum or mercury.
Since platinum is more expensive than gold, platinum is
economically unsuitable as a raw material.
Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with
a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be
converted to gold by neutron capture, and following
electron capture-decay into 197Au with slow neutrons.
Other mercury isotopes are converted when
irradiated with slow neutrons into one another or formed
mercury isotopes, which beta decay into thallium. Using
fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which
composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by
splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then
disintegrates to stable gold. This reaction, however,
possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is
feasible only with un-moderated reactors.
It is also possible to eject several neutrons with
very high energy into the other mercury isotopes in order
to form 197Hg. However such high-energy neutrons can
be produced only by particle accelerators.
found!
http://www.youtube....watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8
Sun power melts rock [pashute, Jul 03 2011]
The idea is NOT about "fusion energy" shown in this video
http://www.youtube....watch?v=xzNvCUs6PNI
but rather about precious metal transformation in small amounts [pashute, Jul 03 2011]
The Tokemak proshekt shiensh and technology bra bra bra...
http://www.youtube....?v=TamkP8QrZak&NR=1
Whats the name of this guy? Things that used to excite people [pashute, Jul 03 2011]
(?) rad decay 4
http://www.griffith...ces/radiation-decay
usefull for showing what turns into what and how fast [j paul, Jul 06 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Edited idea and added quotes. |
|
| |
OK where am I totally off course? |
|
| |
I think that you need more than just heat to induce
nuclear fusion; you also need to confine the
resulting plasma at a sufficiently high pressure (and
for long enough) to allow the nuclei to fuse. There's
a minimum requirement for the combination of
pressure, temperature and time. |
|
| |
[edited: moved wikipedia quotes from annotation to
idea] |
|
| |
I once saw a movie about a parabolic mirror in a
lab, where the scientist sprays the air, to show
where the sunlight is, and explains about all
material being torn down to the atomic level at
the focal point. But I cannot find the link! |
|
| |
That comment was wrt original idea; I think it suggested nuclear fusion without pressure at 3000 degrees ?.. This temp is common in many industrial processes. You would need Cd bars, hard water, Nuclear chamber to contain chain rection etc.. |
|
| |
Would you not need a proper nuclear reactor ? |
|
| |
(BTW... Nuclear physics/chemistry is not my main area. Hence I am deleting my earlier comment.) |
|
| |
No change to wording of original idea. Just added
emphasis at beginning and quotes at end. |
|
| |
The idea is NOT about creating nor inducing a
fusion reaction, because that would cost a mint to
contain. It is to use the small scale similar-to-
nuclear reactor heat, to cause small scale precious
metal transformation. There are extremely cheap
ways to achieve these temperatures. See the two
links, and look especially at the scientists and less
at the quacks or modern day alchemists. |
|
| |
//The idea is NOT about creating nor inducing a
fusion reaction... It is to use the small scale similar-
to- nuclear reactor heat, to cause small scale
precious metal transformation.// |
|
| |
Um, elemental transformation _is_ either a fusion or
a fission reaction. |
|
| |
originally the first anno I got here (from vjt) was: |
|
| |
and someone's [-] still there. |
|
| |
[max] - I disagree. That's only technically. But in
common use a "fusion reaction" is only when the
reaction is sustainable - like a fire lit once and not
needing continuous external support. I think from
my idea it is clear what I am saying: using the
existing temperatures to work on metal
transformation without "igniting" a continuous
fusion reaction. This is obviously something that
does happen already, and only needs to be "caught
and used". |
|
| |
I think you need to get your terminology straight before you tell us what the idea is and is not. |
|
| |
atom: The smallest possible amount of an element - one or more protons plus zero or more neutrons in the nucleus surrounded by electrons. |
|
| |
element : a type of atom - with the same number of protons. (neutron number within an element can vary) |
|
| |
fission : splitting an atom into smaller pieces. (This may follow the atom being destabilised by absorbing a sub-atomic particle such as a neutron.) |
|
| |
fusion : merging two atoms (or an atom and a subatomic particle) into one larger atom. |
|
| |
nuclear reaction : fission, fusion or some combination. |
|
| |
You say your idea doesn't involve a nuclear reaction, but then as you describe it, it does. You might be thinking of a nuclear chain reaction, which describes a process by which the products of one fission event can induce on average more than one further fission event. |
|
| |
Whether the reaction is "sustained" or not
depends only on whether the energy it liberates is
contained sufficiently to promote further fusion.
