 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / October 2007List of Nuclear reactions that can take place in Universe.
I read somewhere, nuclie collide with each other to produce nuclear reaction the same way as chemical reaction occurs. Chemical Reaction H+H -> H2 O+O ->O2 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O Simmilarly Nuclear Reaction occur. H1+H1 -> He {fusion} U238 -> U235 {fission} When Universe begain everything was hydrogen. Hydrogen collided with each other to bring Helium. Then these elements collided to bring larger elements. Like Li, B, Carbon etc. At even higher temprature they collide to give Iron, Aluminum & Gold. Can someone tell me where can I get list of all such nuclear Reactions. Along with at what temprature these reactions take place. And is it possible for Iron nucle to fuse together to give even higher Elements? And where in our universe these reactions take place. Hydrogen+Hydrogen->Helium take place in Sun. What about other reactions? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html > I read somewhere, nuclie collide with each other to produce nuclear > reaction the same way as chemical reaction occurs. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Bye > Sanny [spurious newsgroups trimmed] You can buy nuclear physics textbooks for cheap on Amazon. The list is very, very long. If you think there is a table with exactly the information you're looking for in one place on the Web, then you don't know the Web very well. There is no shortcut. PD > > I read somewhere, nuclie collide with each other to produce nuclear > > reaction the same way as chemical reaction occurs. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Amen to that advice. Still, the linke to that alt group is a bit bizarre, dn suggest that the postert is playing not with a 'full deck'. Harry C. > I read somewhere, nuclie collide with each other to produce nuclear > reaction the same way as chemical reaction occurs. Stellar nucleosynthesis is all over the Web, including a Nobel Prize. Google is your friend. Pull your thumb out and look it up. If the product has a larger binding energy than its reacting constituents summed then product formation is thermodynamically allowed. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Hexamethlprismane C6(CH3)6 is 90 kcal/mole above hexamethylbenzene, C6(CH3)6. It must be heated to add another 33 kcal/mole before it rearranges. C-C single bond strength is 83 kcal/mole. The molecule must be literally shattered before it heads downhill. Thermodyamics proposes, kinetics disposes. > Chemical Reaction > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > H1+H1 -> He {fusion} > U238 -> U235 {fission} A little short on facts, are we? > When Universe begain everything was hydrogen. Hydrogen collided with > each other to bring Helium. Very short on facts. > Then these elements collided to bring larger elements. Like Li, B, > Carbon etc. Ignorant of facts. > At even higher temprature they collide to give Iron, Aluminum & Gold. Stupid. > Can someone tell me where can I get list of all such nuclear > Reactions. Look it up. Put new batteries into your calculator. http://t2.lanl.gov/data/astro/molnix96/massd.html [snip]  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 You're not a very nice person, are you Uncle Al??? Does your erudition in physics give you some elevated sense of worth over the poor laymen struggling to learn some truths about the universe he or she inhabits???? Is there some compelling compulsion you are afflicted with that prevents you from passing knowledge to these lesser beings in a more constructive way??? Are you related to Mike Gordge???? The preceding were all rhetorical questions, Uncle Al, from one not- very-nice-person (but I'm workin' on it) to another. I'm only seeing your "intellectually stimulating responses" when they get cross-posted to alt.P; this forum **already** has an arrogant, pedantic, dogmatic, condescending, insensitive misanthrope. If the position ever opens up, I'll let you know................. K e v PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST. IT WILL NEVER BE READ. > You're not a very nice person, are you Uncle Al??? > Are you related to Mike Gordge???? > PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST. IT WILL NEVER BE READ. All f.cking lies, typical w.nking agnostic dopey as all f.ck knuckle- dragging leftist retard. MG >You're not a very nice person, are you Uncle Al??? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST. IT WILL NEVER BE READ. That's not very nice. Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. > That's not very nice. > Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot I already **admitted** to NOT being very nice, but I do tend to limit my opprobrium, invectives, pejoratives, slurs, epitaphs, vituperative denunciations, vile & vulgar rebukes to those individuals where it appears merited and appropriate. (of course it's subjective!!) But then, you might disagree; I'm ok with that.. Excuse me, I have to read up on physics, K e v >> That's not very nice. >> Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >denunciations, vile & vulgar rebukes to those individuals where it >appears merited and appropriate. You write *a lot* of missives to yourself? >Excuse me, I have to read up on physics, Try "reading up" on "intelligence" first. SignatureAl at Webdingers dot com "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell > You write *a lot* of missives to yourself? > Try "reading up" on "intelligence" first. Well Mr. Al, You wrote that witless retort because: (A) you're really Uncle Al under another uninspired alias (B) you have developed an unnatural affinity to persons named "Al" (C) your rejoinder passes for high wit on science forums and atheist's forums (D) you missed my veiled reference to the unnecessary ad hominems Uncle Al loosed upon an unsuspecting seeker of knowledge (E) you wished to engage in verbal sparring in an arena where you're the under dog (F) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (write-in) If it's (E), sorry...I'm not interested, I like a challenge... I studied intelligence a long time ago; I'm in the top 2%. I just don't give a f.ck about physics, nor the endless atheist-theist arguments. My view (added unnecessarily) on scientific method/discovery: (1) Have an epiphany of scientific wonder (2) Develop hypothesis (3) Test hypothesis (4) (a) Upon failure