Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

oil problem solved

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by mrdoomsday, Apr 3, 2003.

  1. mrdoomsday

    mrdoomsday Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    I just had chem and i remember my teacher saying how fusion Take a WHOLE LOT MORE energy to do. So it would uneconomical and not practical.
     
  2. mrdoomsday

    mrdoomsday Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
     
  3. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    That's what I would expect, for fission some energy is required to overcome the intermolecular forces of the atom and then once a certain distance between the particles are reached, nuclear forces become insanely strong blowing the particle apart creating energy.

    But for fusion I think you would need a ton of energy to bring the particles close enough and then ram them together to form one. I would think that this would be an endothermic process.
     
  4. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,759
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    bond formations are always exothermic. I guess two atomic particles fusing together is bond formation. But it's not a natural reaction and requires tons of energy to start it (endothermic). That's my guess. I'm gonna ask my teacher on Tuesday... I'm curious now.
     
  5. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Once the process is stared you will gain more energy. The process itself will give you energy. It will take a lot of energy to contain the reaction though. It gets so hot that nothing can withstand the heat, and with todays techonology it has to be that hot for the process to continue.
    YOu could perhaps enclose the reaction in some sort of electromagnetic field, but that would consume a lot of energy.
     
  6. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    therin lies the problem
     
  7. mrdoomsday

    mrdoomsday Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    give it up... fusion takes up to much energy to be economical right now and will most likely always be.
    Dont pull out that magnetic field crap either. Thats what everyone suggest when talking about physics or chemistry.
    "uhh gee couldnt they just put it or contain it within a magnetic field or something?"
     
  8. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Right... or not. In a fusion reaction the deuterium and tritium gas is heated such that its electrons strip away due to their super-excited state. This is the state of matter beyond gas, known as plasma. It's basically a gas except highly charged, or ionized (Spock was correct in ST: 6). Because of this charge, it can be constrained by an oppositely charged magnetic field. The magnetic coils are cooled by liquid helium to a super-conducting state, negating the massive energy consumption at room temperature. Currently fusion reactions have been sustained in test reactors for periods of time measurable in minutes (pretty massive in the world of science, where the half lives of some of the lanthanides and actinides are measured in picoseconds).

    http://www.sciforums.com/archive/33/2002/08/1/9900

     
  9. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    I do have some idea of what I´m talking about. The energy consumption for containing the reaction is high, but if you can have the process running for long periods of time you would get massive amounts of energy.
    I do believe it´s possible.

    And as Haite posted. The magnetic field "crap" has been done.
     
  10. mrdoomsday

    mrdoomsday Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    and has it been proven to yeild more energy than it takes?
     
  11. mrdoomsday

    mrdoomsday Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    whatever happened to that universal law where when 2 objects with extreme differences in temperatures have a rapid exchange in heat they crack?
     
  12. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Fusion powers the stars! That I am sure of. Our sun uses deuterium and tritium to build helium and gain energy in the process. So, yes it has been proven.
    The question is, can we contain the reaction and still gain energy?
    I think so, it has not been done for long periods of time so prove it I can not.
     
  13. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,759
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    I asked him about fusion.

    In your typical nuclear fusion process, you fuse two deuterium atoms together. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen, made up of one proton and one neutron. When you fuse them together, you get a helium atom, which is two protons. During the fusion process, the neutrons are converted into energy (e = mc^2).

    He showed me a graph that shows potential energy of the elements. The graph peaks at Iron (Fe) which is the most stable nucleus supposedly. Everything before Iron slopes down steeply. This slope is the potential fusion energy from one element to another. Everything after Iron slopes down very gradually. This is the potential fission energy of each element.

    The fusion curve is much steeper, so there is much more potential energy for fusion reactions than there is for fission reactions.

    :blank:
     
  14. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    But if you were to get the two reactions going in tandem, you could get an endless and selfrenewing energy source.
     
  15. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,759
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Impossible. Without putting too much thought into it... energy and mass are always conserved and can not be created from nothing.

    e = mc^2

    So all mass in an isolated system is coverted to energy. Now you have energy. But you need mass to make more energy, so you convert the energy to mass. Now you have no energy from the reactor. You would need to continually supply to reactor with mass or energy.
     
  16. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    agreed....impossible. I dont remember which, but one of the laws of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed, very like the conservation of masses law.
     
  17. Wulf

    Wulf MSC Knight and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    You can't destroy it... exactly the one process generates more energy than the other so... Blah whatever :blank:
     
  18. DunAzrael

    DunAzrael Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    thats the 1st law
     
  19. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,759
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Yes, but you are not creating new energy. The energy is already there.
     
  20. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    yes, matter and energy is the same, just different forms
    you convert matter into energy.

    all you who whatches ST knows they do it the other way around there
    they make matter out of energy
     

Hitometer: 53,939,972 since 1995