You're still talking about a fusion reaction,
sustained or otherwise. |
|
| |
What you're proposing is no different,
fundamentally, from attempts to "ignite" fusion
using lasers. This is hard enough to do with easily-
fusible atoms like dueterium. Also, for laser
ignition to work, it relies on the ability of the
lasers to create a thermal shockwave which
compresses the fuel pellet and keeps it that way
for long enough. |
|
| |
Seriously, [pash], just getting stuff hot enough
will not beget nuclear fusion, it will just beget hot
stuff. |
|
| |
And do you have a reference for //this is obviously
something that does happen already// ? |
|
| |
// obviously something that does happen already // |
|
| |
It does, but only in supernovae, which achieve energy densities so high that nucleii are driven right up the binding energy curve above iron, making the heavier elements (which are proportionately less common). |
|
| |
What is this thing your species has about gold, anyway ? Don't you realise that some of the asteroids in your system are up to 40% gold by mass ? It's not like it's an uncommon metal. |
|
| |
//It does, but only in supernovae// quite so, and in
which there is also a huge inertial confinement. |
|
| |
[pashute], let's just imagine for a moment that this effect works as you propose. |
|
| |
Now, as we do so, let's just think for a moment - asking ourselves, "Do these conditions occur anywhere in nature? Do they cause the effects we are considering?" |
|
| |
Answers would be something like, "Sure! The area of the sun's surface gets to temps in that range!" and "Uhh, no... the solar wind doesn't seem to produce much in the way of transmuted elements... sunspots aren't notably different in chemical composition from solar flares... flares don't seem to be enriched in heavier elements... Maybe it doesn't do what we thought." |
|
| |
That's 'cause it doesn't. |
|
| |
//where is the bad science?// To overcome chemical bonds and strip some electrons from the atoms (creating a plasma), you need thousands of Kelvins. You can do that with a large solar collector. |
|
| |
For hydrogen fusion, you need temperatures in the millions of Kelvins, and very high pressures. |
|
| |
To synthesize heavy elements (such as gold) using heat you need billions of Kelvins, enormous pressures, and plenty of spare neutrons. |
|
| |
Establishing comment that I can later edit, without any pertinent content. |
|
| |
Loris: OK, editing it to a Nuclear CHAIN reaction. |
|
| |
8th: (what is it with this species...): Your correct.