of test, discard theory, destroying all data on failure and return to step (1) (b) upon accidental and fortuitous affirmation, notify like- minded individuals and bask in glory <Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in awhile> If I failed to offend anyone in the three cross-posted forums (I've already offended most people in alt.p), feel free to e-mail me for further scathing, sardonic (and probably misunderstood) abuse, as required.. I'm done in this f.cking thread... peace out y'all, K e v friend to one and all, > > You write *a lot* of missives to yourself? > > > Try "reading up" on "intelligence" first. > > Well Mr. Al, [snip whining crap] Either answer the question or don't post. I posted the answer, the nuclear mass and binding energy interactive database. What did you post? You posted a lot of high school whiningg crap. Oh boo hoo hoo - give him the answer and suck his dick for good measure. Stupidity *should* be lethal. Well, idiot? Why don't your repost the URl for the nuclear mass and binding energy interactive database? Are you too stooopid to copy from a crib sheet? If so, you are in good company, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/immig.htm Can God make a collection plate so vast that even He cannot fill it? Sure! ALL OF THEM. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >> > You write *a lot* of missives to yourself? >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Can God make a collection plate so vast that even He cannot fill it? >Sure! ALL OF THEM. I feel sorry for his inflatable vinyl wife. >> You write *a lot* of missives to yourself? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >(A) you're really Uncle Al under another uninspired alias What a load of utter bullshit! You are an ignoramus on the subject. You have libelled two sincere and earnest posters. (With no more reason than that they have the letter string "Al" in their handles) >(B) you have developed an unnatural affinity to persons named "Al" Oh, Grow up. And do some actual research before you accuse a real person, who posts with their REAL name of impersonation. Grow a f.cking backbone before casting stones. After that: grow a cerebral cortex. After that: Use it. What is your real name? >(C) your rejoinder passes for high wit on science forums and atheist's >forums Perhaps it *is* wit? Or is it that atheist's fora are beyond you intellectually? >(D) you missed my veiled reference to the unnecessary ad hominems >Uncle Al loosed upon an unsuspecting seeker of knowledge Read minds now, do you? How extraordinary! Can you read my mind now? Here's a test : I think that you are a ....... Fill in the missing word. >(E) you wished to engage in verbal sparring in an arena where you're >the under dog WTF? >(F) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (write-in) WTF? >If it's (E), sorry...I'm not interested, I like a challenge... >I studied intelligence a long time ago; I'm in the top 2%. I just >don't give a f.ck about physics, nor the endless atheist-theist >arguments. Christ almighty, you are FULL OF YOURSELF, aren't you, you friggin' arrogant arsehole PRICK????? Show me the test results, oh please wondrous master. The ones that showed that you are in the top 2% of those who have STUDIED intelligence, whatever the f.ck that may mean, (not those who are in the top 2% of the intelligent, that is, as it is perfectly plain that you are nothing of the sort.) >My view (added unnecessarily) on scientific method/discovery: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I'm done in this f.cking thread... At least you can recognize when you are intellectually defeated. But your egotistically unkempt kind cannot help but go back on their solemn word. I await your unpromised response with an odd mixture of some boredom, and some loathing. >peace out y'all, Liar.' >K e v >friend to one and all, Liar. >>(C) your rejoinder passes for high wit on science forums and atheist's >>forums >Perhaps it *is* wit? >Or is it that atheist's fora are beyond you intellectually? Oh, no, Michael. He's intelligent. (Intelligent enough to be capable of claiming to be intelligent, at any rate. So was Alex, the Grey African parrot. Probably a lot more actual intelligence than 'kevirwin'.) >>If it's (E), sorry...I'm not interested, I like a challenge... >>I studied intelligence a long time ago; I'm in the top 2%. I just >>don't give a f.ck about physics, nor the endless atheist-theist >>arguments. >Christ almighty, you are FULL OF YOURSELF, aren't you, you friggin' >arrogant arsehole PRICK????? No, that's just his 'superior intelligence'. SignatureAl at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln > You wrote that witless retort because: > >(A) you're really Uncle Al under another uninspired alias I've never posted to Usenet under ANY alias. >(B) you have developed an unnatural affinity to persons named "Al" >(C) your rejoinder passes for high wit on science forums and atheist's >forums >(D) you missed my veiled reference to the unnecessary ad hominems >Uncle Al loosed upon an unsuspecting seeker of knowledge >(E) you wished to engage in verbal sparring in an arena where you're >the under dog >(F) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (write-in) (F) I disagree with your opinion. >If it's (E), sorry...I'm not interested, I like a challenge... >I studied intelligence a long time ago; I'm in the top 2%. REALLY? So you CAN tell, at a glance, the difference between the spoors of a male and female lion? Your "intelligence" would be for naught on the veldt if you can't. Or aren't you "intelligent" enough to have known that before I pointed it out to you? Or do you, like many unintelligent people, consider IQ score to be a measure of intelligence? >I just don't give a f.ck about physics, nor the endless atheist-theist >arguments. But you engage in them nonetheless. (You posted to this thread.) >My view (added unnecessarily) on scientific method/discovery: >(1) Have an epiphany of scientific wonder >(2) Develop hypothesis [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >minded individuals and bask in glory ><Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in awhile> Proving that acorns exist. Now present the same level of proof that your god does. >I'm done in this f.cking thread... Victory by running away. I haven't seen that in ... well, in a few minutes, at least. SignatureAl at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.