Putting it under Science:Energy:Solar misleads. It
should be under Business:General and then the
incentive would be clear. |
|
| |
Anyway, its not just gold but any precious metal
transformation should be checked with this
method. |
|
| |
Max U Can: As you noticed, my claim is to a
contained nuclear reaction that happens under
solar heating conditions on earth. The sources I
brought show that FISSION does happen here. The
sources I brought show that FUSION has been
achieved on earth, in particle accelerators,
achieving production of trace amounts with
extremely expensive equipment. Heat
concentration equipment is extremely cheap (you
could make a good 12m diameter parabolic mirror
or Fresnel for less than $500) and precious metal
transformation works both ways. So (a): Has it
been proven or tested that down-transformation
(fission) to precious metal is not possible? e.g. has
mercury breakdown with a solar concentration
system ever been tested? And (b): Have the
reactions happening under solar concentration at
extreme heat been tested - is there any fusion occurring? I would not count it off just because
[lurch] cannot imagine it. |
|
| |
I did not know about the lasers. But perhaps sun
concentration is more abundant less costly than
lasers and could achieve higher energy input. Also
there is a higher range of particles and obviously
wavelengths in sunlight than in laser light. |
|
| |
Last but not least: I am proposing a method to
induce high "pressure" at the nano level, by
heating two nearby sources with the target
material between them. This is exactly the idea of
a "thermal shockwave" that you describe in the
laser light system. Do you have a link? |
|
| |
[Lurch] A large portion of the sun's "atmosphere" is
built of helium, because the nuclear reactions occurring on its surface are mostly in hydrogen,
fused into helium. So precisely what you said is
NOT happening, IS. I'm proposing a method to
artificially manufacture precious metals (like gold,
rhodium and bismuth - if anybody ever finds a use
for it) deliberately working on materials close to
the target material (like mercury - above, or
tungsten -below, for gold or platinum ) |
|
| |
Fusion doesn't occur at the sun's surface, but rather in its core; otherwise we would be blasted with gamma rays. |
|
| |
[maxwellBuchanan] I meant the play on words to
be in good humor - similar to Yes Oui Ken slogan. If
it offends, please tell me and I'll immediately
remove it. |
|
| |
[spidermother] After reading further, I decided to
change the requirement from fusion to "a confined
fusion or fission reaction" which will not induce
into a chain reaction. |
|
| |
According to [[Stellar nucleosynthesis]] and
[[Proton-proton chain]] entries in Wikipedia:
although they happen only at the core aided by
tremendous pressure from gravity, all simulation of
nuclear reactions created on earth at terrestrial
conditions is done by using (much) higher
temperatures. |
|
| |
But we KNOW that fission DOES occur in sun
concentrated systems: So let's try fission. What
happens to mercury under concentrated sunlight?
Has it been tried? |
|
| |
BTW: Are there any theories about the source of
gold on earth, and why it is found in certain
places, and not in others? |
|
| |
Gold (and all elements bigger than iron) are thought to have been produced in supernovas (where the temperature reaches billions of Kelvins, and the pressure is not vastly less than that needed to create a singularity); the solar system, including the Earth, is partly made of supernova leftovers. |
|
| |
I still don't think you've provided evidence that *nuclear* fission occurs in sun concentrator systems. |
|
| |
but why, when found, it is usually found in the
same areas together? I remember visiting in the
Australian gold-rush towns, and reading about the
American ones. As a kid, I read about the Aztec
gold. Gold was also found near the south Nile
leading to the legends about Ethiopia, the ancient
Pharonite (sp?) expeditions and the European
colonialism in central Africa. |
|
| |
When it is found, it is usually at a certain layer
near earth's crust, and near riverbeds. Or am I
wrong about that? It is usually found in [[Vein
(geology)]s. Why so? |
|
| |
[Edited] I found my answer at mapmatters.org
wms/413908 |
|
| |
//The proposed system will concentrate the beam on two spots near each other, creating immense pressure,// How ? I imagine that these spots will have to be inside some container. |
|
| |
//If it offends, please tell me and I'll immediately
remove it. // No offense taken at all. |
|
| |
//why, when found, it is usually found in the same
areas together?// |
|
| |
Gold is found in a few concentrated areas for
geological reasons. Some conditions favour the
primary accumulation of gold (for example, by
depositing it from solution from very hot chemical
soups). Other conditions also favour the
accumulation of gold in secondary deposits; for
instance, rivers running over gold-containing
primary deposits will pick up gold flecks and then
deposit them at points where the current is
slower. It doesn't have anything to do with
nuclear reactions, except indirectly in that (as
pointed out) gold and most other heavy elements
are formed in complex nuclear reactions in
supernovae and their ilk. |
|
| |
And, if you heat mercury sufficiently, my guess is
that you'll get hot mercury. |
|
| |
If the idea is to turn Hg into Au, the best bet is the process called nuclear spallation. the knocking of bits of a atomic nucleus by energetic particles ( neutrons.) There are 6 possible isotopes of Hg that are heaver than Au 197. Hg:198, 199, 200, 201, 202, and 204.
If you don’t want to use a nuclear reactor, or particle accelerator, you could always try getting the Hg to the top of the atmosphere and letting high energy cosmic rays do the work.
Don’t worry to much about the Au being radioactive because longest half lives are 186 days Au 195 to Pt and 6.183 days Au196 to 92.8% Pt and 7.2% Hg. So just bury it for a couple of years and the gold will be fine. |
|
| |
//So precisely what you said is NOT happening, IS.// |
|
| |
The solar atmosphere contains transmuted (fused) elements.
The solar atmosphere does not produce transmuted elements. |
|
| |
Of course, I doubt it would be possible to convince you that eggs, milk, and chewing gum are not produced in grocery stores, so I'm probably barking up the absence of a tree. |
|
| |
As I wrote fission in fact does occur at the suns atmosphere. Some store owners in fact produce pickles locally. |
|
| |
//But we KNOW that fission DOES occur in sun concentrated systems: So let's try fission. // |
|
| |
No we do not. We know that fission can occur at elevated temperatures and pressures (both are required). Just heating a material up DOES NOT produce fission. The mechanism is that the material is heated sufficiently that the atoms start moving around very quickly. Since the atoms are contained under pressure, they are forced to bounce into each other, causing a very small percentage of them to fission. If you aren't containing the atoms, they instead fly apart, and never encounter another nucleus. |
|
| |
Let's say, however, that you manage somehow to direct all the heat from your mirror into a closed chamber, resulting in the elevated temperature and pressure required. Fission (or fusion) is a stochastic process. It's not possible to produce only one reaction, you will get a range. That means that even if you achieve conditions that start knocking protons loose, only a very small percentage of the atoms are going to convert to gold, especially stable gold. Some will lose a few more protons and neutrons and end up as stable platinum, iriduium, etc. Some more will end up as Yttrium or just about anything else on the chain, because the nuclei split rather than simply lose limited protons. |
|
| |
Very many of your atoms, however, will end up as iron. Why? Because iron is an energetic low point. All the various unstable radioactives you produce are very likely to end up as iron eventually. It takes stellar core conditions at minimum, super-novae conditions more probably, to produce atoms higher than iron, that's why fission reactions of heavy metals give off energy in the first place. So even if you can make this work (you can't) you'll go from commercially valuable mercury to a few atoms of commercially valuable metals that will have to be separated out from a much larger mass of relatively valueless metal. |
|
| |
//As I wrote fission in fact does occur at the suns atmosphere.// |
|
| |
Yes, you stated it as a fact. In spite of the fact that the sun's atmosphere contains *no* fissionable elements, rendering said process impossible. |
|
| |
//Some store owners in fact produce pickles locally.// |
|
| |
Only if they have in advance the raw materials with which to do so. Show a store which has no such access and it's a fairly simple process to show that no pickles are produced. |
|
| |
//At these temperatures, most types of waste are broken into basic elemental components// |
|
| |
The "basic elemental components" quoted are atoms, not sub-atomic particles, that's what elemental means. Chemical bonds are much (many orders of mangitude) easier to break than nuclear bonds. Heat alone simply does not cause nuclear reactions. |
|
| |
//highly concentrated sunlight from parabolic mirrors or Fresnel lens can reach 13500C// |
|
| |
The highest powered solar furnace yet made achieves 3500C (Odeillo, France). Please provide references for anything higher. |
|
| |
OK here's the source of my (perhaps, still not sure,
and will check further): |
|
| |
Plasma arc waste disposal: ...most types of waste
are broken into basic elemental components in a
gaseous form, and complex molecules are
separated into individual atoms. |
|
| |
For some reason I read that with the saying in the
video (which definitely WAS talking about fission,
but may have exaggerated for the movie) as: and
elements are separated into individual protons. |
|
| |
Meanwhile I marked the idea as [suspended]. |
|
| |